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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
19711 | How to prevent the silver utensils from tarnishing?
What causes silver utensils to tarnish and how to prevent that?
Careful with preventing/cleaning signs of aging on silver. Tarnish and polishing contribute to the development of patina (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patina), which is considered important by collectors. I've heard of people who drastically reduced the value of their silver collection by cleaning the patina off.
Silver tarnish occurs because of exposure of the silver to trace amounts of sulfur in the environment, mainly in the form of hydrogen sulfide gas, but also from rubber.
The best way to prevent silverware tarnish is to store the silverware in a container which (a) limits their exposure to air, and (b) retards tarnish. The simplest of these is sliver cloth, a heavy cloth which has been treated with chemicals which absorb sulfur. We have an entire drawer of sliver under silvercloth, and I don't think I've polished it since we bought it.
Thanks, if you have silver anklets, what to do in that case? Never wear it? :D :D
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.950153 | 2011-12-17T04:36:02 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19711",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Matt B",
"Scivitri",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42989",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"object88",
"user42975"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
21404 | Does 1 tea spoon correspond to half table spoon?
I don't have a measuring glass. I just have a tablespoon (15 ml). Can 1 tea spoon be considered half of 1 table spoon?
I've found that in most cases a regular old tea spoon (i.e. not an actual measuring spoon, just whatever you use to stir coffee/tea) is pretty close to the correct amount anyway - and if your recipe is giving teaspoon measurements to begin with then you don't need to be very precise.
@Aaronut We stir the the tea/coffee with table spoons. That's the only spoon we have. And I used to think those spoons to be tea spoons!
One tablespoon is three teaspoons, so no, it can't be considered half a tablespoon because it's one-third instead :)
You can use three teaspoons to measure out one tablespoon, but it might be tricky to measure the other way: as Rumstacio said below, the 1/3 is by volume, and it can be difficult to eyeball the volume of a semi-sphere (1.3 the height of the spoon is not 1/3 the volume because it's wider at the top).
In other words, the correct answer is 1/3, not 1/2.
It is 1/3 by volume - it doesn't mean that if you fill the spoon to 1/3 the height you have the correct amount. (This should be obvious, but I know lots of people who call a spoon filled to half the height "half a spoon"). If you don't have any method of measuring it at least once (e.g. fill a syringe with 5 ml of water, see how high the water comes in your tablespoon), this information doesn't help you much with measurements.
@rumtscho Good point, added a note about that
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.950274 | 2012-02-16T14:13:18 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21404",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Aquarius_Girl",
"JudithG",
"Spammer",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47344",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47346",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
18454 | How to clean a "plastic" chopping board?
The problem is that the sharp knives have caused many cuts all over on my plastic chopping board. Now, I can see the minute vegetable remains in the cuts on board.
What's the way to "easily" get the dirt out of those cuts?
Are you sure it is "pieces" of vegetables? Some vegetables (e.g. peppers) can dye the cuts and scratches on a plastic board, especially if the plastic is of the softer kind, but this doesn't mean the board is dirty. I used to have plastic boards and I ran them regularly through the dishwasher and sometimes scrubbed with an acid solution. They still had a reddish tint, stronger in the cuts.
@rumtscho you're right in that it could just be dyed, but reports have shown difficulty in cleaning a plastic board with deep grooves without a dishwasher (which she doesn't have) - so it could be food.
If the dishwasher and hand-scrubbing cannot remove stains, professionals sometimes use a simple solution: we apply pure bleach directly to the board and scrub it in with a stiff-bristled plastic brush. Then we allow the bleach to sit for 5-10 minutes. At this time, most stains are gone or almost gone. Then we clean the board THOROUGHLY until no bleach smell remains. Usually it takes 2 cycles in a dishwasher or hand scrubbing and rinsing several times.
This method is extremely fast and effective, particularly for troublesome vegetable stains (beets, carrots, chopped herbs).
and by bleach, you mean the same bleach which is used to dye clothes?
yes, the same bottled bleach.
I think that you use a bleach water solution...not 100% pure bleach...As per this answer...and the comments. http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/20182/2125
@milesmeow: No, see, the point is that you're using the undiluted version because it is more effective against impossible stains. Only do this if you've tried diluted solution and scrubbing first. Yes, it's not what you're supposed to do, but it's bloody effective and fast. If you clean thoroughly as I emphasize it does not pose any health risks. Just don't get a lungful! :D
Stick it in the dishwasher.
A short soak and a stiff brush. Then some disinfectant of what kind you use, let it soak for a bit, then rinse off.
If you're not able to get your plastic clean reliably, you're better off with a good wood board. Some research shows that they're more naturally anti microbial.
Based on your comment
It sounds like a good 'wooden endgrain board' may be in your future. When well cared for, they 'self heal'. The knives don't leave deep groves when used properly and they're somewhat anti-microbial according to the earlier link.
I should have mentioned that I don't have a dishwasher. :( and also, that rubbing with a brush consumes a "lot of" energy. Anyway, is there a kind of board on which knives can't make any impact?
@Anisha answered updated
Agreed ... for those without dishwashers, a properly maintained wood board (cleaned, an occassional salt/lemon scrub, etc.) is likely more hygienic. You can always use the plastic cutting mats for meats, and dispose of them when they start showing signs of wear.
I personally use a plastic toothpick to get a lot of the "gunk" out of where the knives have made fissures.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.950447 | 2011-10-19T05:52:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18454",
"authors": [
"Ajay Vaghela",
"Aquarius_Girl",
"BobMcGee",
"Checkboard",
"Jdahern",
"Joe",
"SayJay5",
"Xxxo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39932",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39934",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39935",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"milesmeow",
"nick",
"rfusca",
"rumtscho",
"voussoir"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
20804 | Is it safe to consume packed tea leaves after their expiry?
Is it safe to consume packed tea leaves after their expiry?
After all they might have lost their flavor, but can they be harmful in any way?
I agree with Jefromi reply but had been sick a single time with an expired tea probably because it was a flavored one (say, with added pineapple and cinnamon). It was just a stomachache but take a look if yours is simply tea or has flavors added.
@m.bagattini But how did you know that the ache was due to the tea only? :)
Yes, generally, especially if you've kept them in good conditions. (If the package has been open and it's damp and they might've grown a little mold, that's obviously bad.) The expiration date is for purposes of quality, as you've noted; it doesn't indicate anything about safety. So give them a quick inspection, see if there's enough flavor left for them to be worth using, and go for it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.950726 | 2012-01-26T16:34:08 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20804",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Sandro Gržičić",
"ccalboni",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8847",
"sri"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
22746 | Durability of hard andonised metal (aluminum)
Products like Hawkins Contura Black Pressure Cooker are hard anodised but haven't specified the metal used in the body, here. Others explicitly mention they are made from anodised aluminium.
I want to know whether hard anodising a metal (aluminum in this case) makes it stronger than steel? Steel doesn't get a dent if it falls from a height, can the same be said regarding this hard Andonised Aluminum?
"Steel doesn't get a dent if it falls from a height"....that seems like an absurd test...how thick is the steel, how high is the fall, what is it falling on?
@rfusca Assumption was the steel used in those pressure cookers, and falling distance was from the kitchen shelf on the cemented floor.
Anodizing is a surface treatment that thickens the natural oxide layer of a piece of metal. Aluminum is the most commonly used metal that is anodized, but magnezium, zinc, and some other metals can also be anodized. Steel can not be effectively anodized.
So any description of pots and pans that uses "anodized" is almost certainly referring to aluminum.
It doesn't change the strength of the metal, only the surface properties - corrosion resistance, colour, etc.
Hard anodizing creates a thicker layer of oxide than "normal" anodizing, but it's still a surface treatment, it doesn't change the strength of the metal.
that means if the hard andonised aluminium lid falls from the kitchen shelf on the cememted floor, it may get a dent?
It means that the anodizing won't make any difference - whether or not the lid gets dented depends only on how thick it is, how high it falls from, and what part of it hits the floor.
Actually http://www.hawkinscookers.com/1.5.pc_what_HA_is.html talks about the durability of the hard andonized metals, so I was confused.
'Durability' means a lot of different things, as it's concept of how well things last over time.
'Strength' actually has a specific meaning in material science, as it's the amount of force per area something can take without causing significant plastic deformation. (ie, it doesn't bounce back when the load's removed)
'Toughness' is the amount of energy required before fracture, and because aluminium deforms to absorb energy, it's considered tougher than steel by weight in most conditions.
Annodizing can improve these two measurements (although, if I remember my classes, it's brittle so it'd help in compression not tension), but what we mostly care about is it changes the surface characteristics is improve the 'hardness' (likelihood of scratching for the most part) and changes its corrosion characteristics (eg, how it behaves in contact with acids).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.950951 | 2012-04-03T15:05:57 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22746",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Bo-Learner",
"Jan-Christoph Schlage-Puchta",
"Richard Moncadilla",
"Ward - Trying Codidact",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51274",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51276",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"rfusca",
"stannius"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
34410 | What are the differences between spice paste and spice powder? Which should be preferred over the other for what reasons?
Assuming both are freshly available, are there reasons why one should prefer paste over powder or vice versa?
Example: I have seen both Garlic powder and Garlic paste available in the market.
Which one should be used in which circumstance for what reasons? Please answer in a generic way rather than focusing over Garlic.
Consider what the "no cheating" version of the ingredient is, and get the closest thing to that, that's convenient enough for you.
For things like garlic, ginger, etc., the "no-cheating" version is to get the fresh ingredients and crush/grate them - what you end up with is a paste. The paste you can buy in jars is this stuff, with preservatives added to make them last. Some flavour will be lost.
To make powder, the paste is dried, and more flavour is lost. But the powder will keep for a long time in the cupboard.
Note that some spices take on different, desirable flavours when processed. Paprika powder has its own properties when compared to fresh paprika peppers. You'd use fresh ginger in many curries, powdered ginger in many cakes, candied ginger in some other sweet dishes. Recipes will specify what to use.
For things like black pepper, cumin, turmeric, coriander seeds, the "no-cheating" version is to get whole seeds, roast them and grind them in a spice grinder or a pestle and mortar. So buying the ready-ground version is only one step away from the ideal. Try grinding your own at least once. The extra depth and complexity of flavour is striking. But for convenience, ready-ground spices are fine.
"Roasting", for small quantities of whole dry spice, involves briefly heating them on a hot dry pan. It brings out spice flavours you don't get from just frying or boiling the spice. Of course, it's optional.
Ground spices have a shorter shelf life than whole dry spices. If you open a jar of powdered spice and it doesn't have a strong aroma, throw it away -- you might as well use dust. Whole spices have the aroma "locked away", to be released when you grind.
To make a paste, these are sometimes mixed with wet ingredients (like garlic and ginger), water and oil. That's the basis of the jars of "spice mix" you can buy in supermarkets. It's also the first step in many curry recipes -- grind your spices, mix with oil to make a paste, and gently fry before adding the onions.
Why do you suggest "roasting" seeds before grinding? The powder/paste whatever will be have to be fried when I add it to a Indian dish. Why is roasting necessary?
I added some text about roasting. If you doubt that roasting does anything different to frying, consider the difference in flavour between a baked potato, a boiled potato and a french fry.
Secondly, do paste and powder of spices lose their smell at the same rate?
Both keep for years unopened. Once opened, paste should be refrigerated and used within a few days. Powder doesn't need refrigeration, and will keep for several months opened, gradually getting less flavoursome.
Powdered spices have a much longer shelf life than pastes, which is why you'll find so many dried spices over pastes in your average store. Powders will last for years (although they will lose potency over time), whereas pastes will last days to weeks depending on how many preservatives they chuck in.
I have very few pastes at home because I have found I don't use them up in time so they partly go to waste, and also that they don't taste as good as making them from ingredients as needed. So really I don't bother with them personally. Taking garlic as an example (because you brought it up and it's actually one of the best examples I can think of where using fresh ingredients make the most sense), garlic powder lasts for ages but doesn't really taste like garlic, and paste lasts for a bit but doesn't taste like real garlic either. I just use real garlic.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.951211 | 2013-05-30T08:11:01 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34410",
"authors": [
"Alicia",
"Anthony H",
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Dawn Kaluzny",
"Donna Wheaton",
"Raymond Tran",
"cindy johnson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80155",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80161",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80191",
"slim"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
22180 | Is there any other difference between the cakes and the cup cakes besides the size?
I don't have the small cups, so I place the cup cake batter in big vessels, and I think I have prepared cakes.
Now, I'll get the small cups and place the same batter in the cups, and call them cup cakes.
Does this make sense? Or I am missing a point?
You are correct: Cupcakes are just regular sponge cakes cooked in approximately cup-sized tins.
And typically decorated differently - the icing to cake ratio is about 1:1 for cupcakes I see on TV
@KateGregory: So similar to a traditional wedding cake ratio? :)
@KateGregory - I would argue that 1:1 is way overboard on cake:icing ratio. It is more like 4:1 even if you are going overboard on the icing. I frost at about 6:1, and "cupcake bakeries" around here usually are in the neighborhood of 3:1.
I haven't bought one of these, but when I watch, say, cupcake wars, the height of the icing matches the height of the cake below it, and then they stick candies or chocolate shapes or whatever into that. Seems over the top to me.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.951527 | 2012-03-11T11:52:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22180",
"authors": [
"Flimzy",
"Jack Pan",
"Joel McBeth",
"Judy Davis",
"Kate Gregory",
"dpollitt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49665",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49667",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7243"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
16532 | Is it problematic to use the water in which the Pinto beans are soaked, for cooking the Pinto beans?
I read somewhere on this site that Kidney beans contains toxins so it is necessary to soak them. I soak them too overnight, but then I use the same water for cooking them. The water in question turns red after the beans are soaked. I do not throw away that water since it contains the taste, proteins, vitamins etc. of the beans.
Haven't cooked beans yet with the fresh water, is the taste affected when cooked with fresh water. Am I doing wrong?
Really? Could you point to the discussion where you saw that? In general I would say it's safe to use the water you soaked the beans in.
@nico See this: "as mentioned elsewhere, the toxins ("phytates") do not cook out well, especially in kidney beans. Toxins must soak out; the usual recommendation is overnight." http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16020/how-to-make-kidney-beans-tender
The toxin in kidney beans is destroyed by boiling for around ten minutes, which no doubt holds true for any toxin in the water as well. So there should be no problem with using the soaking water to cook the beans, provided you cook them properly.
It is sometimes suggested that one discard the soaking water in order to reduce flatulence.
This effect seems, however, to be based only on anecdotal evidence, and the efficacy of the practice is questionable. The problem is that flatulence is caused by digestion of fiber by gut flora. The majority of the fiber in the beans will still remain, and I would argue that the need for dietary fiber outweighs the gas-producing effect. I've also found that regular consumption of fiber is far more effective at mitigating the gas production than this type of trick.
By discarding the water you do remove both flavor and nutrients (as you suggested in your question). It's primarily a matter of personal preference, but I always choose to use the soaking water as a cooking medium.
Ray, and @ElendilTheTall See this: :) http://www.thaiscience.info/Article%20for%20ThaiScience/Article/1/Ts-1%20effect%20of%20soaking%20time%20and%20cooking%20time%20on%20qualities%20of%20red%20kidney%20bean%20flour.pdf
My observation is that dry beans are packaged and shipped with a fair bit of their "natural surroundings" [read: DIRT and small ROCKS] in place. My preference is to rinse under running water and soak in fresh water and then exchange that water before cooking. I don't know specifically if it is "problematic" to not do this, but given the use of chemical and natural fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides it is comforting to at least "feel like" I have cleaned all of that off before cooking. My original equipment "Mark I Flavometer" (aka taste buds) says they come out better that way.
Certainly, beans should be sorted and rinsed before being soaked and (subsequently) cooked.
If you have a source of organic beans, then the "surroundings risk" seems much lower.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.951664 | 2011-07-31T09:24:06 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16532",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"B Hart",
"Flimzy",
"Mahendra Gunawardena",
"McCroskey",
"Ray",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35253",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35254",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"nico",
"user35253",
"user36700"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
73890 | When whipping cream, does its state continually cycle through various states? Is there a dead end at whipped butter? Or does something else happen?
I was attempting to make butter by whipping heavy cream in my Kitchenaid stand mixer. I noticed that cream was getting grainy (as the fat was globbing into butter) but then let it whip a little longer. The butter and buttermilk then recombined into what I'm guessing is whipped butter? I decided to stop there, salt it, and use it as whipped butter.
I'm now wondering what would happen if I continued to whip the whipped butter. What would happen?
When cream is whipped (with the assumption that the cream mixture avoids getting warm)…
it first becomes whipped cream.
then separates into butter and buttermilk.
then recombines into whipped butter?
then what?
When whipping cream, does its state continually cycle through various states? Is there a dead end at whipped butter? Or does something else happen?
Serious Eats has a great article Cream Science: On Whipping, Butter, and Beyond but it doesn't seem to go "beyond" butter.
All the article and videos I have found stop at butter and do not whip further.
Please provide answer with links to any other articles, videos, sources to support your answer.
From the article you linked to, on making butter:
... what you're ultimately doing is smashing those little globules of fat into each other, damaging their walls and causing the hydrophobic (water-fearing) regions to clump together. The cream will become thicker and thicker as more and more fatty triglycerides gather into one mass. Eventually, enough fat is exposed and there's room for everyone to get together, eliminating the need for triglycerides to partner up with air.
This is not a reversible process. The fat globules are broken and the fat's released. You can whip the fat up to make whipped butter, you can make emulsified sauces out of it like you can out of butter, but you can't turn it back into cream, just as you can't make cream out of butter and milk.
In order to actually produce butter, you have to drain away the liquid, and possibly knead it to bring together fat crystals from the free fat and firm it up. (For more detail on the structure of butter, see this answer about melting and resolidifying butter.) You haven't done this in your process, so you have very soft butter (no large fat crystals) and buttermilk.
If you whip it with the liquid still in it, you may be able to produce very soft whipped butter, and you may be able to get a decent amount of liquid whipped into it, but they won't be bound together and they'll be very prone to separation. Normal whipped butter is just whipped butter, not whipped butter and buttermilk; whipping doesn't really make butter able to mix well with liquid.
The only other thing increased whipping is going to accomplish is breaking down the cream even further, releasing fat from the fat globules that escaped the initial whipping. That'll mean your buttermilk gets even more watery (less fat globules left in it). And your butter will be more free fat and less fat globules. Both of those are soft, so the butter will still be very soft. I suppose if you then drained it and kneaded it, you might be able produce an even harder butter than normal, since there's more fat available to form larger crystals from, and less globules to soften it. But that won't happen from the whipping you're asking about.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.951925 | 2016-09-11T20:04:10 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73890",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
94829 | How to sharpen knife with chunk missing?
Is it better to grind off the whole blade or should I find someone to add metal and then sharpen it again?
I could be wrong, but my honest thought is to just toss it. If it's a good knife, then the composition of metals in the blade may well be different in the body of the knife, so grinding the the current edge off might literally grind off the entire part of the knife meant to keep an edge. For the same reason, I'd think adding metal is a no-go. If it's not a fantastic knife, It's probably worth it just to replace it. Why do you want to save it?
That's a gonner!
Grinding the blade down that much would potentially change the shape of the blade. Due to the full depth bolster you would have to either try to reshape the bolster as well or create a blade that tapered very differently.
The knife is an Oxo Good Grips 8” chefs knife which sells for around £20. It’s difficult to see that either of your options would be as effective as replacing the knife, unless it has sentimental value.
Yeah, the poor thing's had a rough life; the rest of the blade isn't straight either & it's been sharpened on a rock, so the entire profile already needs re-shaping.. Time to put it out of its misery, I think.
I'm fairly tolerant of damaged kitchen knives especially as spares, but that would end up in my garden shed (for cutting courgettes off the plant, opening sacks, all sorts of tasks)
I had the same happen to me because I was in a hurry and cut frozen cheese thus being in the same situation as you.
I brought the knife to a professional to have it sharpened and he did a great job of grinding the blade evenly. That was 5 years ago and the knife is still serving me well.
He asked 15€ to do the job, but that was a fraction of what a new knife would have cost me. So if you have the tools and knowledge of doing it yourself: Grind the blade! Otherwise, bring it to a professional; it's not an easy job!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.952190 | 2018-12-14T22:44:21 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94829",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Tetsujin",
"ThatDataGuy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85291",
"kitukwfyer"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
49449 | Restaurant kitchen supplies that are also really useful in a home kitchen?
What are some good suggestions for the kinds of cooking tools and supplies you might normally see in a restaurant kitchen, but are also super useful in a home environment?
There's quite a lot of overlap - I guess you're asking about things that aren't be found in home kitchens, not even scaled down versions?
To me, this looks like a poll question, which should be closed. Any arguments in favor of keeping it? Or ideas how to focus it enough to not make it just be a list of random things?
not clear on how this is not a perfectly good question, but open to refining my perspective --is it because so many members 'could possibly' answer the question with such a wide variety of answers, creating a thread that just goes on an on with no seeming end in sight? --or is it because so many members 'will' answer the question with such a wide variety of answers, creating a thread that just goes on an on with no seeming end in sight? --or is there some documented principle at issue which stands purely on its own merit? --thanks for taking time to redirect my thinking @rumtscho
@TomRaywood It is because members cannot answer it with anything but a wide variety of answers. It asks for an enumeration of a long, long list of things. And no answer can be said to be better than the other one, and thus be "the solution". This type of question doesn't work well here, because Stack Exchange was created for a "needle in the haystack" type of questions, and the voting system practically fails when you have a list of equally good answers (unrankable), or even worse, answers which can be ranked - but the rank is different for everybody, such as "what is your favorite X".
@TomRaywood at the beginning, this type of question used to be allowed, and produced indeed long pages of stuff nobody wanted to wade through, and everybody upvoted the first 1-2 answers into unusually high scores, while nobody noticed the last page of answers. Which contained lots of duplicates anyway, because after a while the people answering didn't bother to read the other answers. In short, it was a mess. See some discussion at MSE: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/75168/should-polls-be-maintained-as-community-wiki-questions-or-should-they-be-closed/75179#75179,
Thanks @rumtscho for the elucidating remarks. I can see now that the nods for or against answers would have no meaning if all answers were purely subjective in nature. That component slid entirely under my personal radar. In this setting an enjoyable question isn't always a good one.
While there isn't one specific brand that is common to the cooking tools and supplies you might normally see in a restaurant kitchen, the items will undoubtedly be certified by NSF International (NSF stands for 'National Sanitation Foundation' - NOT 'National Science Foundation' here). It is probably a good idea to get in the habit of looking for that certification when you shop: sometimes the letters are stamped into metal supplies or the logo will be clearly printed on the packaging of other tools and equipment.
http://www.nsf.org/consumer-resources/what-is-nsf-certification/home-products-appliances/home-product-appliance-certification/
http://www.cookingforengineers.com/article/84/NSF-Certification
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSF_International
Actually a lot of restaurant supplies can be applied in the home kitchen, and they are much cheaper (as long as you can stand with the standard industrial design). You can go visit local restaurant supply store and check out smallwares there (Most of the smallwares can be used at home), and some equipment. Ask the sale there about the equipment and whether you can use it at home or not, they would let you know.
I used to shop in the restaurant supply store near the Chicago O'Hare airport, called Gator Chef Restaurant Supply. I like the big showroom there and I can find some used equipment in their warehouse too!
I hope this doesn't sound in any way off base, but in my opinion the greatest advantage a restaurant kitchen has over the typical home kitchen is counter space, meaning room to spread out the multiple aspects of what goes into preparing an excellent dish. So anything one can do to expand or open up existing counter space at home has the potential to reap great culinary dividends, as one is far less constrained to perform things in sequence in order to reuse the same space. Generally, taking advantage of up space seems to be the key to maximizing work surface [area]. An obvious example of this is a microwave oven that hangs from the bottom of a cabinet.
Beyond this, if I were to select just one component from a high end restaurant to add to my kitchen at home it would be professional grade scales, one for high capacity and one for high accuracy, though neither will come cheap. A second preference would be for a flush-mounted, side-by-side frig/freezer with clear doors and an externally controlled light switch. Dream big, right? On the smaller scale, or more reasonable level, a traditional hand-cranked sausage grinder is kitchen perfection. Great question!
Accurate Digital scales aren't expensive. I have this one that's accurate to .01G, and this one that happily weighs everything else. I don't butcher whole large animals, so I can't imagine needing a higher capacity than maybe 25 kilos in a home kitchen. EDIT: I fixed the links.
hard to calibrate a word like cheap, but thanks for the specific alternatives @Jolenealaska
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.952391 | 2014-11-02T02:49:16 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49449",
"authors": [
"Aakifah Onireti",
"Cascabel",
"Efrain Martinez",
"Erin M",
"GottaFind AKindred",
"Jolenealaska",
"Judy Robinette",
"Lisa Rosenberg",
"Thomas Raywood",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118091",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118097",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118108",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/121986",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28723",
"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
} |
11401 | Constructing your own oil/water sprayer
I have used Pam with great success, but I'd like to build my own oil sprayer so that I can control what kinds of oil I want to use. I also do a lot of break baking and the ability to build a water sprayer will also be helpful. How have you built your own homemade oil sprayer?
As someone who's currently trying to construct a sprayer for a sort of performance art thing, my recommendation is -- don't bother.
There are plenty of pump sprayers available at kitchen stores that you can fill and use.
There are two basic styles -- the ones where you squeeze a trigger and stuff shoots out with each squeeze like some cleaning products, and the ones that you pump up first and then press the button to release like an aerosol can.
I like the trigger ones for water (for keeping near the grill to deal with flareups). I like the aerosol-like ones for oils, as I get a finer spray for popcorn, and I can still lay down a decent coating in a pan for cooking.
I do not like the stainless steel aerosol sprayers -- you want a clear one, so you can see how much oil there is in the container, and you don't overfill, as you need to leave quite a bit of space for the pressurized air.
You should also look for ones where the tube goes deep into the container -- if it stops 1" from the bottom, that means you can't use it when the oil or liquid is low, and you have to refill it more often.
...
I should also note that Pam and other spray oils have an additive in them that makes it so they won't bead up after you spray it, which means it'll coat things better ... misting it with oil works pretty well, but it'll start beading up if you leave it after doing it.
Interesting about a clear container. I like that - hadn't seen one yet.
@zanlok : yeah, once you switch to one, you won't want to go back to the many stainless steel ones. Yes, oil should be kept away from light, but I just keep the container in a cabinet.
After looking around a bit, Amazon only has only a few (3) clear misters, and one has no reviews. If you don't mind, I'd love to hear a recommendation if you most like a particular model?
@zanlok : I haven't used enough different ones to know, I'm still on my first non-stainless one, and it's held up well for two years with almost daily usage (of amateur usage, not in a restaurant). I'll have to check the brand when I get home.
@zanlok : oh, right ... I never posted a response ... there's unfortunately no markings on the container, but it looks like this one ... and I've never tried the filter on it, but yes, there's something funny at the end of the uptake tube.
@Joe - Thanks :) I'll have to get one; we're overdue for a new kitchen toy.
@Joe Stainless steel container has advantage of keeping oil hidden from sun while clear container does not have but has advantage of letting me see the level of oil?
Another thing: when it comes to oil spray bottle, I see people complain about it soon starts to spray stream of oil instead of mist. Do you have any tips on how to prevent this from happening?
@Boris_yo : that's a sign it's not pressurized well enough. If it sprays for a bit, then switches to stream, make sure you've left enough head space for the air; if it continues to give problems, fill it to only 1/2 way to the 'max fill' line. (and this is why I like the clear containers; just keep 'em in a cabinet to keep em 'out of sunlight)
You don't need to build one, exactly. You can buy an oil sprayer that you can load with whatever oil you want to use. I've used this one with much success: http://www.amazon.com/Misto-M100S-Gourmet-Brushed-Aluminum/dp/B00004SPZV/
Yes - I love these. Saves you some money in the long term so you can use bigger/cheaper oil containers, but use less oil, and not buying aerosols is nice.
@zanlok What is the disadvantage of aerosol oil sprays exactly? Is it from convenience or health standpoint?
Just meant that a refillable sprayer saves you having to buy lots of aerosol containers and saves cupboard space. If other concerns exist, those would be secondary.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.953169 | 2011-01-24T00:41:58 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11401",
"authors": [
"Anthony",
"Boris_yo",
"Joe",
"Vector Gorgoth",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23417",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23423",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7666",
"ovatsug25",
"user66848",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
8615 | Is it possible to get veal that is not incredibly fatty?
I have not had such good success with veal. I prefer leaner meats, and every time I get a cut of veal, it is extremely fatty. Is there a way to get leaner veal? Are there specific cuts I should ask for? If so, where are some places I should look to get better cuts?
The nature of veal, being a milk fed calf, means that the meat is going to be extremely fatty. It is the nature of the meat and not a function of poor butchering. If you don't like the flavor I would suggest that almost anything that calls for veal can be made with pork chops or other lean cuts of pork, although you might see a rise in the toughness of the dish as a result.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.953665 | 2010-10-28T08:45:49 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8615",
"authors": [
"Matteo De Felice",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17678",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17680",
"nozh"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
16768 | How to preserve home-made salad dressing, without using bad preservatives?
I want to start making my own salad dressing because I don't like all of the stuff they put in processed food. However, I still would like my dressings to last more than just a few days in the fridge. What kinds of preservatives (hopefully natural ones) can I use to preserve home-made salad dressings?
http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15553/how-long-will-homemade-salad-dressing-stay-good-in-the-fridge. Plus, I'm considering a close vote based on the subjectivity of "bad preservatives". Maybe you can edit to tell us what your personal definition of "bad" is.
What is a "bad preservative"?
The main additive preservatives used today are ascorbic acid, citric acid, ethanol, salt, sodium nitrate (pink salt), sugar, and vinegar - all of which have been used for centuries, and other than with excessive use, are not seen as harmful
Weird chemical preservatives are often only used with weird chemical ingredients, stick to basics and you'll be fine
Pasteurisation, electrical pulse, and other heat treatments are used commercially and give products those amazing shelf live times. Without specific equipment and monitoring systems they are hard to reliable reproduce at home
Your home made dressing will last long enough in the fridge for you to get bored with it and want a new flavour :-)
A "bad preservative," I suppose, is one which is synthetic or otherwise bad for one's health--the kinds of preservatives which make off-the-shelf salad dressings unhealthy. Of course there are many things that make such dressings unhealthy But I'm thinking in this realm. Thanks!
Most off-the shelf salad dressings that I have seen don't have anything unhealthy in them. Most commercial varieties have a thickener and stabiliser added, but these are usually plant based extracts, no problem there! You can add your own thickener by closing your eyes when pouring, and stabiliser by shaking the bottle before pouring :-). Salad dressings made mostly with oil and vinegar are very healthy for you and are a perfect digestive accompaniment to salad greens etc. It's the quantity used that is often a problem
Your homemade salad dressings will certainly last longer than a few days in the refrigerator. According to Still Tasty, you can keep homemade salad dressing for two weeks in the refrigerator.
However, your salad dressing will separate if you do not include an emulsifier. A separated salad dressing just needs to be mixed up again, which may require warming the dressing if the fat begins to solidify.
Common emulsifiers include mustard powder, honey, and egg yolks (although the last of these introduces its own problems in terms of health risks unless your salad dressing is heated).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.953764 | 2011-08-09T21:18:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16768",
"authors": [
"Ericca Deuel",
"Jason",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35768",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35793",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65025",
"philo",
"rom",
"rumtscho",
"user35793"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
32332 | What are techniques to make homemade pasta without a pasta machine?
I would like to try making homemade pasta, but my significant other won't let me buy a pasta machine. It's understandable, they are expensive. What are good techniques to make homemade pasta without a rolling machine?
Pasta machines are expensive?
On top of @SAJ14SAJ's suggestions, you can use this old technique for spaghetti: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzHtPyqUll0
Many pasta shapes can be made without a pasta machine--home cooks have done it for generations. The only pastas that are really difficult to make without a special machine, I think, are the extruded pastas like buccatelli or macaroni.
One common method, which leads to a lot of different shapes, is to roll the pasta dough out into a sheet with a rolling pin. It can then be cut into a variety of shapes, with a knife, pizza cutter, or even a cookie or biscuit cutter:
To make tagliatelle or linguine, you would first roll out a sheet. Then, to make it easy to cut into strips, roll the sheet up, as if you were rolling a jelly roll. Use a very sharp knife to cut it into ribbons.
Cut wider strips for lasagna noodles.
Cut into rectangles for homemade cannelloni.
Use a biscuit cutter to make circles, and you can fill them and fold them into tortellini.
Some more interesting shapes, like orecchiette, can be shaped by hand as well. You create a small cylinder of dough, and then cut it into coins, then flatten these into the final shape. The linked article has detailed instructions and pictures.
I have not tried to go into a huge amount of detail, because you are going to want to read specific recipe and technique articles, and watch videos of the techniques, all of which you can easily search for. Each of the links above is to a recipe that has lots of helpful pictures and detail.
Here's a recent photo set demoing the tagliatelle http://imgur.com/a/2rhc0
They are not Italian, but spatzle and udon can also generally be made without additional equipment: http://smittenkitchen.com/blog/2011/03/spaetzle/ http://shesimmers.com/2009/07/how-to-make-chewy-homemade-udon-noodles.html
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.954013 | 2013-03-02T02:00:45 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32332",
"authors": [
"AdamO",
"ElendilTheTall",
"MandoMando",
"Sara D Gore",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6711"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
32214 | How to economically make home-made sushi?
How does one go about purchasing sushi-grade fish without breaking the bank? I know that sushi chefs & restaurants usually buy in bulk. Is there any way to do this individually in a way that is at all economically feasible?
Sushi does not require fish, sushi is the style of rice preparation (rice, salt, a little rice vinegar, occasionally some kombu). So long as you have the correct preparation of rice, you technically have some form of sushi (you could just throw it in a bowl with some additions on top and have a type of sushi called chirashizushi).
Second, there is no such thing as sushi grade fish - sushi grade literally means the fish has been frozen for over 24 hours to kill any parasites present. Otherwise, just about any clean fish can be used (as always, fresher is better).
As for sushi making, you can use any number of ingredients to make it, you don't specifically need fish. In fact, if you are trying to throw a sushi party or are just hungry for some rolls, this may be a better way to go since you can use what is on hand. Here are some ideas:
Canned eel
a fried egg
a filet of salmon (again, freeze it for 24 hours and then thaw)
Carrot
sweet potato
cucumber
avocado
imitation crab or crab
shrimp
tilapia
lox
cream cheese
squid
When you make it yourself you open up to lots of possibilities and chances to experiment. Since you are looking to do this on an individual level, play around a bit. If you have your heart set on using fish, talk to a good seafood counter and get small portions of fish. If it is 100% fresh, kill clean and store for 24-36 hours in a freezer, then thaw and use. Don't buy in to "sushi grade" fish because it is pure marketing.
Although talk to your fish counter ... I was on a trip w/ a co-worker, and he asked about fish for sushi, and being a Sunday, they said all of the fish was a day or more old, and couldn't recommend it for eating raw, even with a 24hr freeze. (and for tamago (egg), I typically do a sweetened omelette rather than a fried egg)
Good call on the sweetened omelette, I'll have to give it a shot!
Also worth mentioning -- if you're cooking shrimp to use in sushi, put a skewer or similar between the meat and the shell -- so that when it's cooked, it doesn't curl up ... makes it much easier to use in rolls.
Most seafood counters will sell you small vacuum sealed portions of frozen fish.
The fish is often frozen on the ship where it is caught and so will be fresher than even if you bought it at the dock.
The freezing will also kill any parasites and is the only prerequisite for the label "sushi grade". See this question: What exactly is "Sushi Grade" fish?
I buy half pound portions of salmon or tuna. You don't get a discount for buying them in bulk but such a small portion will only cost me $3-$5. A half pound of fish will make a lot of sushi.
If you do not have a good source of fresh (and I mean seriously fresh) fish, then go for frozen, or something like smoked salmon, which goes especially well with avocado or red pepper. Go for red pepper in a jar, then life really is a breeze.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.954222 | 2013-02-25T17:23:21 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32214",
"authors": [
"Dasa Fisher",
"James Xu",
"Joe",
"Mark Forsyth",
"Matthew",
"Mikayla Stewart",
"Wendy May",
"dwagon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74182",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74193",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8339"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
39428 | How does sourdough (wild yeast) starter differ from location to location?
I understand that sourdough starter (made from wild yeast) will differ from location to location, based on the different yeast bacteria. How will this change the flavor and type of the starter? What factors will affect the yeast in the wild (e.g. climate, altitude, etc.) and how does this affect one's ability to make a good starter?
You're right, sourdough starters are different everywhere, based on what yeasts and bacteria are prevalent in that specific location. Certainly climate and altitude affect the living things that float around, so in turn those variables affect starters. I don't know about the poles or the peaks of Denali or Everest, but you can make a perfectly good starter everywhere else, they will have their own character everywhere you go. Even a distance of a few miles can drastically change the flavor and behavior of your starter. Some places have less or slower to grow natural yeast, so starters can take longer in some places to be ready, but it will happen eventually.
Some places, San Fransisco for instance, are well known for their local starters. You can buy San Fransisco sourdough starter online, but your bread will only taste like San Fransisco Sourdough for a few days or a couple of weeks. If you keep that starter alive, it won't take long before it takes on local yeast and bacteria and creates bread that tastes like the sourdough made by everyone else in the neighborhood.
The bottom line is that without speaking to another maker of sourdough in your immediate area, you can't really predict how fast your starter will grow, how often it will need to be "fed" or what your bread will taste like. Allow for some variance due to location, but standard recipes and techniques will work just about everywhere. Once you've made a few loaves, you'll get to know your local yeast!
My understanding is that how you store it affects flavor, too. (eg. what temperature you let it incubate at)
@Joe Yeah, you can even freeze starters which will keep them from "absorbing" local yeast, at least while they're frozen. Refrigerating "imported" starters will keep them "as they were" for longer than keeping at warmer temperatures.
@Joe That is correct. Depending on the temperature at which the starter is maintained, it becomes more favorable for different types of bacteria, some of which produce different metabolic by products, including acetic acid instead of lactic acid, or mixes of acids. This leads to a different character in the dough and loves subsequently made.
@SAJ14SAJ I don't know that I want to involve sourdough cultures in my lovemaking...
@sourd'oh The kingdom was lost for want of an A.
The different microorganisms available from location to location will affect the composition of your starter to an extent. While there are tons of different beasties that can each contribute different characteristics, they aren't as location dependent as you might think. For instance, lactobacillus sanfranciscensis, the lactic acid producing bacteria responsible for San Francisco sourdough is found all over the world. What matters most is actually the conditions that you grow your culture in. Sort of "location in your house" vs "location in the world". The differences in regional sourdough breads are more likely caused by regional differences in how the dough is handled. For instance, in many European baking traditions, a small portion of starter will be used in bread that will be proofed and baked in the same day. In San Francisco, many bakeries first make a sour sponge, then incorporate a large portion of that into the final dough which will get both a long bulk fermentation, and a long final proof, sometimes totaling over 70 hours!
Some tips to control the character of your culture are: lactobacteria prefer warmer (as in room temperature) environments, where as the organisms that produce acetic acid grow best in a cooler environment. Lactic acid is also produced more rapidly in a wet culture, and acetic acid in a dry culture. You can further manipulate these by adjusting your feeding intervals and the carbohydrates used to feed.
Tips for Manipulating Sourdough
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.954511 | 2013-11-14T07:16:45 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39428",
"authors": [
"Deloris J Meadows",
"Jngles",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"KOUSHIK SARKAR",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SourDoh",
"dallin",
"djsp",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91518",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91519",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91520",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91526",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91562",
"معلمة هيام"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
41263 | Freezing cooked rice?
I accidentally made way too much rice for a dinner party. My wife and I definitely can't eat it all over the next few days, and after that it will probably go bad. Is it possible to freeze rice that has already been cooked? It's flavored so unfortunately we can't use it for fried rice.
Freezing cooked rice would be a good way to break up the fibres to achieve rice suitable for rice custard quicker. Like I would freeze carrots so that I don't have to microwave them too long to have soft carrots in my ramen soup.
@blessed It doesn't work this way. There are no cell walls inside of a rice kernel, unlike the cell walls in carrots. Freezing softens cellulose, but not starch.
"There are no cell walls inside of a rice kernel". Really?
Yes you can. See my answer here: Safe to wash rice the night before and leave overnight before cooking? Just don't put it in the refrigerator first, portion it in the amount you will use at one time, put it into ziplocks and freeze. Of course, for food safety reasons you have to move quickly.
yep, I do this all the time. I usually freeze it in ice cube trays so that I can pick up as many cubes as I need, otherwise a big chunk is harder to defrost in one go.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.954863 | 2014-01-19T06:56:09 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41263",
"authors": [
"Credit Repair USA spam",
"Cynthia",
"Scott Warren",
"Steven R. Loomis",
"Vicky",
"alexey.e.egorov",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96150",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96153",
"krtchen",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
42723 | Do you need a rice cooker to cook sticky rice?
I know that cooking sticky rice uses a steamer setup. But do you need a rice cooker to cook sticky rice property, or can it be done using regular kitchen tools, e.g. pots and pans?
Sushi rice (aka sticky rice) is probably cooked in a common pot/pan.
Unless you want to have non-sticky grains of sticky rice (like this dish) it seem to be possible to cook sticky rice without a rice cooker / steamer. At least my mother cooks sticky rice partially in a pan for vietnamese ricecakes.
Rice cookers are not magic. They do not do anything, for any type of rice, that cannot be done with a more traditional pot and heat source.
What makes a rice cooker effective at what it does is that it has a thermometer measuring the temperature of the pot, at least at the edge. This allows it to detect when all of the water has been absorbed, because only then can the temperature rise above the boiling point of water. The logic or circuitry built into the cooker than shut off, or change the heat level to warming.
So of course, with experience and good technique you can cook anything in a regular pot that can be cooked in a rice cooker, including sticky rice.
Did you mean to ask how to properly cook sticky rice with traditional equipment? You can google a myriad of recipes. The common theme appears to be soaking and steaming (as you mentioned), for best results. For example, this one from Food Network requires no rice cooker.
Sticky rice, or sweet rice, is different from rice typically used for sushi. I can be cooked in a rice cooker. However, I find that I prefer it steamed. My method is to cover the rice with water and soak for a few hours. I don't have a traditional cooker, so I place in a kitchen strainer, then put the strainer in a pot with a couple of inches of water at the bottom. I place a kitchen towel around the rim of the pot and then a cover. This retains much of the steam that is produced. Steam for 20 minutes. Then I flip the mound of rice in the steamer (much like I would flip a pancake in a non-stick pan), re-cover and steam for 5 more minutes. Perfect sticky rice.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.955008 | 2014-03-13T10:27:06 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42723",
"authors": [
"Ching Chong",
"Felix Fujishiro",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99849",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99851",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99854",
"spammer"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
39429 | Is sourdough actually sour?
Why is sourdough called 'sourdough'? Is it because it is sour to the taste, or for a different reason?
Incidentally, and just for fun: Alaska has it's own meaning for Sourdough. "Sourdough – A long-time Alaskan. The name is derived from the yeasty starter many early pioneers carried with them."
Yes, a well cultured sour dough is actually sour.
The bacteria in the culture, lactobacilli, emit lactic acid as a waste product of their metabolism, making the dough acidic and sour.
Frequent feeding keeps the Yeast growth ahead of the Lactobacilli, creating a milder flavor. Extending the feeding (missed feeding) lets the Lactobacilli growth get ahead of the Yeast, and the flavor increases in sour. Once the sour has increased, the Yeast growth may never get ahead of the Lactobacilli, so someone has to feed the starter, if you want that mild flavor and a vacation or hospital stay.
Just to clarify (and build on a previous comment): "sourdough bread" generally has anything from a subtle hint of sourness to a strong sour tang.
However, the word "sourdough" is also used in bread-making to refer to natural yeast cultures in general, which can be used to produce many types of bread, including those which are not sour at all. As Optionparty mentioned in a previous comment, frequent feeding will allow yeast to grow steadily, while not allowing the bacteria to produce the acid waste.
Traditional French bakers, for example, may use natural yeast to produce non-sour (or even sweet) breads by following a 3-stage or 4-stage process of building up from starter to final dough. Each stage consists of taking the previous stage and often tripling or quadrupling in size. When this is done every few hours, the yeast grow continuously, while the lactic acid-producing bacteria never get a chance to take over. The final result can be a bread with no discernible sourness, though usually the flavor is stronger and more complex than bread produced with commercial yeast due to longer fermentation and a variety of microorganisms.
In any case, in modern American usage, "sourdough" can both refer to a specific type of bread that generally tastes at least somewhat sour or a process of using natural yeast which may or may not be used to produce sour bread. This latter English usage is extremely old: one can find the word sourdough even in medieval Bible translations used as a generic word for "leavening" in bread.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.955207 | 2013-11-14T07:19:07 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39429",
"authors": [
"Eric",
"Jolenealaska",
"Optionparty",
"Spammer",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126789",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91523",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91524"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
54353 | Minimalist Burger Patties
I've got more grass-fed ground beef than I know what to do with and, I'd like to perfect my burger recipe. I see lots of involved recipes with tons of spices, but I'm looking to keep it simple.
The best I've made so far is just S&P, minced onion and minced fresh parsley.
Any suggestions on how to improve from there? I'm pan frying them, if that makes a difference.
Is there any particular problem you're trying to solve? As it stands, you're basically asking for recipes, or perhaps "what tastes good with beef?" which are two common kinds of off topic questions here.
You want minimalist? Leave out the onion and parsley.
Please close if off topic. You got the gist of my question. They're good, I just see recipes with eggs and breadcrumbs and a series of spices and wonder if they really add anything. I make them rather thin, medium well. I'll try them without the veg, that actually hadn't occurred to me.
I make my patties quite thin with just S&P. Works for me and I'm one of the most spice-heavy cooks I know (with maybe over 20 whole spices sitting in my pantry).
If you want to know about egg and breadcrumbs, ask about it in the question; they have pretty specific effects on texture! Spices are a bit more subjective, might not be much to say beyond try it and see what you like.
Egg, breadcrumbs, vegetables, etc all add something. The question is if you need/want that added.
I also think that the question in its current state is off topic, as "improve" is totally subjective and also open-ended. As Jefromi suggested, if you want to know the role a given ingredient plays in a patty, you're welcome to ask it.
Indeed: while in this form it seems to be off topic, more of a poll (you've gotten two "here are my favorite kinds of burgers" answers), we would love for you to ask any of the specific questions you have!
From what I've read, if you add eggs and breadcrumbs to it, it's no longer a burger, it's a meatloaf.
I would say if you want to improve on your burgers, go even simpler. Season only with salt and pepper, or even just salt, after you form your patties. Rely upon the salt to bring out the flavor of your beef, and the maillard reaction from cooking to add flavor and texture. Anything more and you are likely to overwhelm what is some quality beef.
+1, my favorite burger is a grass-fed patty, salt and pepper just before grilling in a cast iron pan.
My family had a fast food restaurant that was very successful. My father thought that good beef burgers should be either half pound to one pound burgers, flattened to about a little under 1/2 inch as they would "beef up" or fatten up a bit, cooked medium for juicy and only salt and pepper after turning the meat on the cooked side. The grill was flat and always clean and using a fry pan is okay as long as it is clean and use a metal spatula to turn burger over and a stainless steel pan is better in my opinion. Make sure it is not obscenely hot so it does not burn and smokes all over. Turn only once.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.955417 | 2015-02-03T18:11:09 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54353",
"authors": [
"Adele Bailey",
"Bridget Snyder",
"Cascabel",
"Corian Blasdell",
"Dan C",
"David Vogel",
"Joe Flynn",
"Julie Rice",
"NRaf",
"SourDoh",
"Tom Martin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127858",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128024",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6532",
"moscafj",
"pacoverflow",
"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
} |
32779 | What is the name for a dish similar to chili but with no chili peppers or related spices and some very non-chili ingredients?
I made something the other day and I'm not sure what you'd call it. I softened some onions, celery, carrot, and garlic in olive oil; browned some ground venison in with the veggies and oil; added some beans, chicken stock, diced tomato, and tomato paste; let cook for a bit; threw in some spinach and let cook to wilt; cubed some stale rolls and threw them in there too.
It struck me as somewhat similar to a chili but has no chili peppers or related spices and some other things you normally wouldn't find in chili. What would you call it?
See also: stew vs casserole and soup vs stew.
I would call that a stew or a soup depending on how "brothy" it is.
There's little to no liquid remaining. Would it still classify as a stew?
Yeah, some people consider things stew even when they are quite unbrothy. Or you could just call it a "braise".
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.955688 | 2013-03-18T16:37:20 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32779",
"authors": [
"Centzon",
"Gamora",
"Kareen",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Stephen Woodall",
"Timothy Guscoth",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75769",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75772",
"tQuarella"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
15646 | Does the point at which salt is added to a dish affect how the flavor is changed?
If I'm preparing a dish for myself and someone on a low-sodium diet, I will withhold adding salt while cooking. Instead, I'll season my plate after serving. However, I can't seem to get the same flavor from adding salt after-the-fact as I do when I'm salting while preparing the dish.
Is this all in my head or is there actually a difference in how the flavors are affected depending on when the salt is added?
Yes, the flavor is definitely affected.
First, there is the point of solubility. Salt doesn't dissolve all that easily in water, and unlike many other crystals, its solubility doesn't improve with heat. So you have to either stir a lot, or let the dish to sit for a longer time after the salt is added, or both. Else you end up with uneven salting in liquid dishes like soups. Thicker things like sauces are very marginal, and if you add salt to cooked dry stuff (steaks, casseroles and whatnot), you're guaranteed to end up with clumps.
But even if you succeed in getting your salt evenly distributed, the flavor is different. The liquid components may be OK, but anything solid (pasta, meat, vegetables, whatever) will not be penetrated by the salt. So if you salt your dish to the point where the liquid tastes normal, you get bland pieces swimming in an OK sauce or broth. At that point, most people just automatically think that it is still bland, and continue to salt, resulting in oversalted broth/sauce with bland veggies, which in my opinion is even worse.
Third, the salt isn't used only to add taste. A saline solution's chemical properties are quite different from those of pure (or tap) water. Marinading with salt (with or without liquid) changes the texture of steaks (but does so rather slowly). Vegetables cook firmer in salty water, instead of getting mushy. And then there are all the amazing things it does to grains (because it affects both starches and gluten). In short, don't bake a yeast dough without a pinch of salt.
Sadly, all this means that there is no way for both of you to eat what you want/should. My advice is that you should definitely salt the food even for the low-sodium eater at the proper cooking time, you just should use a much smaller amount - even a gram of salt per liter of water can be useful for the chemical changes you want, and shouldn't add too much of a sodium load to a normal sized portion. As for bringing your portion to your own taste, you will have to put up with the worse saltening. Just take care not to oversalt as a reaction, it doesn't really help.
A cooking situation that is analogous to this is brown sugar on oatmeal. If you devolve and mix the sugar into the oatmeal it will taste much less sweet than a sprinkling of brown sugar that melts on top. The sugar because it's suspended in the oatmeal and doesn't touch the sensors on the tongue when it's mixed in doesn't get noticed. However, when sprinkled on top the sugar touches the tongue and the one bite of food tastes very sweet even though there is less sugar than when mixed in.
If you salt water before boiling pasta in it, the water and salt will be even absorbed into the pasta so while it is being eaten and tasted there is an even distribution of salt hitting the sensors on the tongue. So, yes, there should be a distinction in flavor depending how and when the salt is added based on how much salt is suspended or absorbed into the food item being cooked.
It's not so much that the salt is transformed as much as how the sodium is delivered to the tongue with each bite.
Sure it does. Try cooking pasta in unsalted water, and then adding salt afterward... it's quite a different experience. If you add salt early, the salt cooks into the food. If you add it at the table, or even later in the cooking process, the salt doesn't permeate the food to the same degree (or at all).
Taking the pasta exercise one more step, if you add cheese or a slightly salty sauce, the pasta might taste even more bland due to the contrast.
If one omits adding a small amount of salt at the beginning of cooking, much much more salt has to be added at the end to achieve the same level of saltiness.
Or this has been my experience, at least with soups and sauces.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.955914 | 2011-06-20T20:10:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15646",
"authors": [
"AXO",
"Andrew Stubbs",
"Christina",
"Sai",
"home_chef",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33166",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33171",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33173",
"lajarre"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
29293 | Why did some leaves of my fresh Fenugreek turn yellow after a few days of purchase, and how to prevent the leaves from turing yellow?
5 days after I purchased fresh Fenugreek, I noticed some of its leaves turned pale yellow.
What does that indicate, and how to prevent it (if it is a bad thing)?
The Fenugreek was placed as a tied bundle on the kitchen counter for 5 days.
When you buy it, the fenugreek is almost certainly still alive, even if the roots have been cut off. It continues to respire and metabolize, or tries to. The leaves almost certainly wilted because the plant had no water.
Treat it like flowers if you are going to hold it for a more than a day or two, by giving it water at the roots or root end of the stems (if you have no roots, again like flowers, trim off the bottom of the stem, to allow a fresh surface to absorb the water). This technique also works with celery (very well, in fact), parsley, cilantro (eeew!!!) and so on.
so, the yellow leaves indicate that the plant is "drying"? Yellow leaves need to be preserved for eating?
More like dying (no r), although I am no expert horticulturalist. You asked in another question about drying your fenugreek. I believe your best bet is to hold it in its best fresh condition, until you begin intentionally, whatever drying process you are going to do (food dehydrator, oven, whatever), but you want that process to be controlled. Think about leaves outside--most of them rot, rather than dry out when just left around. To dry them, you need specific conditions conducive to the process, and you want to start that process with the freshest best quality ingredient you can.
It's a sign that chlorophyll, the substance that enables photosynthesis and gives the plant is green colour is fading from the plant due primarily to lack of water and nutrients. When chlorophyll fades you're left with the underlying colour of the leaves.
It's simply a sign that water is evaporating from the leaves.
If you don't like the yellow colour, just remove those leaves, it doesn't have any effect on the overall flavour or usefulness of the herb.
The only way to prevent it, is to keep the stems in a glass of water, which helps to preserve the chlorophyll, but it won't do so forever, eventually the leaves will still turn yellow. However, if you're trying to dry the leaves that's rather counter-productive!
so, you mean to say that eventually "dry leaves" will turn "yellow"?
@AnishaKaul If you leave them long enough, eventually they will turn yellow. Have a look at falling leaves in Autumn, those yellow, gold, amber tones are mostly a result of chlorophyll leaving the leaves. But dried leaves can still retain its chlorophyll, if you look in a packet of pre-bought fenugreek leaves, most of them are still green. It's not just the drying out process that causes it, it's also the lack of nutrients - specifically Nitrogen.
First, you pluck out the thin tiny stems along with leaves from the thick stems. The bitter, thick stems are discarded, no second thoughts.
Second, if you have to use the fenugreek leaves right away for cooking, give the leaves a quick water bath inside one bowl of water, then dip them in another bowl of clean water. Give a swirl, you know, with your fingers. Pick the leaves, the way you’d pick small fishes in net for your aquarium? These can now be used for you to cook.
Third, instead of cooking right away if you want to store fenugreek leaves for longer, don’t wash them – wrap the plucked out leaves inside a newspaper (good idea) or paper towel (better idea) and inside a Ziploc or plastic bag. Measure like I did, if you want. I did not know what the opposite of ‘washed leaves’ would be, so I wrote ‘unwashed’.
It’s not a word I know, but do what works, hehe!
These will store well for over two weeks.
Very interesting, but it doesn't really answer the question does it?
She did ask for tips on how to prevent it and this answer does just that, as opposed to other answers. Wrapping it in paper or ziploc bags is the best tip ever since I preserve the leaves that way.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.956271 | 2012-12-19T08:24:11 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29293",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Chris Usher",
"Kirtida",
"Mamta D",
"Martha Marth",
"Nwabike Lordcollinzo Chukwukad",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Stefan Feurle",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67971",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67977",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68032",
"spiceyokooko",
"user67973",
"user7783780"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
33130 | How do you determine whether a chocolate is sweet or semisweet?
A chocolate gingerbread cookie recipe asks for:
7 ounces best-quality semisweet chocolate
The chocolates I can get hold of are:
1. http://www.cadburyindia.com/in/en/brands/chocolate/pages/csmkuchmeethahojaaye.aspx
2. http://www.amul.com/products/chocolate.php
These two brands have many varieties of chocolates (as shown in the links), but I feel all of them are equally sweet!
What is considered less sweet and what is considered more sweet?
Which one should I choose among them?
P.S. Well, the dark chocolate is ofcourse not that sweet, it is bitter, I know. But it is bitter, so can't use that?
Sweet, semisweet, etc. are American terms for the different chocolate "grades" and are determined by the amount of cocoa mass in the chocolate. In many other countries, terms referring to "darkness" are used.
But don't go ahead and use just any chocolate labelled "dark", because there are huge differences between brands. I have seen 40% chocolate marketed as "very dark" or "bitter" chocolate. You should look at the ingredients instead. They list the amount of cocoa mass (= the sum of cocoa solids + cocoa butter).
White chocolate is always clearly labelled as such, and seldom has a percentage listed for the cocoa mass. This is OK, because you can easily distinguish it.
Milk chocolate has around 30% cocoa mass, and contains milk in addition to the other ingredients.
Semisweet chocolate has at least 35% cocoa, but can be anything between 40% and 65% depending on availability and taste. Here you get into "real chocolate" territory. The only ingredients should be cocoa (can be listed as cocoa butter, cocoa solids, cocoa mass, cocoa liquor, or cocoa particles), sugar, and maybe some vanilla. Different forms of sugar are OK, for example organic chocolates often use raw cane sugar. Stay away from anything with vegetable fat, emulgators, and/or E-numbers listed on the package. If you have the choice, prefer chocolates with higher cocoa butter to cocoa solids ratio (but this information is seldom available).
Bittersweet chocolate is somewhere in the 70% to 99% range. It has the same ingredients as semisweet, just in different proportions.
Unsweetened or baking chocolate is essentially 100% cocoa mass, and may or may not be processed or conched to the same smooth texture as chocolates intended for eating or candy making, depending on the manufacturer.
Be aware that the limits are somewhat arbitrary - some authors count a 72% chocolate to the semisweets, not to the bitters. But I have found these ranges to work well. Usually, you have some leeway, because the texture of whatever you bake (and even of conditor chocolate items) doesn't change all that much with ten percent difference in the cocoa amount, there are factors which bring in a larger error anyway.
To warn you, almost none of the popular chocolate brands for eating are good for serious baking, including the ones you linked. Cadbury, Milka, Hershey's and so on are no good. Also, what you see in the baking aisle sold under the name "baking chocolate" or "block chocolate" is probably no good either. At least here in Germany, it is made mostly out of hardened vegetable fat mixed with some cocoa solids. Pure chocolate is too expensive to gain popularity. The cheapest one around here is Lindt excelsior (not the Lindor line which has vegetable fat) for around 2 Euros per 100 g. If you are in the supermarket, you should try looking through the ingredient lists of the "premium" brands to see if one of them is good enough. Else, you can try to find good chocolate online. Some stores will even sell true conditor chocolate (Varhlona, Callebaut) in household amounts, but this is still very rare.
Thanks very much for your in depth response. I might follow up soon with a question (if I have any).
@rumtscho I think you defined "bittersweet" under "unsweetened". Unsweetened is pretty much 100% chocolate liquor. I edited....
@SAJ14SAJ thank you for catching it, hadn't worked with American terms for a while
I'm afraid you're incorrect about baking chocolate, at least in general terms. The dominant brand in North America is Kraft Baker's Chocolate and while it isn't the highest quality, it is nothing but unsweetened chocolate, sugar, soy lecithin, cocoa butter (in some grades) and milk ingredients (some grades). I wouldn't snack on it, and probably wouldn't use it for any serious enrobing jobs, but it's just fine for baking.
So basically for semisweet chocolate I should go for "dark chocolate"? Rumtscho and @SAJ14SAJ
It depends on context. If this is your ginger cookie recipe, it doesn't matter that much, IIRC, they are just being used as chunks, so it is a matter of preference and availability.
@AnishaKaul: This seems to be available in India, it will probably do fine: http://www.bachatcity.com/cadbury-bournville-rich-cocoa-fine-dark-chocolate-90g
@HenrikSöderlund That is exactly what I finally used. :)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.956614 | 2013-03-30T11:45:26 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33130",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Adam Chandler",
"Anne",
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Henrik Söderlund",
"Robin ahlberg",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Steef Ensink",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76697",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76698",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76712",
"rumtscho",
"user76698"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
29917 | How many times can vinegar (after soaking onions in it) be reused again for soaking the fresh onions?
How many times can same vinegar (after soaking onions in it) be reused again for soaking the fresh onions?
Do I need to take any special care w.r.t Vinegar for maintaining its freshness?
From a safety point of view, assuming you are keeping the vinegar in the refrigerator while soaking...
I would make the conservative assumption that the water and nutrients from the onions is diluting the acidity of the vinegar, and making it a more hospital environment for pathogens. Therefore, I would think of the vinegar as a fully perishable item, with a lifetime in the refrigerator of four or five days.
How many batches of onions could you soak in that time?
Of course, from the efficacy point of view, each batch of onions will flavor the vinegar more, and dilute it more--so at some point, you won't get the results you are looking for, whether that is a basic "velveting" of the onions from a quick soak, or a more pickling like change from a longer soak. You will have to decide when the results are no longer good enough.
The thing is--vinegar is very inexpensive, at least in the US. Is it worth reusing it, when you will get less consistent results?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.956993 | 2013-01-09T08:33:58 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29917",
"authors": [
"Helen Hollingsworth Bennett",
"Phyllis",
"Sharon Larrissey-Hemens",
"Tharaka Dilshan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69687",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69694"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
28805 | What is the maximum time for which the dough should be allowed to rest before making Parathas?
Have heard that dough should be allowed to rest for the Gluten formation to occur.
Question: What is the maximum time after which resting the dough won't make any difference to the taste and the texture of the Parathas/Rotis?
Assuming: Dough is made of 100% wheat flour (no Maida), and water only.
Why resting longer?
Resting the dough not only let's gluten linking begin, but also allows enzymes to "transform" starches into sugars. There are some technics for making bread that take profit of that to extract more taste from the wheat, such as autolyse (invented by Raymond Calvel) or Pain à l’ancienne (which uses autolyse and other delaying methods that you won't use in not leavened breads).
Originally Monsieur Calvel stated an autolyse time of between 20 and 40 minutes (that link might be in Spanish, but I don't understand why it's not in English), but nowadays people are experimenting with 2 hours, and even 4 or 6 hours of autolisis.
That enzymatic activity won't be affected by lipids, so adding fat or oil for Parathas or Rotis will work the same. They can be affected by a PH<4 or 3.3, but I don't think you'll reach that PH in a Paratha's dough.
So, how long is too long?
The longer you let enzymes make sugars, the tastier the dough will be. But if you rest too long a dough, the gluten will finally get broken: the dough will look more like a puree than a kneaded dough. It will depend on the enzymatic activity of the flour, and can vary a lot from one flour to another. It is measured by a value called falling number (you can see why is it important here).
That index is very rarely labelled in packages, but you can try getting in contact with the millers and ask them. Or you can also try to find the answer to your question empirically for the brands of flour you use (that value shouldn't vary from different batches of the same brand of flour). Touch the dough every hour to feel if it still has a workable consistency.
Note that your dough will be stickier, due to the sugars released by autolisis.
extremely helpful answer. :hattip:
and this link does NOT work. http://www.wheatflourbook.org/p.aspx?tabid=29
thanks, kindly update your answer with the cache link too.
@AnishaKaul the link is working again.
Seriously, I let my dough for approx. 60 hours (basically three days in a row I was eating pizza LOL) and it didn't turn into pure. I used flour type 504 with dry yast, some water, some sugar, some salt and a little bit of oil. It turned out quite delicious to be honest.
The rule behind doughs is to let it in a warm place (~ 50 Celcius Degrees) until it doubles it's size. Usually this could take something between 45 minutes-2 hours, depending on the ingredients.
So there isn't a golden rule concerning time, but you should just check volume!
If you let it over-double, the dough will be very sensitive and will loose its volume easily, so be careful! All the above are tips concerning dough which contain any bulking ingredient, such as yeast.
For doughs that don't need to be bulked, usually there is no need to let it rest. However a resting time of about 10-15min is of vital importance for poor doughs which contain only flour, water and salt. This ammount of time is more than enough for gluten formation which will dwarf the intense and rather annoying taste of flour.
I haven't seen any plain dough doubling by now! This doesn't contain any yeast.
@AnishaKaul: Oh no...You are right... I forgot to continue my answer... This was just an intro...Sorry for the inconvinience...
You might want to further edit; most of your answer is still about letting yeast-leavened doughs rise rather than what Anisha is asking about.
Parathas or Rotis have no leavening agents (no yeast, nor soda, nor...): they won't rise.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.957130 | 2012-12-02T04:19:39 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28805",
"authors": [
"A.E.",
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Brad Buchanan",
"Cascabel",
"Chuancong Gao",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Norbert",
"OyaMist",
"Saira Lopez",
"Thanos",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66700",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66701",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66702",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66720",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66721",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66727",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66731",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66798",
"marcella ilioff",
"pinchillac",
"rbaleksandar"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
28357 | What type of cookies does the author Rose Levy talk about in Christmas cookies book?
From here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biscuit
according to American English dictionary Merriam-Webster, a cookie is a "small flat or slightly raised cake".[4] A biscuit is "any of various hard or crisp dry baked product"
Also, I read somewhere on the net that Britishers call "biscuits" cookies.
Now, I wish to understand that in the author Rose Levy's book of Christmas cookies, should I expect English Cookies*(biscuits)*, or American Cookies*(soft cakes)*?
The question is quite hard to understand, because it's not clear when you're using words in their en-gb sense and when in their en-us sense. In the hope of clarifying some of the confusion: I don't think there's anything which a Brit would call a "cookie" and which an American wouldn't also call a "cookie". However, "cookie" in en-gb tends to imply either that it is relatively large (maybe 6cm diameter) and chewy or that it contains chocolate chips.
@PeterTaylor Would you add as an answer a clear difference between a biscuit and a cookie? This is called biscuit in India: http://www.amazon.com/Britannia-Good-Cashew-Cookies-3-17oz/dp/B001VYMJG2
@AnishaKaul You're still doing it - are you asking about the difference between "biscuit (UK, India)" and "cookie (US)"? There pretty much isn't one - they're different words for the same thing.
What Americans call cookies, other people (e.g. Britain, Australia, India) call biscuits. Christmas cookies are cookies in the American sense. The cookbook is American; if it were British I assume it'd be called Christmas Biscuits.
"Small flat or slightly raised cake" is a bit of a bad dictionary definition; though they are small and flat, cookies can be soft, chewy, or crunchy, and the texture is not really like a cake. I don't think any American would think to describe cookies as "small cakes". The commonality is that they're something you can pick up and hold in your hand without it falling apart, they're flat (of course, some are thicker than others), and you can eat them in not too many bites (though bakeries do often have pretty big cookies).
I think you let the American vs. British thing confuse you too much. The title says "cookies." In the US, this means what I discussed above. In the UK, apparently it's a plain bun in Scotland, but this obviously is not a book about plain buns. So it's clearly American cookies.
If you do a Google image search for cookies everything you see should be American cookies - and unsurprisingly, most of them are chocolate chip. Similarly, searching for christmas cookies should get you American Christmas cookies, though they're mostly sugar cookies with Christmas decorations, not the more interesting things that are in that cookbook. (I'm pretty sure this should still be true in India, because "cookie" doesn't mean much else there, and most of the internet is American English.) If you search for "biscuits", what you get will depend on where you are - in the US, I see American biscuits (like these), while you in India might see things like the cashew biscuits you mentioned.
actually, in India, I have seen what we call biscuits are actually "labeled" cookies: http://www.amazon.com/Britannia-Good-Cashew-Cookies-3-17oz/dp/B001VYMJG2 This is a common "biscuit" in India, but I was today surprised to see it being labeled a cookie. This thing is NOT soft like cake, it is crispy, and needs to be "chewed". Is this what Americans call cookies?
Assuming it's sweet, that is one thing that would be called a cookie in the US, yes. But like I said in my answer, cookies can be soft, chewy, crunchy, crispy, or anything in between. This is why I said "cake" is a bad description.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.957475 | 2012-11-11T15:40:27 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28357",
"authors": [
"AndyB",
"Angela Kim",
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Cascabel",
"Dan Buithi",
"Milton Martinez",
"Peter Taylor",
"Ron",
"Tanaya",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65344",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65347",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65350",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65352",
"user65342"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
42190 | What exactly are Bamboo shoots?
http://www.sanjeevkapoor.com/vegetable-hot-and-sour-soup.aspx
Are we here talking about Bamboo trees?
Can we have a picture of Bamboo shoot? In what forms is it available?
Bamboo isn't a tree, it's a grass ;)
A bamboo shoot is just the budding new bamboo that's harvested before it grows and becomes hard and stringy.
Bamboo shoots are generally available in 2 forms, fresh and canned.
Fresh ones are sold whole and generally used in stir fries.
Canned bamboo shoots are precooked and packed in water. You can find canned bamboo shoots sold whole, shredded, or sliced. For hot and sour soup (which I assume you're making) you'll probably want the shredded ones.
There are also jarred bamboo shoots. You probably don't want these as they are often fermented and add different seasonings to the shoots.
I'm not sure where you are so I don't know how available they would be, but you can generally find canned ones in the asian section of major supermarkets. Fresh ones are a little harder to come by and I believe only seasonal
I feel like a Panda already.
Yes, they are the shoots (baby plants) of actual bamboo.
I have only ever seen them sliced and canned. Canned Bamboo Shoots
They're very mild with a slightly crunchy texture.
WARNING: These look like they are actually raw. It is UNSAFE to eat raw or undercooked bamboo due to the presence of so called cyanogenic glycosides, an objectively toxic group of compounds. So make sure you read up on how to prepare them before experimenting.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.957800 | 2014-02-20T16:51:05 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42190",
"authors": [
"Brittney Brigg",
"Chloe",
"Indian Visa Application Online",
"Jeri",
"Spammer",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"T Counley",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98503",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98507",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
42580 | Is there a significant difference between Turkish coffee and Moka pot coffee?
Since the Turkish coffee and the Moka pot both work by boiling/steaming the coffee, so assuming they are from the same bean, is there a significant difference between the two? How would it be best described?
There is a significant difference in how the two operate.
Turkish coffee works by heating the water to a boil, with no added pressure. The coffee, with gronds, is then transferred into a cup to seethe, before drinking.
In a mocha pot, pressure will typically rise to as much as 1.5 bar, and the resulting liquid is free of grounds.
Given the radically different extraction methods, the end result of the two are likely to be radically different. My experience, taken from memory, follows:
Turkish coffee goes through a sequence of mouth feels, from completely clear, to grainy, almost muddy, with coffee grounds. This also affects the flavour of the coffee. At the beginning, it is much like a strong filter brew, but tends to get bitter towards the end of the cup, which is also, in part, why it is traditionally served in very small cups. In addition, it is often spiced with cardamom, and often sweetened with sugar.
Coffee from a mocha pot has a consistent mouth feel all the way through the cup, as the grounds are left in the pot. Due to the pressurised extraction, the flavour notes are closer to an espresso than filter coffee.
Also the typical grind of coffee used is much coarser in a Moka pot than a Turkish coffee.
Thanks @Jefromi, I've added my experience on the matter.
The main difference is in the consistency of the actual liquid coffee.
Coffee made in mocha pot, is very homogenous in texture and flavor. You will experience "even flavor" from the first sip all the way through the cup. Also 100% of the mocha pot coffee is drinkable.
However, Turkish coffee, develops 2 to 3 layers of subtle feel in flavor. The top layer is always mild and least saturated with coffee. The mid layer is more like a normal coffee, and the bottoms is strong with coffee flavor, a little muddy, and of course the very bottom is a coffee sludge and should not be consumed. Nonetheless, the sludges are never strained or separated and it is part of Turkish coffee characteristic and considered fun!
Since making turkish coffee involves the most basic type of a pot, and no pressure or steam, the coffee is grounded at its finest level possible and it feels like a powder much similar to flour. That kind of a grinding level is not necessary for any other coffees.
Aside from the grounds in your cup, Turkish coffee tastes more like a strong coffee whereas Mocha pot coffee is usually more bitter and closer to espresso.
Turkish is as fine of a grind as you can get. It should be almost powder. If you blow on it , it should fly like a dust-bowl. I have used it in the Moka. However, since it is so fine , the grounds will travel up with the coffee. The end result will have grounds. It is intense, and you have to like it that way.
Espresso is less fine and does not make it through the metal Moka filter, so the coffee is intense , but less thick.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.957979 | 2014-03-07T09:12:41 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42580",
"authors": [
"Joce",
"Naval",
"Paulie",
"SJ Seafoods Seafoods",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99470",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99537",
"notthetup",
"razumny",
"yoyojojofosho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
43234 | What are the pips and skin of an orange?
When the orange is soft and cold, cut in half and remove any pips. Process the whole orange, including the skin, until medium chunky
From: http://www.maryberry.co.uk/recipes/baking/whole-orange-spice-cake
Is skin the outer thick orange coloured cover?
or the fibrous threads that orange pieces have?
or the thin skin that holds the juice and seeds?
What are pips and skin of an orange?
The skin is the outer thick orange-coloured cover; obviously as you're not told to remove it this would include the pith (the white fibrous material) as well. The pips are the seeds inside the fruit:
pip
noun
plural noun: pips
1.
a small hard seed in a fruit.
synonyms: seed, stone, pit
So, it is telling me to put in "whole" orange in the cake? Is the cover not sour in taste?
The skin (or rather the white pith inside the skin) is somewhat bitter, yes, but seeing as you have over half a pound of sugar in there as well, I imagine that's been accounted for. British fruit-based cakes tend not to be so all-out sweet as those from other countries. Also, consider something like marmalade, which usually has shreds of skin in it. With citrus fruits, the majority of the flavour is in the skin itself, not the fruit inside.
No problem. Happy baking!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.958374 | 2014-04-03T08:08:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43234",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"David Carpenter",
"Dnj Mcdonald",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Mandy",
"bernatgel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101182",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101189",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"lkraav"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
21622 | What is the practical way to peel off zest of an orange?
Peeling the zest doesn't seem like peeling a full peel of an Orange.
Any special kind of knieves to be used? Any special method?
What precautions need to be taken care off?
What is the practical way to peel off zest of an orange?
I always wash my oranges with detergent when I want to use the peel because of pesticides. I don't know if it actually helps to remove them though :-)
@w00t that is an absolute must!
The ideal tool depends on what you're trying to do with it.
If you want something nice and fine, which will release as much flavor as possible, avoid getting any of the pith, and not add distracting texture to a dish, use a fine rasp grater (sometimes known by the brand name microplane):
(There are also coarse rasp graters. That won't be any better than a standard grater. You want one that looks like the picture.)
If you want something small but visible, use a citrus zester:
You can get skinny little strips that tend to curl with the small holes at the end, and bigger curls like you've seen on the rims of cocktails with the wider hole in the middle. (Edit: added the second picture. That looks like it was fun.)
Finally, if you want big pieces to put in something to cook in something, then maybe fish out later, you can use a normal vegetable peeler:
+1. If you go for the rasp grater, get one of the modern etched ones (microplane was the first, but these days you can get them from many brands). It's a completely different experience from using old style ones. I can't really explain how you distinguish the two types, but in a good kitchen utensil store the salespeople should know.
A standard grater does the same job as the rasp grater on the cheap if budget (or kitchen clutter) is a concern, although it may not be as ergonomically friendly.
@PeterTaylor Not exactly, unless you're extremely good at using a very light touch with it. A good rasp grater can't cut very deep into the skin. A standard grater, even on the smaller holes, can get a lot deeper.
The micro-plane style is my favorite. And for a multi-tasker it is great - I use it for nutmeg, hard cheese, zest, and more. Avoiding the pith is key - it is bitter. I personally just use a small paring knife for "big pieces" and a microplane for "tiny bits" - nothing else.
You want a zester. Perfect for removing the peel, but leaving the pith (the white part) in tact.
Thanks for the picture, but I wanted something which could peel out directly the juice instead of the solid skin.
Use the basic $2 plastic peeler and don;t push hard, just let it glide
If the blade bends too much, heat the plastic between the blade ends over a flame, and bend the plastic slightly to tighten the blade up
A simple cheese grater will do the trick, but if you have the money, definitely opt for the abovementioned microplane.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.958558 | 2012-02-23T01:55:21 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21622",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Cascabel",
"E. M.",
"Erik P.",
"James Skemp",
"Peter Taylor",
"Sam Ley",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47984",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47987",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9091",
"kelly",
"seroki",
"w00t"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
31897 | Are smoothies and milk shakes the same things with different names?
I put banana and milk in the blender, and drink it when everything gets mashed up properly.
I call it milk shake with banana.
Is that called a smoothie?
Is there a difference between milk shakes and smoothies?
For smoothies, the main body of the drink is fruit that has been blended with some limited quantity of liquid or ice. Typically, one of the fruits is banana, and other fruits (berries, strawberries, kiwi, etc.) are added for flavor. They often include a sweetener of some sort, such as honey or turbinado sugar.
Milk Shakes are typically composed primarily of milk or ice cream, and may include limited amounts of fruit for flavor. They also usually include some sort of sweetener, such as sugar syrup or malt syrup, or a flavored syrup such as strawberry or chocolate.
The general principle is that smoothies are mostly fruit, milk shakes are mostly milk. For your drink, I think it being a smoothie or a milk shake depends on the proportions of the ingredients added (i.e. more banana means smoothie, more milk means milk shake).
Based on the general principles from above, you could call your drink either a milk shake or a smoothie and be correct. That said, the original Banana Smoothie, as recorded from 1941 on this smoothie fact page, included two big ripe bananas and two and one-half cups of milk. Since that seems to be exactly what you're making, I'd say that your drink is a smoothie based on the original definition of the term.
No, they are similar, but not identical.
A milkshake is generally made from ice cream, milk, and perhaps flavoring such as chocolate syrup or a small amount of fruit, blended together as a sweet drinkable confection. Ice cream is the characteristic ingredient in a milk shake.
A smoothie is a puree of fruit and other ingredients, often one or more of including milk, yogurt, eggs, ice, and perhaps other ingredients (the variety is endless), blended together to a consistency liquid enough to drink. Fruit is most often the key ingredient in a smoothie, but almost anything goes if you can blend it and drink it.
Your banana and milk drink would be considered a smoothie, but not a milkshake due to the lack of ice cream.
Caveat: I have described how these words are used in North America... it may be that elsewhere they are used differently.
I think that's a smoothie, but if you put ice cream in there you'll have a milk shake. :)
It is actually a milk shake for sure. Smoothie would never contain high amounts of liquid content.
But these smoothies use 100% juice: http://www.ourordinarylife.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/DSC_0269.jpg
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.958820 | 2013-02-14T06:55:43 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/31897",
"authors": [
"Ashish Ranjan",
"Jennnifer Kelley",
"Jeremy",
"Mark Lister",
"NO TO OPENAI",
"Yamikuronue",
"ev1lchris",
"hpcustomerservice01",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73325",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73327",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73331",
"sspauldingneorrcom"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
15815 | How to ensure that spices reach inside the eggs in the egg curry?
For egg curry, I boil the eggs, shell them, pierce them with a fork and deep fry them.
Then I prepare the gravy and pressure cook the eggs and the gravy.
Anything I do, doesn't let the spices go inside the eggs.
I was thinking of cutting the eggs into halves but then on pressure cooking they'll split up!
What is egg curry?
@gunbuster363 Wow, western country people call it something else, maybe: http://www.merirasoi.com/recipedetail/tomato-egg-curry-recipe.aspx?ci=36
Never heard of it, but that sounds tasty. I know what I'm making for my next brunch!
@BobMcGee Generally people here don't fry the eggs before putting them in the curry, I do deep fry, till the skin turns light brown. I don't like eating raw eggs in a curry. Anyway, the question is how to get the spices inside the eggs! Help.
So, you want to insert spices... into a hard boiled egg... without messing up the skin too much? Perhaps the question could be edited to make this a bit clearer?
@BobMcGee I do poke the egg with fork (many times), but that doesn't help, I am ready to mess up with its skin, but if I cut it up totally, the yellow yolk will get lost in the gravy :(
@BobMcGee Perhaps after silting them up, we can tie them with the cotton strings, as we do in the stuffed vegetables like these: http://tiffinbox.wordpress.com/2010/06/06/bharva-karela/
To what point do you boil the eggs? Are they hard boiled prior to being fried? Or is the yolk still runny?
@BobMcGee That means I have no other choice than doing whatever you said, yesterday after deep frying the full boiled eggs, I silted half their body, that means they were joint only till their waist, then I put them in the gravy and boiled it for some 10-15 minutes. It still didn't work out. I'll avoid the alcohol though. This thread can't get any better answers than what you posted, though.
I think you mean "slit the eggs in half" not "silted half their body."
@BobMcGee I meant that I cut the eggs in half but ensured there were joined at bottom. PS I am NOT a native English speaker.
@Anisha: I know you're not a native English speaker, and I know what it's like trying to get by in a foreign language. I'm trying to be helpful with corrections, not trying to be a jerk.
@BobMcGee I know that you are not being a jerk and I am open to corrections :) and in fact in LinuxQuestions.org we have a thread there for English grammar corrections, I am the top poster there. ;) http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/general-10/problems-with-english-questions-vocabulary-grammar-post-here-654375/page4.html#post4061663
I said:
I am ready to mess up with its skin, but if I cut it up totally, the yellow yolk will get lost in the gravy.
Yesterday I did an experiment:
After properly hard boiling the eggs, I shelled them and cut them into two parts vertically.
I fried these sliced eggs on both sides in around 3 (6 ml) spoons oil in a semi circle wok. No, the yolk didn't get lost in the oil. It was all intact in the sliced eggs.
I fried all the spices etc. in the wok, and added the water as needed. Now, as a final step, I carefully placed the fried sliced eggs in the same wok [with the yolk side facing up], covered with a lid, and let it boil on simmer gas for some minutes.
This time the spices did get inside the egg yolk, and also the yolk was completely intact.
Since the eggs are sliced, pressure cooker usage may cause the yolk to dismantle. An open vessel usage is a must in this case.
It is also necessary to keep the yolk side facing up when you place the eggs in the curry for the final boil up to keep them intact.
Here is how I made the egg curry finally.
I have never done egg curry before... but your problem reminded me of chinese marbled eggs
Marbled eggs are soaked for several hours to overnight and soy/tea does not don't get to the yolk, so no wonder that you don't get good penetration of the spices.
Maybe you can think of putting the eggs in a spice concentrate in advance and let them soak before splitting them and letting them cook with the gravy.
But then you yourself said that soaking them does no good (yolk is not reached)?
That's why I was thinking of using a spice concentrate. Maybe the colour doesn't reach the inside but the flavour might (esp if you poke them.
I have a notion, but it is an educated guess, and may not be practical to use; however, I think it's also a really cool experiment and potentially an elegant solution. It's also an alternative to an extremely long (days or more) soak in flavored liquid.
The Theory
From the Cooking Issues blog, we know that you can infuse flavors into alcohol or water using a nitrous oxide cream whipper. The method is that you put liquid and herbs/seeds/fruits in the whipper, pressurize it with nitrous oxide, then release the pressure suddenly. The gas pressure forces liquid and gas deep into what you're infusing and then when the pressure is released, the gas and liquid are abruptly pulled, out, bringing flavor with it. You should be able to do this in reverse, using gas pressure to force flavored liquid into a peeled, pierced, hard-boiled egg. You'll have to use a pressure cooker or cream whipper.
The practice:
Prepare HEAVILY spice flavored broth, by simmering herbs and spices for several hours to overnight in water. Maybe add a little alcohol beforehand to help extract flavors. Next, prepare lightly hard boiled eggs, peel them, and pierce them with forks until the tines reach some distance into the yolk.
Place eggs and liquid in either a cream whipper or a pressure cooker. Pressurize the vessel, and swirl or shake to help mix. Then allow to sit for a minute or two, and release pressure. If flavor doesn't carry through enough, you might need to allow it to sit for a longer period.
Potential Improvements:
Try reducing your flavored liquid beforehand for a more concentrated flavor.
Try it with increasing portions of alcohol; many flavor compounds are more soluble in water than alcohol.
Use a warmer liquid (warmer liquids dissolve substances better)
Allow the pressurized vessel to sit for longer periods (may cause problems if using a pressure cooker, as it might overcook)
+1 (I was actually about to recommend something similar). To simplify things, you could also try cooking the gravy in the pressure cooker along with the eggs.
Nitrous oxide is a pain in the head (literally) if you suffer from migraine. I hate the idea of using it.
@klypos: Once the pressure is released, only traces of nitrous should remain in the food, and these will evaporate quickly on exposure to air. Cooking should reduce this amount further. @Esultanik: If you read the original question & comments carefully, you'll see she already tried pressure cooking in just gravy.
Bob, yesterday I did an experiment with this dish, and I succeeded. No offence intended, but I'll have to select my own answer now.
Here's a purely theoretical solution - in the sense that I haven't tried it. If you want to make spices penetrate meat instead of eggs, one of the best options is brining it. The salt makes some of the cell walls collapse, which allows the spices in. This might work with eggs as well.
To try this, make a separate batch of gravy that you oversalt, soak the boiled eggs in it for a day or two, then deep fry and pressure cook. You might want to undersalt the gravy that you pressure cook it in, to compensate for the extra salty eggs.
If you try this, let us know how it goes!
If they are to be brined before boiling, the process could take up to one month. If they are to be brined after the shells are removed, it probably won't take as long.
I was thinking of after removing the shells.
Boiled eggs are often pickled in vinegar - if you do this at home, adding pickling spices will allow the spices to permeate the egg - but that takes months to get through, 3 months minimum after pickling. Pickled eggs DO work well with a curry sauce.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.959140 | 2011-06-28T03:35:57 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15815",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Artsiom Anisimau",
"BobMcGee",
"ESultanik",
"Erik P.",
"Klaas VanderBent",
"Nanny-janny",
"Ravi Bhalodia",
"Username Obfuscation",
"alice duke",
"ben-ledi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103195",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33612",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33616",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33621",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"klypos",
"lamwaiman1988",
"mossberg",
"naseerahvj",
"nico"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
22346 | Do the cup cakes bake faster in a 24 hole cup cake tray rather than a 12 hole cup cake tray?
The cupcakes cook faster than the big one piece cakes, so does it make sense to assume that the cup cakes bake faster in a 24 hole cup cake tray rather than a 12 hole cup cake tray?
My oven has a convection fan.
I assume you mean the same amount of batter divided into 24 small cupcakes instead of 12 big ones? Because there are 24-cup pans meant for the double amount of batter.
@rumtscho your assumption is correct. But won't the 24 holes be much smaller than the 12 hole tray?
rumtscho was saying: there's more than one kind of 24-cup pan. One kind indeed has smaller cups, and another kind has regular-size cups - it's just like two regular 12-cup muffin pans stuck together. In any case, it's the size of the muffins that really matters, not the number of cups on the pan. The best way to ask your question would have been "do mini-muffins bake faster than regular muffins?"
I immediately thought of this table, from the front of the muffin section in Bread, by Beth Hensperger*:
Muffin size Baking time Yield
Mini/gem (1 5/8") 10-15 minutes 18-20
Regular (2 3/4") 20-25 minutes 9-10
Oversized (3 1/4") 25-30 minutes 6-7
Muffin cake (8-9") 55-65 minutes 1
The baking times are for 375-400F; most recipes will fall around that range. Note that the yields don't necessarily match up to typical pan sizes; for example, if you take a recipe meant for 12 regular muffins, you'll probably have more batter than you need for a pan of 6 oversized muffins. Similarly, if your recipe says to bake regular muffins for 30 minutes, you might have to bake miniature ones a bit over 15 minutes. "Muffin cake" refers to baking in an 8-9" pan of some sort - the author says that you can get away with it for any muffin recipe, but I've never tried it!
P.S. I know this is for muffins, but cupcakes are fairly similar, so I think it'll be about right!
* At least, I'm pretty sure it is. I have a copy of just this page (for the recipe next to the table, actually), from a book my mom has. I recognize the cover, I know we had that book, I think this was in it, and Google book search somehow found it when I searched for "fresh-lemon muffins".
+1 Excellent chart showing the relationship of surface area to cooking time...one recipe of muffin will cook in aprox X minutes depending on how it's divided for serving size.
Yes, they will indeed cook faster, simply because the heat can penetrate through the cakes faster. Likewise, if you had 48 instead of 24, they would take even less time.
If the size per cake is reduced then they will bake faster and also have a greater chance of becoming dryer. If they are the same size per cake simply more of them, then no they won't bake faster and will probably take a little longer to cook.
"If they are the same size per cake simply more of them, then no they won't bake faster and will probably take a little longer to cook" little longer as compared to baking a big round loaf of cake having the same quantity as 24 cupcakes batter? right?
If you have 2 litres of batter in a cake tray it will take longer than 2 litres divided into 24 cupcakes; 2 litres in 24 cakes will take longer than 2 litres divided into 48 cakes. The difference is the surface area exposed to the heat. However, if you have 2 litres divided into 24 cakes then 2 ADDITIONAL litres divided into 24 more cakes, you've DOUBLED the amount of batter to 4 litres and the number of cakes to 48 but the extra 2 litres of batter WILL extend the cooking time.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.960166 | 2012-03-17T12:02:38 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22346",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Cascabel",
"Chef Flambe",
"David S.",
"Deairra Griffin",
"Shaaak",
"The Netty Professor",
"Yogee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50171",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50233",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8766",
"rumtscho",
"user50233"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
25432 | Does it make sense to refrigerate the dough made for Parathas to be used after 8 hours?
Paratha: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paratha
Flour:
Wheat flour
Dough ingredients:
Water
Salt
Wheat flour
I am planning to make this dough in the evening and keep it in the fridge for 8 hours to be used in the early next morning.
Is this going to be disadvantageous for making soft plain Parathas any how?
Does any care needs to be taken here?
You should have no problem refrigerating the dough. I have done it with chapatti dough, which is essentially the same thing, without a problem. It's only flour, water and salt after all. You might find it a little hard to roll out straight from the fridge but nothing some brute force and ignorance (or letting it warm up a little) won't cure.
that's won't cause the resultant chapatti's to harden or something? That worries me.
No, why would it? You roll them so thin and cook them on such a hot tava that it makes little difference what temperature they start at. Make sure you wrap the dough tightly in plastic wrap to prevent it drying out in the fridge and you'll be fine.
oh, so I'll wrap it in a polythene bag? Okay I'll do it. Actually, in cakes as we are often told not keep the mixture standing for a long time since gluten formation will harden the cake, so I wondered if the same thing applied here too!
Wrap it tightly, so that there is no air between the surface of the dough and the bag. If you are worried about the dough stiffening, perhaps make it a little wetter than normal; you can always add more flour when you roll it out.
Parathas are not chapatis.
I went to a restaurant in Funchal, Madeira once, and asked for a naan with my meal. The "naan" they served me was best described as the thickest chapati I have ever seen. i asked for a couple of chapatis to augment it.
You have to work with local opinion as to "what is and what is not" a bread form, but a paratha HAS to contain sufficient fat to fry itself on a tava. Whether the fat is butter, ghee, or the compound stuff based on Canola that gets marked as "vegetable ghee", a paratha needs to present that fried brown surface that says it contains oil. Chapatis don't contain oil, unless you get them from my friend Ashok, who makes WICKED deep fried chapatis.
To start the job early and simplify the matter, you can mix the oil with the flour and refrigerate that. Add dried onion if you're going that way. Then at a later point you can add water and roll out the stuff to make your parathas - two thin layers pressed together if you want to stuff them with pickles, one thick layer if you serve them "as is" with the pickles on the side.
If you want to do this classically, you use the oil from Indian oil pickles in your parathas. If you want to impress your prospective in-laws, you use Methi Gulcha pickle as stuffing and as a source of oil. That's your Paratha Achari classico. Me scusi ...
Edit: My wife says I'm not telling it how I do it. So the black Gulcha, I take the stones out - the green ones are usually pitted. And yes, I use pitted olives if I can't get gulcha, but they have a stronger taste. And if I can't get pickled gulcha, I use lime pickle or aubergine pickle. WTH I buy the parathas frozen from a local supermarket or Tesco, plain, with onion, or with garlic. I last made my own parathas somewhere around 1988, except at Christmas when I make everything from scratch.
You said: Parathas are not chapatis. Of course not, but the dough prepared for both is "same". You said: who makes WICKED deep fried chapatis. This is what he makes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puri_(food) :)
I was under the impression that paratha were brushed with ghee and folded a few times, which is what gives them their layered texture.
@ElendilTheTall that is ofcourse done, but when you actually start making chapatis - not before that.
@Anisha Kaul - I know what a puri is. I know what Ashok makes - he makes deep-fried chapatis. A chapati, made and cooked in the usual way, then fried with spices in a pan, then deep fried until crisp. I can't make them myself - at least, that's what I tell Ashok. When I make paratha dough it differs from chapati dough because some oil is added and mixed in before any water is added. PLEASE DON'T ASK ME AROUND FOR DINNER.
klypos said: When I make paratha dough it differs from chapati dough because some oil is added and mixed in before any water is added ofcourse you are free to do whatever you want, but adding oil in dough for Parathas is "not needed". Oil is usually added for achieving softness, but if you prepare the dough moist enough with water and keep it still for 20 minutes, it'll still result in soft resultant breads. Soft Parathas also depend on the temperature of tawa.
Ah, Perhaps after adding oil in dough, you don't add it once again while making the parathas like ElendilTheTall sais in the second comment? You said: PLEASE DON'T ASK ME AROUND FOR DINNER Nor I am interested. No need to act rude.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.960525 | 2012-08-02T14:33:56 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25432",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Ashwin M J",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Lillian",
"Mamo87654321",
"Mark",
"Pedro Lobito",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58222",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58223",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"klypos",
"sighthoundman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
34324 | What are the dos and don'ts regarding cleaning a bamboo cutting board?
What are the dos and don'ts regarding cleaning a bamboo cutting board?
How to let it live a long life?
I heard people talking about using mineral oil w.r.t the same. How much and when use it?
most mineral oil is petroleum based and it'll be in contact with your food, if you're ok with it, consider finding food-grade mineral oil.
Food grade is definitely implied here.
An inexpensive such mineral oil is sold by IKEA.
The care of bamboo cutting boards is extremely similar to that of traditional wood cutting boards:
Prime them with mineral oil, and refresh it every month or so. (Wipe with oil, let sit for a while, perhaps 15-20 minutes, wipe off).
Wash only with mild soap, and rinse and dry immediately. (Wipe off and let air dry.) Don't put in a dishwasher.
If using for raw meat, you can sanitize with a very dilute bleach solution (about a teaspoon of liquid bleach per quart of water, 5 mL per liter). Rinse thoroughly afterwards.
I bought coconut oil just for my bamboo cutting boards. I am not going to use a petroleum product like mineral oil for all kinds of reasons.
I can't use any dish soaps so I did research on cleaning. I want my dishes to be at least as clean as ones washed with dish soap. I learned that it is not the product used, it is the rubbing motion that does the cleaning. So I wash things with baking soda dissolved in hot water. I use it for pretty much everything. Dishes, clothes, me. Soaking baked on stuff over night with baking soda works great. Probably not for my cutting board though. I also use vinegar and water. I don't use the baking soda and vinegar together for things other than laundry. Putting them together just creates a base. The chemical reaction provides cleaning for laundry, but I don't think it does much for hard surfaces. Vinegar was used in hospitals in England during the cholera epidemic. It is much better and safer than bleach. Also safer than dish soap that can make you sick of not rinsed well.
I have had wood cutting boards warp from getting too wet. I have just set them with the warp up and steamed them from the bottom with a waight on top. Straightened quite well.
Owning a bamboo cutting board is no different than any other style of wood. Rub it down with your preferred oil, i personally use peanut oil but mineral oil works as well. You can wipe the cutting board down with white vinegar to help sanitize it. Never leave water or juice from meats or veggies sitting on the cutting board for an extended period of time as it will warp the wood and cause the surface to become uneven.
I use lemon oil and olive to to keep my bamboo board looking new and smelling nice. After each use, I rinse it with hot vinegar water, then apply a light coat of the oil. 30 drips lemon oil to 1/4 cup olive oil. This is also what I use to polish my wood furniture. A little goes a long way! I use paper towel on cut board, but a soft cloth for furniture! My home smells nice too.
Please don't use the coconut oil you use for cooking to condition your wood/bamboo cutting board. It will attract bacteria and go rancid. They do make specially processed coconut oil for cutting boards, but it is not the same thing. If petroleum bothers you, try beeswax. Generally speaking, if you can cook with it, don't use it to condition your cutting boards. Here is a good list of safe conditioners.
Coconut oil is not the solution to everything. Lots of things, but not this.
Refined coconut oil, such as Dunn’s River, is what I use occasionally to ‘season’ the bamboo cutting board (it does NOT go rancid, as warned in an earlier post). After thoroughly cleansing the board, and while the board is still damp, I apply a very thin layer of coconut oil dabbed on kitchen tissue. The dampness helps to keep the oil on the upper surface*, without absorbing the oil into the thickness of the board. As the board dries the bamboo is rejuvenated. [* as oil always remains above water].
Where room temperature is around 22 degree C, the advantage with coconut oil is that it is still in jelly form and helps to be spread as a thin layer on the damp board. Adding lemon oil could be good, but I haven’t tried it.
I use lemons and corse kosher salt to sterilize and remove stains. After the board dries, season with mineral oil. I get the kind you use for a laxative to make sure its food grade!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.961042 | 2013-05-25T15:55:21 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34324",
"authors": [
"Geoff Burns",
"Jean Mukti Kuster",
"Jenny L.",
"Judith Orme",
"MandoMando",
"P D",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Steve Strong",
"Veronica guerra",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140507",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142996",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142997",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79924",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79928",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80206",
"osh",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
46970 | Should I fry the chicken first or should I pressure cook it first?
I fried the chicken breast in the oil till its surface was brown and then I pressure cooked it.
The result was hard chicken. I found it quite difficult to chew.
What should I do next time to make it utterly soft?
Some details would be nice. What recipe are you following?
sorry, no recipe - my mother told me to do so, so I did it. @ElendilTheTall
Ok. How long did you fry the chicken for? How long did you then cook it in the pressure cooker for? What cut was it?
@ElendilTheTall I said I fried it till its skin was dark brown from outside. didn't calculate the time. In pressure cooker - I counted till 4 whistles. It was the breast part of the chicken. What do you mean by "what cut it was"? Thanks.
How long is 4 whistles (roughly)? Chicken breast overcooks very easily. If you'd already cooked it to the point of having dark brown skin, it was probably already mostly cooked even without pressure cooking.
Are you trying to replicate a "broasted" chicken, where the chicken is fried in oil under pressure? That's very different than cooking once in oil and then again under pressure.
Broasting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broasting
Frying the chicken tends to set the muscle fibers by drawing moisture out. An example of this would be taking a thin (1cm) cutlet and frying it until both sides start to turn golden. It will be pretty dry and hard.
Pressure cooking it on the other hand tends to soften the muscle fibers without drawing moisture in (if anything, its putting moisture in).
So, ideally, you should boil/pressure cook your chicken prior to frying in oil (though do make sure to drain the chicken first to prevent splatters!). Additionally, you should undercook the chicken slightly in the pressure cooker since you'll be finishing it in the fryer.
If you are broasting the chicken, then you are going about the recipe incorrectly by frying then pressure cooking it. When broasting, you should pressure fry - if that makes sense.
Important note: most pressure cookers explicitly suggest not using them for broasting given the quantity and temperature of the oil involved. Attempting to do this at home could be extremely hazardous.
@logophobe Good point.
Breast is lean muscle. Add a ton of heat to it and it'll seize up into a dense brick that nobody wants to eat. In that vein, I'm not sure I'd put chicken breast anywhere near a pressure cooker because that's a really great way to get something to 120°C.
That's about twice what you want. Ideally we want chicken to hit 63.5°C and stay there for a bit. Here's how I'd suggest cooking the perfect chicken breast.
Brine them for at least 4 hours. This adds salt and allows you to infuse spice. It's not great for your health but will help the meat retain water during cooking. Seriously though, there's no going back after you get used to brined meat.
Slow poach (takes practise) or vacuum-pack and sous vide ~63.5°C for 2 hours
Finish in the fires of Mount Doom (fry, bbq, grill or blow torch).
Yeah, that does mean your turnaround time can be 7 hours... But the brining can be done ahead of time (freeze them vacuum-packed in servings) and it delivers restaurant quality chicken every time. It's worth it, even if you have to build your own sous vide (it's quite easy and cheap — that's my tutorial on my blog).
And while I'd suggest doing all three steps, you can pick and choose as it suits you. Slow over-roast, brined chicken is still delicious, just as sous-viding without the brining or hellfire (for salads, etc).
FYI I just read that Chic-fil-a uses a pressure cooker and their sandwiches are pretty good.
I wouldn't dare say you couldn't cook chicken well in in a pressure cooker, just that it's an awful way for consistency as your margins equate to seconds. But Chic-fil-a actually use pressure fryers. Similar concept, different results. And no, please don't fill a domestic pressure cooker with oil.
Just as an aside, I typically brine my chicken overnight in the fridge - much better than just brining for a few hours as it tends to really plump up chicken.
@jsanc623 Completely agree. Anything under 4 hours is a waste of time. I actually posted an answer earlier today that said practically the same thing so I've edited it up.
Pressure cook first until 'almost' done. Let it cool. Pat dry well. Then batter and fry.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.961439 | 2014-09-08T13:39:14 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46970",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Barb Lipko",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Harry M.",
"Jim Kapturasky",
"John Robinson",
"Kevlyn Crump",
"Oli",
"Pamela Scott",
"Shannon meisch",
"Spammer",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113314",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113315",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113329",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118323",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22441",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"jsanc623",
"karen crane",
"logophobe",
"user1477388"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
28601 | When to prefer yogurt, cream, and coconut milk in an Indian vegetarian dish to make it creamy?
Firstly, I have noticed all the curried dishes we eat in an Indian restaurant feel "creamy".
Now, I don't know whether they add cream, or yogurt, or coconut milk?
In which kinds of dishes do we need which kind of substance to make it creamy?
well can i clarify when to prefer(at what time the substance should be added)or what to prefer(which substance to be preffered)?
Rule of thumb, dairy in the north and coconut in southern recipes. ie korma wouldn't have coconut
Indian yogurt is made with whole milk. As with western recipes, balancing the fat for good mouth-feel is important: yogurt can be a good choice when a larger quantity of liquid is called for. Cream works great when a finishing splash smooths out flavors without watering down
Acidity is also important. Does the dish need a tangy component or a softening of acids?
A dish could use both: yogurt marinade then a bit of cream to finish.
For richness and a hint of sweetness along with a wonderful aroma, coconut can't be beat but will be a discernable flavor in most curries. Many restaurants are making use of coconut where it is less than traditional with good results.
Also, OP could be taking silkiness in a curry for creaminess: a good masala imparts this mouth-feel without added cream. The Curry Club (Pat Chapman) explains the process beautifully. Briefly, sauteed onions and tomato with seasoning are pureed extremely smooth; this sauce is used to simmer off a spiced/fried main ingredient.
Your answer was helpful - thanks. I used to puree onions and tomatoes in all my dishes long time back. It results in "thick" and "smooth" gravy. In this question I am talking of "creamy" effect. Both cases are NOT same. Besides, I was talking of Punjabi dishes like "Shahi Paneer" etc (North India).
Glad it was helpful. I have cut amount of coconut milk in half using a masala gravy and it has fooled people. Your right, both are not same.
Well, first I would like to answer this questions in two ways: when we add substances to make the cuisine creamy, and what to be added when cuisine is prepared.
When we add substance to make cuisine creamy:
While preparing North Indian/South Indian dishes (like kurma and other items) we used to add the coconut milk while the specific dish gets boiled. Usually coconut milk will be mixed with yeast.
What kind of substance to make cuisine creamy:
For liquid food items (e.g kurma) add the coconut milk with little yeast, and for dishes like biryani add the coconut oil with spicy items to make the cuisine better.
having hard time understanding coconut and yeast...
The creamy texture for Indian dishes like Shahi Paneer, Chicken Mughlai etc can be arrived by adding pureed nuts like cashews and almonds to these dishes.
Firstly, an awful lot depends on exactly what you mean by the term 'creamy'. Can you be more specific about what you mean by this term?
Secondly, you mention 'Indian Restaurants', but you don't say where these restaurants are located, are you referring to ones located in India? Geographically, Indian restaurants will vary, depending on where they're located.
Thirdly, is there a specific dish you're referring to here?
Ideally, I need clarification on those points before I can answer your question, but from my own interpretation of what you mean it has nothing to do with cream, yogurt or coconut milk.
As Pat Sommer rightly points out, the smooth 'creamy' like texture you find prevalent in many if not all India Restaurant dishes is a result of 'base sauce' of pureed onions and other ingredients.
Pretty much all commercial Indian restaurants will use some form of 'base sauce or gravy' as the basis for most of their dishes. To this are added other specific ingredients specific to the dish. Some restaurants will have more than one base sauce some will add pureed lentils etc., but the base sauce itself it's predominantly made from fried and simmered onions, garlic, ginger, tomatoes and spices, water and then pureed.
It's this 'base sauce' I believe you're referring to which is giving the 'creamy' texture to the dish you refer to in your question.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.961840 | 2012-11-23T05:15:59 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28601",
"authors": [
"Alexis",
"Aquarius_Girl",
"BlueBerry - Vignesh4303",
"Dennis blacharczyk",
"LearninDaily",
"Marg",
"Matt Clegg",
"Nancy",
"Nissim Nanach",
"Pat Sommer",
"chris del camino",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66081",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66781",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70007",
"tishsterb",
"user3633438"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
54125 | Why does roasting add a flavour to the peanuts?
I roast the peanuts on a tawa and gas stove, after taking them out of their shells.
Have noticed that after roasting, peanuts taste great as compared to when they are raw.
Why is that so?
That great taste comes from the compounds produced by the Maillard reaction. It not one reaction but many that occur when the building blocks of proteins and sugars react as food is heated. Many new compounds are produced giving the cooked food a richer range of flavors. The pyrazines produced by the Maillard reaction give roasted peanuts their characteristic aroma, in particular cyclohexapyrazine.
To produce pyrazines, you need to heat your peanuts above 70C, with 110C to 170C (230F - 340F) suggested by most cookbooks. For unshelled peanuts at 110C it can take up to ten minutes for the amount of pyrazines produced to reach its peak. If the peanuts are not dry, you may need to add up to 20 minutes of oven time (longer on a tawa) at a lower temperature to dry them. Color will be your guide. The flavor of the pyrazines will be masked by oxidizing oils in the peanuts, so keeping them in an airtight container helps preserve that nutty-cracker-peanut flavor.
As in a lot of ingredients, when you roast them a chemical reaction will happen, the Maillard Reaction (*) that will create different chemical compounds that will have different flavours.
(*)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maillard_reaction
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.962225 | 2015-01-29T00:50:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54125",
"authors": [
"Carlie Powell",
"MANDY SHERWIN",
"Mark Pellow",
"Robin Bevins",
"Ryanne Donahue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127311",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127324"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
42447 | How to make a strong mug of filter coffee without any Coffee machine?
The filter coffee that I have purchased contains 53% Coffee and 47% Chicory.
Since I don't have a machine yet, what I did is as follows:
Spoon measure: 6 ml
I put heaped Coffee spoon in a steel glass.
Added 60ml boiling water to the same, stirred and kept in untouched for 6 minutes.
Then I added 200ml hot milk to the same with 2 spoons sugar.
Filtered the mixture using a strainer.
The result was NOT strong Coffee.
Questions:
Do I need a Coffee with less amount of Chicory?
Do I need to add more Coffee OR steep the same amount of Coffee for a much longer duration?
Coffee machines are quite cheap and if you don't want a full on 'machine', there are options like this or this.
If you watch when they make a coffee in a coffee shop they use a heaped tablespoon or two of coffee for a single cup... sounds like you are using far too little coffee. Also if you can strain out the grounds they are very coarse so take longer to release all of their flavour.
Chicory is completely a matter of personal taste.
Trying to make a coffee concentrate and then dilute it with milk is a very unusual practice (at least without an espresso machine). I don't know if the water will become saturated, but you might try brewing in a much larger volume of water, and then adding cream after which is a more typical practice.
6 minutes is a little long for most peoples' tastes; 4 minutes is more typical. You may be getting a more bitter cup than necessary due to overbrewing.
6 ml to 260 ml total beverage is very weak; you may try closer to 30 ml to 200 ml as a more typical starting ratio, which you can then adjust according to your taste.
Other than that, make sure your water is at appropriate brewing temperature (without a thermometer, bring it to a boil, then turn it off for a few seconds). Don't use metal glasses, which lose heat quickly; use something glass or ceramic.
See also: Coffee Geek discussion on rations (in metric)
thanks much, could you tell me how much cream is to be added to how much water to make a non-watery coffee? Your opinion?
That is completely a matter of taste. Many people juse none.
In addition. Variables that will effect the strength of your brew are the amount of coffee to water. Typically with an immersion brewing process like you're roughly doing, I use 7grams(~1tbsp) per cup. You can increase for more potent coffee. I use 205 degree Fahrenheit water(10seconds off boil) to brew, any higher will extract tastes you don't want, any lower will underextract. Without a filter you should expect sediment in the bottom of your cup.
Something you could try, since you don't have many tools needed to brew coffee, is a cold water extraction. In Costa Rica, they take the coffee beans and either crush them between 2 stones, much like they would mill corn for tortillas, or they would roughly crush the coffee using something like a mortar and pestel or even something like a rolling pin and a hard surface. Basically you just need to crush the bean into a coarse form. Then they would submerge a burlap sack of the ground coffee in water and just remove the bag after 24 hours.
This brewing process removes a lot of the variables that can contribute to make bad coffee. You don't have to worry about water tempurature, even ground coffee, or precise brewing times.
You could try submerging crushed ground coffee in cold water for 24 hours in a small cloth(food safe) sack of some sort. A ratio of 12oz of coffee per gallon(2liters) of water should work well. I've seen people use cotton clothes for similar processes, and even old tshirts(not recommended). Whatever you use make sure its food safe.
This will produce a very strong coffee concentrate, you could then dilute this with hot water or hot milk to heat it.
Where I used to work we had a drink that used cold water coffee extract(Toddy) and steamed it with milk to heat it up. You could try something like this, heating milk on the stove and adding it to the cold water coffee extract. The extract can be kept for up to a week in the fridge.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.962386 | 2014-03-02T13:35:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42447",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Iron Bodyfit - Gym Weston spam",
"Iron Bodyfit - Gyms Aventura",
"Iron Bodyfit Fort Lauderdale",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"houninym",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99252",
"kenntnisse",
"rfusca"
],
"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
} |
32093 | Shelf life of commercial jams with no preservatives?
This commercial peach jam does NOT contain any preservatives.
Room temperature is 20 C.
It is written on the bottle that it should be refrigerated after opening since it doesn't contain any preservatives.
For how long can I keep it in the cupboard after opening?
What's the issue with keeping it in the fridge after you open it?
Not everyone with internet access has a fridge.
You ask some very interesting questions Anisha.
There'll be a lot of variation depending on temperature, humidity, the exact nature of the jam, and pure dumb luck, but I wouldn't be surprised if it started growing mold within a week, if not within a day or two. When things say to refrigerate after opening, they tend to mean it.
but I thought sugar will prevent the bacteria?
@AnishaKaul Mold isn't bacteria.
@AnishaKaul And to elaborate a bit more, sugar is indeed a preservative, but it's not magic, especially when there's plenty of moisture present. This is why when you store jam and other preserves you have to process it in boiling water to kill whatever might be in there; some things will still grow in there. Once you've opened it back up, you allow recontamination and provide more air, so things are even more able to grow.
20C is 68 degrees F. That is a pretty much perfect temperature for fermentation to occur, and about the perfect temperature for mold to start growing. You're basically making a petri dish. Can you do it? Yes, but I'd be really, really careful. Let your sense of smell and your eyes guide you. If it smells bacterial or moldy, throw it.
Once the jar is opened, it may get contaminated, by anything suspended in the air, by cross-contamination ...etc.
sunlight
air
heat
moisture
nutrients (your jam)
All of these will provide good conditions for cell culture (e.g. molds).
Make sure you keep it sealed properly and stashed away in a dry cool place.
Because there are no preservatives, there is nothing to prevent or stall
those unwanted elements from growing. Use it within a few days.
If you ever had fruits / bread grow mold at your place, that should give you
an idea on how long you can expect to keep it once opened before it goes bad.
E.g. black bread mold loves temperatures 15 - 30 C.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.962743 | 2013-02-21T06:06:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32093",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Cascabel",
"Darla",
"Flying Thunder",
"Glenn Stevens",
"James McLeod",
"Kareen",
"Matthew",
"Mukhtar Albahlani",
"Wilfred Smith",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15718",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73827",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73828",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73837",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8339",
"little smokie"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
33090 | How to adjust the ingredients when recipe asks for salted peanuts and unsalted butter while I have the opposite?
The recipe is for cookies. Recipe asks for salted peanuts and unsalted butter while I have the unsalted peanuts and salted butter.
Nutralite Table spread: http://www.nutralite.com/about_nutralite.htm#link2
Amul butter: http://www.amul.com/products/amul-tablebutter-info.php
What should I increase and decrease here to balance out the mixture?
Using the information from the links you provided and the information found at the Planter's Nuts website (your mileage will vary depending on brand...) and little math (for the peanut's sodium per 100g) we learn that per 100g of each ingredient the sodium content is:
Nutralite: 786mg/100g
Amul: 836mg/100g
Salted Peanuts: 430mg/100g
If the recipe calls for (using the Amul):
4 cups of salted peanuts(@150g/cup => 600g peanuts => 2500mg sodium)
and
2 tablespoons of butter (@14g/tablespoon => 28g butter => 234mg
sodium)
So, loosing 2500mg sodium from the peanuts and only recouping 234mg sodium we need to add 2266 mg of sodium...now, sodium is only about 40% of salt...meaning that we need 5.6 grams of salt...at 6.375g/teaspoon means we should add about a teaspoon of salt.
Mathematically, this 'makes sense', however given that the peanuts are probably to be added at the end I would suggest salting the peanuts directly and then mixing the peanuts(with the salt added) as directed. The process of creaming the butter may distribute the salt a little differently in the mix. I would suggest starting with 3/4 teaspoon of salt then adjusting taste.
to be honest, I use salted butter in all my baking, no matter what the recipe says. I would lightly salt the peanuts, and just use salted butter. i find that generally salted butter is not really salty enough to make that much of a noticeable difference.
But what about the peanuts?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.962966 | 2013-03-29T04:06:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33090",
"authors": [
"Bernard",
"Cascabel",
"Dragos Balota",
"GeoffH",
"Nikolay Bronskiy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76589",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76804",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76872",
"yO_",
"ΓΙΑΝΝΗΣ"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
18595 | What can you make with Dried Lemon Grass?
A friend went to Cambodia for vacatation, and brought back many packets of dried lemon grass. Can someone tell me what its uses are, and mention some easy to prepare dishes that make use of dried lemon grass? I can prepare many types of Indian food, never really come across this.
Thanks for the help!
Personally I don't find dried lemon grass that flavorsome and much prefer fresh (usually you can get several big sticks for cheap in the Chinese / Asian supermarkets).
But I'd probably try Thai based dishes - many of their noodle soups (e.g. Tom Yum, chicken noodle soup) will have slices of fresh lemon grass in. I'd try adding the dry stuff when you are making the stock and see how it works out.
You could also try stir fries and looking around there are several drinks prepared with it (e.g. Lemongrass vodka (at the bottom of the page) and cooling drinks here). Though I suspect again fresh would be better
Thanks for the links! Gonna try Aubergine curry with lemon grass and coconut milk :)
I like to drink infusion made of lemon grass. Hot is nice, and cold with some ginger or watermellon juice is very refreshing.
A strong infusion mixed with coconut milk and simmered to get some consistency makes a great seasoning for light fish meat.
Tea steeped in some lemongrass is a dream. We always had it in India...brilliant. I also use it for chicken dishes. I steep them and utilize the liquid in my cooking. I freeze dry them, grind them with some red chillies and keep that As a
paste that I include in cooking.
I've had good results making soup, where I first boil dried lemon grass and dried galangal in water, then strain, then proceed with making the soup.
Adds a great flavour and nothing to pick out.
I think if you don't want to strain it, you have to use fresh lemon grass, but even in that case you just chew on it a bit, you don't actually eat the lemon grass; it is too fibrous.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.963262 | 2011-10-27T05:02:01 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18595",
"authors": [
"Bev",
"Billal Begueradj",
"HDE 226868",
"Jade ",
"Sahas",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40265",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67657",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68056",
"mike",
"user198135"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
32730 | How to avoid cinnamon sludge in a beverage?
When you grind up cinnamon (say in a coffee grinder) and use it in a drink, it ends up producing this thick sludge.
You can only prevent the sludge from forming if you leave it very course. Why does it turn to sludge? I swear I once had a container of cinnamon that did not produce sludge. Am I buying the wrong cinnamon?
Are you using a sifter to sprinkle?
The cinnamon "sludge" is fiber. The fiber that came from the cinnamon is soluble in water.
10 grams of cinnamon is about 8 grams of fiber (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinnamon).
It is safe to eat / drink (fiber!) in moderate amount (Chinese cinnamon or cassia is not safe in high dose because of its toxic component called coumarin).
Of course, cinnamon sticks won't produce so much sludge.
If you use a hot drink, stir it so it doesn't sit at the bottom.
Ceylon cinnamon ("true" cinnamon) is different from Chinese cinnamon ("cassia") and may have different properties with regard to solubility and water. Check out your container that doesn't sludge, and compare with what you have been using in your grinder.
In the US at least cassia is the predominant "cinnamon".
@Sobachatina, Is there an authoritive reference for "chinese cinnamon or cassia is not safe in high dose"? I have not seen that anywhere (that there is a difference in safety between the two Cinnamons); I am not an expert but I have searched the internet about Cinnamon.
@user34660 Google "cassia coumarin". Here is a representative and authoritative source.
Just to add, coumarin is metabolized differently by mice/rats and humans. While it does cause liver damage in those animals (and others), humans don't suffer the same adverse effects.
After having to avoid consuming powdered cinnamon for months, I've recently found out the method to prevent it from turning into a slime when mixed with water or tea (hot or cold).
The trick is to mix the cinnamon with honey first. You can mix 1/2 teaspoon of cinnamon with a teaspoon or two of honey, and stir it up very well so that the mixture becomes homogeneous as much as possible. Then slowly add the water or tea while stirring the mixture. A cup of mixture prepared this way will make a perfect drink.
Since honey is very healthy by itself, it can only boost positive effects the cinnamon has.
Use a two bottle system. Make your cinnamon tea and let is stand overnight to settle, then decant into the second bottle leaving the sludge behind.
I use a french press to make my loose leaf tea. All the cinnamon slime gets wrapped around the fine mesh strainer, and does not go into my tea or coffee.
If I am going to drink hot cinnamon drinks i use a shaker bottle to keep the powder mixed into the drink.
I've tried all the already mentioned methods to avoid the "sludge factor" and all have been unsuccessful for me. My solution? I don't put the honey/cinnamon mixture into a liquid. I make a paste of 2 teaspoons cinnamon stirred into 1 tablespoon of honey. I use it as one would jam on toast or hot biscuits, or on apple or pear slices. Make it ahead if you like as it will keep indefinitely refrigerated or not. The mixture ratio was found online as one being most beneficial when taken daily to get the health benefits.
It may help to use a mesh bag or strainer. This doesn't precisely prevent the sludge, but it can help one avoid it in their drink.
mesh bags, or even tea bags, are available and often used for such purposes - allowing flavor to infuse out while keeping the less-desirable parts (like the fiber in cinnamon) in the bag, easy to pull out and dispose of.
It may be wise to consider pre-preparing your cinnamon infusion or tisane, especially if making a complex or thickly textured drink - this will let you get the cinnamon flavor without problems like heating ingredients not meant to be heated in a cold drink, or letting flavor infuse more easily into a thin liquid rather than a thick one.
I recently bought a bottle of powdered cinnamon form Target (their brand) and it sludges for me when I mix it in water. This is not normal! Before I had bought cinnamon from Trader Joe's forever and it never sludges, and mixes in to drinks so nicely! I recommended getting your cinnamon from Trader Joe's because it never sludges!
I found cinnamon sludges if it is too finely ground
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.963466 | 2013-03-16T05:14:06 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32730",
"authors": [
"Brenda Weekley Thompson",
"Denise Baker",
"Diana Jaquillard",
"Doug",
"MandoMando",
"Sam Hobbs",
"Sobachatina",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"bobobobo",
"gpryor3",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102915",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51851",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75645",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75648",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75649",
"kitukwfyer",
"verbose"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
11484 | How to deal with flare up when broiling a steak?
I was broiling a steak (with the fat on, and I had also lightly coated it with olive oil).
After I had turned it over, about the 2nd minute (before it was done) there was a huge pop and a small flame inside, it appeared a piece of grease exploded out of the steak and hit the element.
I left it about 5 cm away from the element (2") which usually gives a cook I like. But I'm starting to think the way I'm doing it is possibly a fire hazard.
Is what I'm doing wrong? Can you cook a steak like that? What do you do about the flare up and mini explosions?
Also, it should be noted that if your oven does catch fire, close the door and turn off the heat. The fire should go out fairly quickly (especially in an electric oven) from lack of oxygen. Keep in mind that opening the door will add oxygen. If at all in doubt, call the fire department.
Broiling a steak is a great way to cook it. There are a few things you can do to avoid your issue.
No need to oil your steak. It should have great flavor as is.
To avoid problems with grease under your steak, put it on a wire rack over a 13x9 inch pan (or similar) with 2 inch high walls. Put 1/2 cup of kosher salt in the pan. This soaks up grease drips. America's Test Kitchen's recipe gave me this idea.
Pull the rack out when flipping steak, flipping it away from the element to avoid grease hitting the element. It might take a bit longer to cook this way, but you'll still get a good crust.
Just wanted to say that I had steak recently made with the America's Test Kitchen recipe. They also recommend warming the steak in the oven before broiling, so that the temperature difference isn't so great between the outside and the inside of the steak. Made for a fantastic and tender steak, without the grey streak inside.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.963840 | 2011-01-26T01:07:57 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11484",
"authors": [
"Martha F.",
"Mike Christiansen",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23588"
],
"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
} |
13061 | Oil-like stain when cooking with gas
I've been boiling water with some new pots on a gas stove and it leaves (left) a stain on the bottom (on the inside) that has the same color pattern as when oil drifts on water.
What could be causing this and is it 'a bad thing' ?
Does it look like this?
@Aaronut: No that's not what it looks like, it's really got purple/blue/... colors like an oil stain. I would upload a picture but i won't be home until tomorrow.
I've seen a number of varying explanations of this phenomenon, but all agree that it's a normal effect to see on stainless steel cookware and is harmless (assuming you are cleaning your pan well).
It is probably some combination of the minerals in your water, high heat, and oil or soap residue. The harsher detergents and sometimes less effective rinse of a dishwasher might make the problem more prevalent than if you wash the pots by hand. It may also be caused by oxidation of the metal itself and you can remove it by scouring or with a bit of vinegar or lemon juice.
You can pretty much ignore it, unless it bothers you for aesthetic reasons.
Thank you, i just wanted to know if i was doing something wrong and if it could have any bad side-effects. This pretty much wraps it up :)
This is something people commonly do to titanium to get a nice permanent rainbow-into-indigo effect without paint.
As a side note: this tends to occur where you have used too large a burner for the pan or had the gas turned up too high. Flames should be under the pot/pan and not lick up around the sides. Although it isn't dangerous it could indicate you're wasting energy and if your pan has a handle doing this will reduce the lifespan of the pan.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.964023 | 2011-03-12T12:46:41 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13061",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Aerus",
"HasH_BrowN",
"Nancy R.",
"bikeboy389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27038",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27042",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5110",
"jenny",
"timpone",
"vwiggins"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
12775 | Boiling things using salt
Since recently i have to cook for myself and a lot of products mention i should boil some water with salt and when it boils add the product.
Why on earth do you have to add salt to the water?
This is generally to season the thing being boiled whilst it is cooking. The salt will infiltrate the innards of the thing being cooked infusing it with some seasoning.
Try with something basic like pasta or rice to see the difference between cooking in plain water and cooking in salted water.
This quesion and this one might also provide some insight.
@Aerus: Definitely worth trying the difference to convince you of the necessity of salt. Starch foods like potato, pasta, rice without salt in the cooking liquid are barely palatable, though of course it is personal preference.
@orbling "barely palatable" is subjective of course. Many of us have trained our palates to demand salt, but it's possible to untrain your palate, and if you have kids, to avoid training them that way in the first place. My grandparents demanded huge amounts of salt. I'm down to a scant half-teaspoon in two portions of rice.
@slim: Well I guess it's subjective, not everything requires salt, but some of the foods we eat, particularly in that category are exceptionally bland without enhancers like salt. Not sure what your portion size is, but I would guess I add about 4 tsps to 250ml of dried rice.
@orbling Yes, for me that's loads. I put half a teaspoon for about 170ml of dried rice. That's with the absorption cooking method, so all the salt ends up in the rice. I suggest that salt masks the actual flavour of the food -- but you get used to the salt, so you taste through it.
@slim: Agreed, but up to a point. Good rice, like basmati, has quite a nice flavour. New potatoes, or dried pasta or some of the blander rice is not far from flavourless. Yes, it is a lot of salt, using the absorption method, I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum.
There are also several reasons beyond seasoning that apply when boiling vegetables:
Salted water will cause vegetables to become tender faster than plain water because it speeds the breakdown of vegetables' cell walls.
Salted water will preserve the natural flavor of vegetables. Using plain water actually draws the natural salt out of the vegetables, into the water.
I think both of these are old wives' tales. Heston Blumenthal's cookbook details some experiments he did on the matter.
Harold McGee provides scientific justifications for both in On Food and Cooking. And certainly for #2, vegetables have some salt content higher than water, and it follows that boiling them will pull the salt out of them. It's pickling in reverse.
Something I've learned recently is that if you are cooking dried beans (not from a can) then you do NOT use any salt until the beans are fully cooked! If you salt the boiling water for the beans, it actually toughens their skins to a level that won't go away and isn't pleasant. It doesn't affect the flavor, but the texture is too chewy.
This is true, though not "fully" cooked, near the end of cooking, so the salt has some penetration, just not early when they will toughen.
Adding salt just slows down or stops osmosis, so the cells of the vegetables do not blow up with water or burst. Salts cannot pass the cell walls, they are SEMI permeable, so there is no leakage of salts into the boiling water... otherwise you would not have osmosis at all. Likewise, the salt cannot get into the cells. Other nutrients may leak into the water, though I do not know that...well obviously some do, otherwise the water wouldnt get any colour or taste, but how salt infuences this I do not know. Oversalting would result in water leaking out of the cells, and so more nutrients would be lost, I think.
Sodium can pass through cell membranes. I'm less clear on how that works in (dead) vegetables than in (living) human cells, but it's definitely able to get through.
You are right, but not quite. Sodium transport through the membrane is an active process, that cost energy. So they cannot pass, but have to be pumped. The question is indeed, does this still happen in dead cells, killed by boiling water? I guess not. I guess that is the reason why starting in boiling water (killing them quickly) is good. But that is another question.
Can you include some sources for your answer, then? Guesswork is OK, but backing it up with research is better.
Dunno about the reserarch, because it is pretty basic biology, but sure, here is a wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ion_transporter
I meant in the answer, since you are speculating about nutrient loss.
Ok, but then I should link to osmosis as well, right? And moleculary theory? Otherwise it makes no sense?
It's up to you. I'm just saying there were things in your answer that I found confusing, as well as some outright speculation. And that's fine, I'm just one user and not the OP, but it is a possible path to making your answer more thorough. I honestly don't know enough about the science (as we've established :) ) to say what the appropriate sources or explanation might be.
Yes I understand that. OK. This question is very fundamentall (all seemingly simple questions are). OK, lets start here:
https://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/content/9780262195096_sch_0001.pdf
I was confused the first time I read this because you weren't specific what direction of osmosis you're talking about and why it is or isn't happening - initially use "osmosis" to mean water going into the cells (due to the water outside being pure, while the water inside isn't) but then later you talk about water leaking out of the cells. Once I read the whole thing and thought about it a moment I got it, but ideally you could make it clearer than that.
Yes, it is terribly confusing isnt it, ?I am sorry: Osmosis: water going the way where the most salts are.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.964233 | 2011-03-04T15:27:37 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12775",
"authors": [
"Annie in Long Beach",
"Cascabel",
"Erica",
"Jasmine",
"Karen Ward",
"Marc Luxen",
"Naing Oo",
"Orbling",
"Riyad El-Laithy",
"S466531257BOSS",
"Tai",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159135",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26406",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26408",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4341",
"slim",
"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
} |
33757 | In what proportion should the given ingredients be combined to form a cookie?
These ingredients were listed on a cookie pack available in the market.
I would like to know what combinations of the following ingredients can be used to produce around 200gms cookies?
Wheat flour
Sugar
Vanaspati
Edible Oil
Atta
Ajwain
Glucose
Salt
Custard
Milk powder
Synthetic colour
Leaving Agents
Permitted flavor and Emulsifier Agents
Wheat flour should be read as all purpose flour.
Questions:
What sugar should be used? White or Brown?
Can vanaspati be replaced with anything (clarified butter)?
Custard refers to custard powder or the custard which is ready to eat?
Why is glucose needed when the sugar is already there?
What should be added as Emulsifier Agents?
Water isn't mentioned here but should I assume that it is needed?
Besides for preparing 200gms "crispy" cookies roughly what quantity of each of the ingredient should be added?
It is nearly impossible to reverse engineer an industrial cookie recipe from its ingredient list directly--especially without the final product to compare to.
Some of the ingredients may be unique to the industrial process (such as "glucose" or "emulsifiers"), hard to obtain, or proprietary. Some of the steps may require special processing or equipment.
Furthermore, your local labeling laws may be different than other places, so we would not know how to interpret this list of ingredients. For example, in the US, the ingredients would have to be listed in order, by weight.
Instead, you should search for recipes that produce the kind of cookies you want that are designed for the home kitchen.
I cannot speak to local products in India, but here in the US there are many web sites or blogs where authors try to recreate recipes of popular commercial food products. These recipes are designed for the home kitchen, and may not have the exact same ingredients or techniques as the commercial product on which they are modeled, but are instead designed to have similar outcomes. I don't know if such sites exist in India, but I would suggest searching to see what you can find; failing that, I would search based on the name of the cookie for recipes for this type of cookie.
In terms of some of the specific questions:
What sugar should be used? White or Brown? If this was the US, it would always be white unless otherwise specified, but your local labeling laws may differ.
Can vanaspati be replaced with anything (clarified butter)? Probably, but that will affect the taste and texture of the cookie. Many industrial recipes use ingredients which are less expensive than the ideal ingredient, to keep costs down.
Custard refers to custard powder or the custard which is ready to eat? That would depend on your local labeling laws; here in the US custard would never be listed as a single ingredient without parenthetically describing each of it's ingredients as well. I would guess powder if I had to guess... but listing it like this may be part of how they keep their actual recipe secret while complying with local labeling requirements.
Why is glucose needed when the sugar is already there? It is almost certainly present to alter the texture of the cookie in some way, either interfering with crystal development of the other sugars at some part of the process, or for its hydroscopic properties to help retain moisture. This is the kind of ingredient that is often used in industrial recipes, but far less commonly used in home recipes.
What should be added as Emulsifier Agents? Again, it depends on what your local labeling laws permit, and these may be ingredients that are rarely used in home cooking. The most common emulsifier in home baking is egg yolks, which contain significant quantities of lecithin.
Water isn't mentioned here but should I assume that it is needed? Maybe, but there was also that "custard" listed, and we don't know what it means or contains.
It is nearly impossible to reverse engineer an industrial cookie recipe from its ingredient list directly--especially without the final product to compare to. Should I post the cookie picture here? will that help?
The picture will help narrow it down, but it won't change the basic answer.
I am not looking for "exact" recipe. I take a picture and will post it here, then I "do hope" that you and others will be able to guide regarding the ingredient quantities required. :)
Anisha, you will be far better off starting with the name of the cookie, and googling for recipes. Reverse engineering commercial/industrial recipes is almost impossible, as I said.
Well, if you are talking about the name of "this" cookie, then the only tile I could find on the pack was "Oven baked fresh cookies". :(
@AnishaKaul Names aren't the only way to search - just look for crispy cookie recipes, perhaps even ones containing some of those ingredients. (Though of course, you can always just add ajwain yourself, for example.) Especially if you find things posted with pictures, you should be able to find a starting point.
I assume you don't mean to literally make an industrially-produced cookie with synthetic colors, glucose, "permitted flavors", and emulsifier agents — but rather recreate a flavor you found pleasing in the product as a homemade equivalent.
You can invent (or reinvent) a cookie recipe by starting with a series of basic ratios that essentially "define" a cookie. Michael Ruhlman wrote an excellent book called Ratio: The Simple Codes Behind the Craft of Everyday Cooking that documents the basic ratios behind the recipes we follow every day.
Cookie Dough : 1 part sugar: 2 parts fat : 3 parts flour
(Can someone please verify these numbers? Thanks.)
These numbers are by weight. That's a cookie.
To reproduce a recipe from your ingredient list, start by dividing those ingredients up into the basic categories listed above: sugar(s), fat(s), flour(s). This may take a bit of research to find out in which category some of those belong. But in the most basic terms, dry ingredients go in the 'flour' category and wet ones 'fat'. Sometimes you have to read between the lines and understand the role of an ingredient like "custard" or "milk powder" plays. (Note: In most baking, sugar is categorized as a 'liquid', but luckily sugar is just 'sugar' in this case). If something looks to be more about the industrial process or preservation, it's probably safe to skip it in for the home version.
For 200 grams of cookies, you'll need a bit more than 33 grams sugar(s), 67 grams fat(s), and 99 grams flour(s). (There will be a bit of weight lost during backing, but let's ignore that. This is going to get inexact very quickly)
Once you have the basic ingredients divided into their categories. It's time to start making cookie dough. Getting the recipe "right" is figuring out how much of each ingredients you'll need for each category. Really, the only way to do that is through trial-and-error, taste testing, and (longer term) experience.
I would start by looking at a few similar cookies recipes to see how much of ingredients they have in common are needed (leavening, salt, etc). From there, you can start extrapolating and filling-in-the-blanks with the rest. Once you get started, it's easier to say "mmmm... good, but needs more synthetic color flour." You'll quickly start to learn (or you can research) what the effects of adding "more eggs" or "more fat" has on a cookie recipe. This will all start to come together much quicker with experience.
Sorry, I don't have the exact recipe for your "oven baked fresh cookies"; but honestly, once you start playing with the basic ingredients and ratios, you'll likely invent something better than the original. I use lists of "secret ingredient" all the time, and end up inventing my best recipes that way.
Good luck!
With respect to Michael Ruhlman, there is so much more to a recipe than just the ratio. Technique matters a very great deal, and ratios vary more than he admits for different types and applications of the dishes within the categories, and then there are the other ingredients. This is a good way to invent a recipe, but it has little to do with the commercial ingredient list, and everything to do with a traditional experiment and adjust iteration :-)
And no, the "other ingredients" are in addition to the ratio ingredients, not part of those ratio categories. Sorry. This one fact is part of the reason why Ratio is oversimplified as a concept, although it does call out some basic concepts.
@SAJ14SAJ Sure. Your answer spoke to the purpose (and substations) for those ingredients; excellent job! I was trying to address the "combinations" part of her question. Yes, that's only a start, but a better start than saying "can't be done" or "look it up on the Internet." Anyway, that's how *I* do it.
I agree with the iterative experimental method of recipe development, no doubt.
To be fair, Ratio also often mentions how to tweak the ratios to do something like, say, make a cookie crispy.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.964728 | 2013-04-26T04:46:43 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33757",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Cascabel",
"Robert Cartaino",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
32565 | How to know how many tablespoons of seeds correspond to 1 table spoon of its ground form?
Please point out a conversion method or the Google keywords which would result in a trusted measuring chart for converting seeds to powder or paste form or vice versa.
Example:
1 tablespoon of powdered Coriander seeds correspond to how many tablespoons of raw Coriander seeds.
Anisha, this is one I just wouldn't worry about. Any quality recipe where the amount is critical will give you weight measurements, not volume, and these are of course exactly the same pre-groudn and ground. Otherwise, just give it an eye estimate--if you are slightly under you can grind some more; if slightly over, save the extra. And in most recipes, it doesn't matter for the chemistry or outcome, just the flavor, which you would adjust anyway.
Hard to get an accurate chart since Seed sizes and their hollowness vary as does grind fineness; all affecting the volume. As Saj14saj noted, weighing is the best option. My guess is coriander seeds drop to 1/3 or so.
@SAJ14SAJ I'm sorry, but I really wouldn't expect to see weights for spices even in most good recipes and cookbooks. It's a nice idea in theory, but people just don't do it. And in practice it might not even be useful, since spice quantities often get down into the fraction of a gram range, and virtually no one has scales that precise in their kitchens.
@Jefromi I would in professional quality scalable recipes. But the point is, at home it just doesn't matter that much at home scales.
I found these links, might be helpful: 1. http://www.cooking-with-us.com/spiceconversion.php# 2. http://www.smithandtruslow.com/spice_conversions.php
Possible duplicate: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/15865/1672 - I'm not sure if the answers there will satisfy you, though. The non-accepted answer is the only one that actually answers the question, and it does have a rule of thumb that's probably mostly good enough.
It depends on how accurate you want, but based upon the book On Food And Cooking: The Science And Lore Of The Kitchen by Harold McGee, this is not possible to be 100% accurate. This is probably too accurate for your needs, but as you didn't state how accurate you want, I'll only explain why it can't be 100% accurate.
Measuring by tablespoons or the like doesn't take into consideration the size of the food on the spoon (the seed in this case). For example, not every seed has the same shape, size or mass. So when grinding to a powder, you're not working with consistent seeds.
This means, if you take 1tbs (or ever better, a cup) or seeds and then weight it, and then take another measure you'll have different results.
The problem with powder, is it depends on how fine you're going. The finer will allow you have more powder in the same space compared to something 'grated' a little thicker. There is also the issue of air which gets into the powders which will have some factor.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.965386 | 2013-03-10T07:01:28 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32565",
"authors": [
"Amaroq",
"Cascabel",
"Divi",
"MandoMando",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79533",
"khole thompson"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
86092 | What is the way to use a readymade double boiler with whistle?
I have purchased this double boiler.
It is written that we have to fill water after opening the whistle.
How much water am I supposed to fill? How do I know that?
I filled it completely with water. Then it blew the whistle. Now how I am supposed to know that milk has boiled completely or it has just heated up?
How do I know whether it has boiled enough to kill the germs?
What are you trying to do with your milk?
I have to boil the milk such that the germs are killed and it becomes fit for drinking @Catija
@Aquarius_Girl Milk only needs to reach 161 F (72C) for 15 seconds to be pasteurized. That is far below the boil. So, it is safe when it hits the boil.
You are supposed to fill enough water such that you can heat the milk well, but not fill it to the top - you need a bit of space for steam to build up so the whistle will work. Fill it to a height somewhere half between the milk height and whistle height, you don't need to be exact though.
When the whistle blows, the water will be at full boil, so 100 Celsius. The steel of the inner vessel is quite efficient in conducting that heat, so the milk will be close to 100 Celsius, but not at 100 (that's why it doesn't boil over). I don't know the exact temperature and don't have tables for pasteurization times in this range, so in this case, you have to trust that the manufacturer has checked these tables, tested the product, and ensured that the milk is safe at the temperature reached in its pot.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.965731 | 2017-12-03T13:46:36 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86092",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Catija",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
52105 | What is the easiest way to remove the papery covers from the peanuts?
Intention is to make peanut butter. What is the easiest way to achieve the said aim?
Related, but not a dupe (there are other ways besides blanching): http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11611/how-to-blanch-and-peel-nuts?lq=1
Here's someone with a lot of experience doing it! video
Dropping the peanuts into boiling water for a couple of minutes, then draining and rinsing in cold water is supposed to make them easier and quicker to peel.
I've heard freezing them overnight helps.
One method method that I have actually done is to peel them by rubbing them with a towel while they are still warm from being roasted. The trick there is to only roast small batches at a time so you can get to them all before they cool.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.965882 | 2014-12-30T15:37:06 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/52105",
"authors": [
"Alison",
"Anu Nutt",
"Bernadette Bisseling BB",
"Cascabel",
"Dalyop Ketura",
"Heather Whittaker",
"Samuel Murphy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125631",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
55840 | How do I dissolve chunky powder completely in milk?
I am talking especially about Cadbury Bournvita.
That powder has tiny and somewhat hard chunks in it which don't get dissolved easily. How do dissolve it completely in milk?
how different is this from other chocolate powders like Ovaltine? I seem to remember that one in particular being more chunky than Nestle Quik. If it's not more coarse than sand (nothing larger than 2mm), you might take a look at http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/8274/67
I have hershey's cocoa powder. It is all smooth and not at all difficult to mix. Mine is a "chunky" powder, chunks are not smooth, they are small and don't get broken easily.
I think the Q&A linked by @Joe has most of the tricks in it. Hot, paste, make syrup, blender, etc. Mixing stuff into cold milk (unless specially prepped for that) is not a good scene. Surprising they haven't done better at that given the marketing, but corporate competence is a rare thing - they may be too big to get someone that knows how to make a powder dissolve in cold milk working where they need to work - Nestle solved that one (at least) 50 years ago. Too many vice presidents, and not enough food science engineers? Puzzling.
If you have "small hard chunks" either pre-grind dry in a mortar and pestle, or grind the paste step suggested in the other answer in a mortar and pestle with a little liquid.
Or contact Cadbury all wide eyed and innocent and ask why you get little hard chunks when you mix their product (I assume, as instructed on the package) 8-)
Everything about the product site seems to imply that it's designed for cold consumption, though... I though the same thing, that mixing into hot was necessary because it had some actual chocolate chunks that needed melting but I removed the comment because it looks like it's designed for cold.
The reason not all producers, produce easy to mix powders is an effort to be 100% "natural". Products like nestle use stuff sugar or maltodextrin to ease the mixing process.
As Ecnerwal answer implies, there are various ways, but from my experience with baking-grade cocoa: go with pasting. Add a LITTLE milk at first, stir, repeat until you have a paste, continue adding milk slowly and stirring until you have a liquid. Then add all the milk and/or other liquids you want.
I do this for making even hot chocolate drinks, because it dissolves almost-undissolvable baking-cocoa just fine :).
Cocoa powder is actually insoluble, and the last I read about it, it might still be an open research question which nobody has a complete solution to yet. Here's a pretty old but relevant article - https://www.newfoodmagazine.com/article/1290/will-cocoa-ever-dissolve-in-water/. The physical and chemical makeup of cocoa powder is just different from most other soluble beverage powders.
An undersized wire loop wisk is indispensable for mixing dry products that clump into liquids smoothly, from powdered milk to dry gravy mixes to protein powders.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.966006 | 2015-03-19T00:01:41 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55840",
"authors": [
"AKKA",
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Catija",
"Chelsea Plantar",
"Doug",
"Francesco Battistoni",
"Janine Forest",
"Joe",
"Kim Armitage",
"M.DAMARIO FARIS",
"Natalie Bojan",
"Pawan Magar",
"Sakshi Nevase",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132700",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132701",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132702",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132705",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132713",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132723",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"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
} |
55537 | Is it advisable to use the Extra Virgin Olive oil for Indian cooking, and baking?
I use this oil for baking cup cakes, and I add this oil to the whole wheat dough meant for preparing parathas on the gas stove?
My mother uses it for frying vegetables on the gas stove.
Hence the question in the title. Should I be vary of anything here?
The duplicate is somewhat more general than this one, but specifically deals with olive oil too. We also have tons of other questions on frying with olive oil, for example http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17605/. If I misunderstood why you are asking this (I don't see how the cupcakes are relevant to frying?) and these are not duplicates, please edit.
That is a waste of very expensive olive oil. When heated. Olive oil loses a lot of its beautiful flavour. Plus the spices in Indian cooking kill the olive oil flavour. That is why parathas are cooked in butter and ghee, these oils release flavour when heated.
I would not use olive oil in indian cooking and baking. The olive flavor is not compatible with the flavors of most styles of indian food. I wouldn't use it for baking cup cakes in any style of cooking, I would recommend a more neutral flavored vegetable oil.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.966542 | 2015-03-08T16:41:53 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55537",
"authors": [
"Bill",
"Brenda Feagins",
"Jan Swallows",
"Kaushik",
"Kim Hart",
"Shelbie W",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131964",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131965",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131966",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7477",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
13525 | Why Buckwheat Pancakes?
I'm interested in buckwheat. What is it, what are the common uses, and why are there so many recipies (relatively speaking) for buckwheat pancakes? What does the buckwheat do to a pancake that makes it particularly well suited for that item?
Does it have certain nutritional or chemical properties that it is valued for in the cooking community?
Is it common among serious/enthusiast chefs, and I'm just out of the loop?
I've no evidence of this, but... Buckwheat's lack of gluten would seem to lend itself more readily to something like pancakes than, say, bread (not that you can't use it for bread, but it won't have a great texture). That said, many recipes also call for wheat flour. FWIW, I used to love buckwheat... Then I developed an allergy to it. Vomiting really kills the enjoyment.
@knives- good call about the lack of gluten. I forgot about that one.
Buckwheat seems to have fallen out of favor in the US. In other countries it is still a staple.
In Russia buckwheat (grechka) is eaten as a hot cereal- just boil it until it bursts and add some sweetened condensed milk. Delicious. In fact- the best way I have purchased it locally is by finding international grocery stores that have a Russian section.
It has a very distinctive nutty, earthy flavor. You would recognize it if you have had it so it seems unlikely to me that there might be some clandestine usage and you are "out of the loop" at all.
Although it is very nutritious (a whole grain and all), it is used in pancakes just for the flavor. It's usage in pancakes seems to be purely traditional and taking informal surveys of my friends (in Texas) it is uncommon for anyone to know what it is at all.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.966683 | 2011-03-28T14:52:44 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13525",
"authors": [
"Shog9",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
19755 | Apple Pie in a Jar Drink
I was recently out of town for a business trip and heard some people talking about some type of drink that they had at a party called Apple Pie in a Jar. I was curious if anyone else has heard of this and would know how to make it? It sounds interesting especially since I like Apple Pie.
Sounds like you're talking about this recipe.
Looks like some apple juice, cider, cinnamon,sugar, and some grain alcohol.
I have also heard of a similar drink consisting of mulled cider, Tuaca liqueur, and whipped cream.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.966846 | 2011-12-18T19:57:21 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19755",
"authors": [
"A DiRoma",
"Ishan Arora",
"Rock",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43075",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43076",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43078",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5561",
"user5561"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
18531 | Are there any differences between "baby" vegetables and their "regular" counterparts
I'm referring to vegetables like baby carrots, baby spinach, baby cucumber, etc. Supermarkets sell quite a few "baby" varieties of vegetables and they seem to be priced more expensive per ounce than their "regular" counterparts.
Am I naive thinking that (for instance) baby carrots are simply carrots harvested early? Or are they a different kind of carrot, just small?
I'm looking for nutritional as well as culinary differences. For instance, if a recipe calls for a "baby" vegetable, can you substitute it for a finely chopped regular vegetable?
Eating babies..oh the humanity!
Talking about nutritional value on here can be tricky, because this site about cooking
Are baby carrots are simply carrots harvested early? Or are they a different kind of carrot, just small?
Yes they are harvested earlier, or even grown more closely. However nowadays they have developed miniature strains which are mature when small in stature. This page contains lot of information about baby carrots, an even a video, so you can try growing this in your garden.
Baby carrots are not as nutritious as full whole carrots, because a lot of the goodness in carrots is contained in the skin and just below it. This is removed in the baby carrot making process. A pack of baby carrots look more aesthetic and they are more tender/sweeter, that is a selling point.
Your answer does a great job at explaining botanical differences and similarities, but I'd like to add some more culinary information: In the cases where "baby" does actually refer to younger versions of the same plant, you often have a more tender structure / texture (e.g. in baby spinach the stems are less hard, because they have had less time to harden out) and a milder flavour (see again baby spinach, where the flavours have had less time to become sharp over time).
Sure @ErikP you can edit your contribution, or if it is lot of content, you can post it as your own answer :)
Actually that was all I had as additional content - which I felt was a little thin to serve as a full answer... :)
Baby carrots are not young carrots, but rather small pieces of carrots that are chopped and whittled down to look like small carrots.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.966929 | 2011-10-24T02:32:33 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18531",
"authors": [
"Cookiemonsterr_",
"CptEric",
"Erik P.",
"PTwr",
"Reno",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40133",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40135",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
127972 | How good is the quality of OEM extra virgin olive oil compared to that of a known brand by the same packing company?
How good is the quality of OEM extra virgin olive oil compared to that of a known brand by the same packing company?
For example, Acesur has a well known brand La Espanola. It also makes available OEM services. How is the quality of its OEM evoo compared to that of its own brand? See https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/127932/
Does a/the company that provides the OEM services complete packaging oil into bottles and sealing the bottles, while its clients only need to creat their own labels to stick to the exterior of the bottles? Isn't that more appropriately called ODM than OEM?
Does the quality of its OEM oil that is available to end consumers depend on and vary with the clients of its OEM oil?
I would expect that to be a question of what kind of service is ordered by the customer - the one using the service, not the consumer. I am not sure if this is within our scope, tbh. Your questions about olive oils have been skirting very close to what is considered shopping advice.
Most olive oil producers have a number of grades and styes of olive oil, from low grade 'I can taste a bit of olive if I use my imagination' oil to super high quality 'OMG I didn't realize anything could taste like that' oil. Some may offer less refined cloudy products, some may offer medical grades as well.
OEM oil services are how most store brands are produced, and have a very wide range of quality based on the price point the store wants to sell the oil at. A cheap and cheerful grocery store would want a cheaper and lower quality oil, which may be lower than the quality of the bottom of that OEM producer's range, while a top end luxury supermarket chain would want something closer to premium to warrant the cost they'll sell it at.
As to whether the producer would make an OEM product better than their own flagship products there's no way to say, it would be a business decision based on how precious they are about their own brand.
By the way, labeling is usually part of the service these companies offer, so customers don't even have to stick a label on. Label art is usually supplied by the customer, I wouldn't expect an olive oil manufacturer to offer label design services, but some of the larger ones that are part of huge international conglomerates might.
There have been a few reports that many of the ‘flavorful’ olive oils sold to Americans are that way because they’re starting to go rancid. So it’s possible that a packager might take the questionable oil in their tanks and use it to fill bottles with someone else’s name on it, even if it might have been higher quality oil originally
Specific example: Santini makes their own 100% pure Italian EV olive oil, which is one of the better middle-tier oils out there. They also make a second, OEM variety for Trader Joe's, which contains a blend of discount-OO-market oils from all over Europe. The TJ's store brand oil is definitely two steps in quality below their brand-name oil, because TJ's is mostly concerned with price.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.967118 | 2024-03-28T04:41:32 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/127972",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
125008 | Can a tool for cracking macadamia nuts be used for cracking hickory nuts?
Chinese hickory nuts (山核桃), or Carya cathayensis, are related to American pecans. Both are species of hickory, Carya illinoinensis.
Here is an example of Chinese hickory nuts from Changbai Mountain (长白山).
What tools can I use to crack Chinese hickory nuts?
Can a tool for cracking macadamia nuts, for example, the following two, be used for cracking Chinese hickory nuts? I have the first tool but not the second.
Thanks.
I've cracked pecans with my hands, anything should work really
@Esther Thanks, Does Chinese hickory nut look more difficult to crack than American pecan? Does it look like having thicker shell?
From the picture these nuts look like they are much harder to crack than a walnut or hazelnut. The macadamia cracker looks like it could get them open but I don't know whether you will get the nuts out in one piece. A fist sized rock works great for almonds so that might also be worth a try.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.967365 | 2023-08-18T12:53:45 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125008",
"authors": [
"Esther",
"Tim",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81322",
"quarague"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
124019 | Where can I look up the amount of omega-3 in unit weight of monkfish?
Where can I look up the amount of omega-3 in unit weight of monkfish? I would like to compare that to mackerel. Thanks.
A Google search offered me this site in German, which gives the following values for EPA and DHA (the two Omega-3 fatty acids) :
Monkfish: 49 mg EPA + 212 mg DHA = 261 mg per 100 g fish
Mackerel: 588 mg EPA + 739 mg = 1327 mg per 100 g fish
In other words, more than 5 times as much for the mackerel. Since mackerel tends to be overfished (more so than monkfish, at least), you might consider omega-3 supplements if you want to be conscious of environmental aspects.
So.... OP asked for where they can look up Omega-3 in unit weight, this answer provided it. OP wants the link to compare mackerel to monkfish, this answer includes those specific details.
Why the downvote?
Thanks. I was wondering what monk fish is called in German? Does the website have an English version? Or do you find any similar website in English?
Monk fish is called "Seeteufel" (literally, sea devil) in German, as Google will tell you. You can also use Google Translate to translate the site into English, as there seems to be no English version.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.967476 | 2023-04-24T10:31:13 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124019",
"authors": [
"John Doe",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Tim",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53980"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
55078 | Why does Weikfeild cocoa powder does not taste bitter?
Ingredients of Weikfeild cocoa powder. https://sites.google.com/site/cocoaexposed/cocoa-confectionery/product-survey/weikfield--cocoa
It says it has 0 sugar. So, why does it not taste horribly bitter when I taste it?
I add it to coffee without any sugar and I do not notice any extreme bitterness.
Why is that so?
Are you implying that it does taste bitter with other brands? I can't tell if you're trying to attribute the lack of bitterness to the brand or to cocoa in general.
What about the 35g of carbohydrates? Other brands of cocoa do not have nearly as much carbohydrates. If sugar only refers to simple sugars here, then maybe there is some sweetness on those other carbs.
Cocoa powder never tastes "horribly" bitter to me, and I have the genes for tasting strong bitterness. No matter if dutch processed or not, it is less bitter than coffee itself, so I don't know why you would expect it to make your coffee bitter. The time you'd notice the bitterness to an extent which is unpleasant if you're not accustomed to it would be if you were to eat a chocolate bar with >80% cocoa straight and undiluted.
The ingredients clearly state " CONTAINS ADDED NATURE IDENTICAL AND ARTIFICAL CHOCOLATE FLAVOUR" (their caps not mine) now I'm not too sure what that actually means, asides from there being something added. Likely the cause of the lack of bitterness?
@Pepi - The quantity specified is per 100g of cocoa, so 35g is not an unreasonable number - the Rodelle cocoa I use has 3g per tablespoon (supposedly, about 6g).
I'm not familiar with that brand, but cocoa powder can be processed differently. The major categories are "natural" and "dutch processed", the latter being less acidic and having a somewhat milder flavor. And of course various brands may vary.
dutch process would be my first guess, too.
if you mix the cocoa for longer in a process called conching it can loses bitterness. its mainly the European chocolate makers that do extra long chonching (a type of mixing that develops the chocolate smoothness and flavour in contact with air)
But I see that it contains flavoring which means that they have cheated.
it will be cheap cocoa powder Notice that they have removed all the fat. and then they have added a flavoring into it.
In addition to the methods of processing cocoa, there are also many different varieties of cocoa tree each with it's own flavor profile. In panama they are using a new variety (agriculturally new anyway) of cocoa tree called something like VH47, because cocoa was suffering from a horrible disease. This tree is not only resistant, but it's a prolific bean producer, the problem is the cocoa tastes nasty when processed the normal way. It needs to be fermented in the sun first. Even then, although the taste becomes pleasant, it's still very inferior to better varieties.
However, almost all of the chocolate you eat has at least 15-20% of this cocoa, otherwise quite frankly there would be a shortage of chocolate if it wasn't incorporated.
So, some cocoa when plain tastes bitter, some is naturally sweet (not chocolate sweet), some is bittersweet, some tastes like flour unless it's mixed into something.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.967609 | 2015-02-23T23:45:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55078",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Don Petta",
"Doug",
"Jennifer Leichner",
"Joe",
"Katerina Howard",
"Magenta Nyx",
"Napier Paxman",
"Paul Mastin",
"Pepi",
"Ry Cully",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131038",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131039",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31003",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho",
"user5561"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
41022 | How to replicate Cerelac at home?
https://www.nestlebaby.com.au/products/dry-infant-cereal/cerelac-rice/
The contents says: "Rice":
I can understand that they have ground the raw rice.
Then is it supposed to be roasted?
https://www.nestlebaby.com.au/products/dry-infant-cereal/cerelac-wheat/
The contents says: "Wheat" and "Semolina":
Am I supposed to roast the wheat flour which we use in breads etc., and semolina too?
How to make a Cerelac replica at home?
Do you want a replica, or would a substitute be acceptable?
Substitute will be acceptable. @Erica
Are you trying to make your own dry mix, or are you attempting to create the finished product? Because for the final product, you might want to look at rice porridge recipes, possibly replacing some of the liquid with fortified milk.
You probably can't.
Cereals are highly processed food, and they use methods not available at home. Producers also don't release information on the exact methods used in a certain product.
If you just want to feed your baby a grain-based pap, look for recipes. Parents have fed grain products to babies long before Nestle existed. Old books for housewives and parents will have recipes, but there are probably recipes on the Internet too.
Such recipes may produce something very different in taste, texture and digestive quality from the industrially-produced pap, although they will be suitable for babies. If you want exactly Cerelac, you will have to buy it. Even if there was a way to know exactly what they do to the grains, you'd probably need industrial equipment to replicate it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.967894 | 2014-01-10T05:55:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41022",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Deliquiate sauce",
"Erica",
"Joe",
"Sebastian Simon",
"Shakeel",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95542",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95543",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95552"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
42687 | What does acidity mean in terms of coffee? How does it affect taste?
From here: http://www.devans.in/mediumcoffee.html
Medium roast of Plantation "AA" brings out the full compliment of aromas and results in a coffee that has moderate acidity, tangy flavor and good strength.
What does acidity mean in terms of coffee? How does it affect taste?
Acidity in coffee results in a brightness of flavor. Higher Grounds describes it as "dry, bright & sparkling sensation". Sweet Maria, a purveyor of unroasted beans, describes it as "bright, clear, snappy, dry, clean, winey, etc."
In truth, you would need to sample a variety of coffees with different characteristics and develop your own sense memory, because it is extremely difficult to describe flavors.
A nice Ethiopian full city roast will have good acidity when compared to say a French roasted anything. In general, coffee grown at higher altitude will have more acidity than lower grown coffee; and lighter roasted coffee will retain more of its acidity than darker roasted coffee.
See also:
Kaladi Coffee article on coffee acidity
Higher Grown: Coffee Acidity: the Science & the Experience
In my experience, a coffee with good acidity is sought after by most connoisseurs. Most of the African coffees are especially known for their "bright" acidity...most notably Ethiopian and Kenya AA coffee.
To reiterate what someone else said, dark roasted coffee is less acidic.
That said, some people seek lower-acidity coffee (like Sumatra Mandheling) because they feel that it's easier on their stomach.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.968139 | 2014-03-12T07:41:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42687",
"authors": [
"Anita Powndin",
"Kris Finbow",
"Spammer",
"demonoga",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99758",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99759"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
48977 | Why is it necessary for Turkish Coffee to start brewing with cold water?
In nearly every Turkish Coffee making recipe I have found them recommending us to start by putting coffee in cold water and then bring it to boil.
Why is it necessary for Turkish Coffee to start brewing with cold water?
So the aroma is richer. Coffee particles have more time to soak in the solvent (water).
It might also be noted that you should use cold water when you make any coffee. Cold water is more fresh (it hasn't spent any length of time sitting in a hot water tank). This goes for boiling pasta, potatoes, or anything else.
+Mischa, "Coffee particles have more time to soak in the solvent". Then why not soak the coffee in a slow cooker overnight? I'm allergic to coffee, so I wouldn't know what I am asking.
Typically because people don't like to wait 8 hours for their coffee. Maximum temperature is a consideration too. All of these comments are sounding suspiciously like answers... better post them as such before I do if you want credit.
@logophobe I typically cold-brew my coffee for 18 to 24 hours.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.968276 | 2014-10-16T09:33:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/48977",
"authors": [
"Cynthia",
"Gloria Okoh",
"MPolo",
"Mischa Arefiev",
"Sophia eH",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116880",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116881",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8486",
"jsanc623",
"logophobe",
"mrwienerdog"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
49282 | How to protect roasted coffee powder from degrading during daily use?
I have to buy coffee roasted powder in 100gms packet. I use 1 tablespoon on coffee per day.
I do keep the coffee in an airtight container and then in an opaque cover.
How should I protect remaining coffee from damage from air when I use some coffee from the container and the container starts half emptying?
I think this is also a duplicate of http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36751/what-is-the-best-way-to-store-ground-coffee?rq=1, but not sure if the distinction of "daily use" makes it a different question, maybe the other one is more about long term storage? Coffee drinkers, do you see this as a dupe or not?
@rumtscho that is absolutely not related in any way. I am taking about protecting remaining coffee as i use it from the same containor daily.
Why is this not related? What prevents you from keeping your daily-use-container in the freezer?
@rumtscho are you serious? Coffee will degrade fast if i keep on putting in and taking out the daily use coffee container in freezer. !!
Sorry, I don't understand your logic. The freezer is the best way to preserve the freshness of your coffee (although it doesn't stop the degradation, it slows it down). Why do you think that it will degrade fast if you put it in the freezer?
@rumtscho read this: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36751/what-is-the-best-way-to-store-ground-coffee?rq=1#comment52129_36752
OK, that clears it up. It seems that the "daily use" is indeed an important distinction to make.
@TheIndependentAquarius Having done it a bit in the past, I have to say that Robert's point about exposure to "frost and condensation" is probably not that significant unless you live somewhere very humid. Coffee itself is dry, and if you take it out cold in a dry environment, almost no condensation will form when you open the container -- and what there is will form on the upper, empty part of the container and not in the coffee lower down. Certainly it is worth trying.
I have myself proved accidentally that Robert Is correct. In summers the day time temperature here is usually 47 c . I tried putting coffee in and out of freezer daily and it took 4 days for it to turn into crap. I threw it then. @goldilocks
Wow! There are barely any places on earth where 47 C (117 F) might count as "usual" -- but in future you might want to include such extraordinary facts such as this in your post ("I am living in the absolute hottest place in the world and I want to keep my coffee fresh"); surely a relevant fact which would get you more helpful help. In any case, again, it's not the HEAT, it's the HUMIDITY.
Obligatory not-super-helpful-not-an-answer: grind it every day; you'll be able to preserve it longer that way.
Ground coffee doesn't degrade significantly in days if kept in a normal airtight container. Use a zip lock bag and the freeze if worried. Can you actually taste any difference?
In all truthfulness, the fact that you buy coffee grounds instead of whole coffee beans is the biggest culprit.
Here's a list of things to consider:
By whole beans
Grind immediately before use, not the night before, not an hour before, but immediately before brewing.
Keep in air tight container, and store in a dark place. Do not put them in the freezer, as they are subject to freezer burn, and long exposure to cool temperatures can effect the flavor.
By from a roaster. Roasters roast daily, and you'll likely get a batch that's no older than 2-3 days, often times you'll get beans roasted that day or the day before.
You can see how fresh your beans are when you initially add hot water to the grounds. Fresh beans will produce lots of foam, as they still have lots of CO2 left in them from the roasting process.
Some things to note when grinding beans at home are the type of grinder you use. Blade grinders will not provide a consistent grind, the grounds will be a varying sizes, and this affects extraction more than you'd think. For the record, no coffeeshop(not even the dinner down the street) use a blade grinder. Make sure to have a Burr Grinder, or a Hand Mill grinder. These will provide you with a consistent grind.
A few burr grinders that I've known to work well:
Hario Ceramic Coffee Mill Skerton
The first burr grinder that I owned. I used to brew single cups and didn't want to spend the $100+ to get an automatic burr grinder. It works really well, but I got sick of grinding coffee by hand every morning for 2 years.
Capresso Infinity Conical Burr Grinder
Pretty standard automatic burr grinder. Its in the lower price range, but it works well.
Baratza Encore
This one gets lots of hype in the coffee community, mostly because its relatively cheap, and it has a wide range of grind settings.
Baratza Virtuoso
A set up from the Encore model.
It depends on what you're willing to spend for a grinder. If you really want to get into coffee I'd start with the Baratza Encore. If you just want a automatic grinder the Capresso Infinity might be for you. If all the other options are too expensive the Hario Coffee Mill works great.
Thanks much for your helpful suggestion. Could you suggest a grinder for about 2 cups of coffee
I listed a couple grinders above. The Hario might be best for you if you're only doing 2 cups, but take a look at the other models as well. I use the Capresso Infinity at home if I'm just doing a single cup, and also if I'm doing a 6-cup pot. I used to use the Hario for this, but now it makes a great travel grinder.
In my experience, you're going to get a lot of degradation with pre-ground coffee regardless of the steps you take to protect it.
As mentioned in other posts (ex: What is the best way to store ground coffee?) you're looking to do the following:
Prevent the coffee as much as possible from contact with air.
Avoid moisture absorption (from air).
Avoid temperature swings, especially near the freezing point (the cells inside coffee beans will crystalize and de-crystalize, releasing flavor and aroma before you brew)
I'd reccomend one of the following:
Repack the coffee into many small containers and place some in the freezer for use at the end of the week (assuming your freezer temperature remains relatively consistent)
Purchase a jar which removes air such as the EVAK
An electric coffee grinder is small, inexpensive and easy to use. I would recommend getting one and buying whole beans instead. Get a large bag of whole beans, and store it in the freezer, then just extract the amount of beans required and grind right before brewing. The frozen beans should stay fresh much longer than your pre-ground coffee, and adds the bonus of the fantastic smell of freshly ground coffee every morning.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.968411 | 2014-10-27T13:32:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49282",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Cascabel",
"Dee Millennas",
"Graham Holmes",
"Karen Saley",
"Nick Popejoy",
"Pakizah Varsally",
"Pam Lamoureux",
"TFD",
"Terri Mathers",
"goldilocks",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117813",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124274",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25585",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"rumtscho",
"tsturzl"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
49281 | Is it necessary to store purchased sealed Coffee powder in freezer? Why?
I purchased few packets of 100 gms freshly ground and roasted Coffee powder.
These packets do NOT have air filled in them like the chips packets.
Is it necessary to store purchased sealed roasted Coffee powder in freezer? Why?
see also http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43788/if-you-need-to-keep-ground-coffee-for-a-long-time-will-keeping-it-in-the-freeze?rq=1
@rumtscho That question deals with "home" ground coffee - that's why they are talking about keeping it in containors. My coffe is already sealed. should I open it and then keep in in airtight containors? Also since my cofee is already sealed will it still absord moisture from air?
I didn't read the other question that way (he only says that he cannot home-grind the beans directly before drinking, but doesn't specify who grinds the coffee he stores). But OK, maybe there is a difference indeed. Reopening.
It is NOT necessary to store coffee in the freezer.
It can be helpful if you want to store it for long periods - i.e. months.
Ground coffee should NOT be thawed and re-frozen, nor opened frequently and put-back in the freezer. Think of your freezer as long-term storage, and take out a week's worth of coffee at a time.
Also, it's not going to make a huge difference either way - if you want better tasting coffee the best bang-for-buck would be buying whole-bean coffee and grinding it as you need it.
Here's an obsessively detailed taste-testing account:
http://www.home-barista.com/store-coffee-in-freezer-conclusions.html
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.968903 | 2014-10-27T13:23:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49281",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Ed Hudson",
"Erica King",
"Jyotsna Sengupta",
"Melody Schmidt",
"Shaun Smith",
"Zuleika Arumoogum",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117681",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
44874 | The quantity of which ingredients should be increased to raise the moistness of a cake?
I tried this recipe and found the result to be quite dry for my taste.
It contains milk, oil, and eggs.
Which among the three should be increased to how much amount in order to raise the moistness of that cup cake?
In order to keep the question generic I request that the answers should describe why, how, and which such that the answer is useful for generic cakes.
Talking about the role of each single ingredient and how they interact is way too much for an answer here, and parts of it have been discussed in other questions anyway. So I will give a quick info on the recipe you linked:
It has way too much flour. For a standard pound cake, you want equal weights of flour, sugar, fat and egg, and most muffins follow a similar ratio. Some of them add liquid. But what you have here is a recipe which adds 50 g of sugar, 55 g of egg and 60 g of oil to 130 g of flour. Luckily, the oats are soaked, so they are probably not sucking out additional moisture from the batter. But still, you should change the ratio to get a standard muffin. Or, better still, you can get a recipe that works instead of fiddling with a bad one; finding a new, good recipe is generally easier than repairing.
There are a few possibilities for why this recipe turned out dry.
First you could have over cooked the muffins. They should be springy but also tacky and still moist when coming out of the oven. Baked goods will continue to bake after being removed from the oven, so its best to take them out when they are a little on the "too soft" side, as they will firm up and have a perfect texture once left to rest. If they are taken out too late, they can end up being dry.
Another possibility is that the flour and oil was over mixed. You don't want to develope the proteins (gluten) in the flour, as that will make the muffins dry and tough. You will want to mix until it just comes together and then stop. It is easier to prevent gluten development if you use pastry flour instead of all purpose or bread flour. I find pastry flour gives a better texture to short breads such as muffins.
If you don't want to use a pastry flour, you can replace some of the flour in the recipe with corn starch or rice flour. This change will increase the starch content and decrease the proteins which produces a moist crumb.
If those changes don't help, there are a few more things you can try. Replace the white sugar with brown sugar, or increase the sugar content a little bit so the end result is more moist. You can also add fruit puree like applesauce or mashed banana to increase the moisture of the finished muffins. If you don't mind increasing the cholesterol and fat, you can add an extra egg yolk to the mix.
This answer is reasonable for standard recipes, but if you take a look at the recipe used, it is indeed a bad ratio. It seems to be a recipe based on nutritional beliefs, not on taste.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.969063 | 2014-06-14T13:07:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44874",
"authors": [
"Babylongirls spam",
"Griffith Rees",
"Janet Bernstein",
"Luis Mejia corrales",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106664",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106665",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106716",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho",
"uwu spam bad boy uwu"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
28740 | differences between cooktop, range and stove?
I am looking for an apartment to rent. There is one that the agent said has no oven but only something I didn't catch from her speaking. I usually call those round things on the top heated by either cooking gas or electricity, "stove" or "range". But I am not an native American English speaker. So I wonder if cooktop, range and stove all refer to those round things on the top? What differences are between them? Thanks!
Yes, the cooktop is the top part of a stove (also known as a range) - just the burners/heating elements (the round things you refer to), which as you've discovered can be found without the oven underneath! There's not really a difference beyond that. You can see this pretty easily if you google "cooktop" and look at the pictures of the products you find.
And if we were in the UK, it'd be a hob.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.969311 | 2012-11-29T02:37:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28740",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Micheline Goulet",
"Mike H-R",
"Nina",
"beyondtheteal",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66503",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66506",
"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
} |
42252 | Unit price of olive oil: volume versus weight
I am browsing olive oil on Google Shopping (the following problem also happens when I shop in local supermarkets). I found the information about unit price of olive oil is inconsistent. Sometimes only volume is available in liters and gallons, and sometimes it is weight in ounces and pounds. So I wonder how you can compare the unit prices between available information in volumes and weights? Do we have to know some common sense of the density of olive oil in order to convert between volume and weight using physics? Thanks!
According to this, a gallon of olive oil weighs 7.6 lbs.; 1l weighs .91kg.
The density of vegetable oils is within a few percent of that of water. For the purpose of rough price comparisons, treating it as such will give you sufficiently accurate comparisons. So use a pint a pound, or a kilo a liter. Don't drive yourself crazy with it.
From the nursery rhyme, a pint is a pound, the world around. Really. But you can find references: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pint
Unfortunately, the "few percent" is about 9, which makes quite a difference.
That depends on what sort of pint you mean. A US liquid pint is 473ml. But an imperial (English) pint is 568ml. So 1 imperial pint of water is quite a bit more than 1 pound (454g).
@Roddy With respect, 10% is in the noise for most cooking applications.
@vclaw If someone is cooking with pints, or measuring with them, then they are almost certainly in the US. I didn't want to bring up the complicated history of measuring units; the point is, treating the density as 1 is a close enough approximation to make value comparisons.
@SAJ14SAJ "the world around" : that's "world" as in "world series" then ;-) I agree for cooking that it's in the noise, but for price comparisons 10% may well be significant. And food packagers often use every trick in the book to make 'apples vs. apples' comparisons difficult.
Yeah, NASA are big believers in the metric system!
It's easiest to do this in metric because in the metric system 1 liter of water is 1 kilogram (under standard temperature and pressure, but let's not get complicated). If olive oil had the same density as water then you could say 7 kilograms of oil would be 7 liters of olive oil, however oil is less dense which is why it floats on top of water. You need to know the density of olive oil expressed in the term "specific gravity", which is density compared to water. In the case of olive oil it is .91 or .92, meaning it's 91-92% the density of water. Using this factor here's how to make the conversions:
volume to weight: multiply the volume in liters by .91 (or .92)
weight to volume: multiply the weight by 1.1 (1/.91)
If you are buying small amounts of olive oil then you could just use a like for like measurement, however if you are buying a lot of it then using these conversions could end up saving you money.
You can use this tool for any conversions you need. I'd imagine this is about right averaged out.
It also allows you to calculate the measurement for extra light olive oil and extra virgin
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.969429 | 2014-02-22T14:41:44 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42252",
"authors": [
"Joel Purra",
"Mihai Popa",
"Nelsrolf Jorstad",
"Refa Blakely",
"Roddy",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sepideh",
"Spammer",
"TFD",
"Zack Ding",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98645",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98656",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98657",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98658",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98660",
"vclaw"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
42261 | Should these be placed in refrigerator: tomatoes, and banana?
Should these be placed in refrigerator: tomatoes, and bananas, just like green leaf vegetables?
see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/15071/4638
Tomatoes and bananas are both mentioned here: How should I organize my fruits for storage? Any objections to marking this as a duplicate?
Some of it is also answered here: How long can I store a food in the pantry, refrigerator, or freezer?
You generally do not want to refrigerate tomatoes; they will will get mealy in texture, which can be unpleasant.
Bananas are more complicated. Once you refrigerate them, ripening will stop, and it will not recommence when they are brought back to room temperature. So you never want to refrigerate unripe bananas.
Ripe bananas can be refrigerated to make them last a few days longer, but the skins may darken, which some people find unacceptable.
Agreed. Also, if your tomatoes are not on the vine, store them upside down to slow down moisture loss from where the stalk was.
@asameshimae upside down you say? will this work to any appreciable degree?
@Captain Giraffe: There was an interesting test of this in Cook's Illustrated. Link no longer works, but here's an archive copy: http://web.archive.org/web/20130528104837/http://www.cooksillustrated.com/howto/print/detail.asp?docid=1173
Tomatoes loose their sweet flavor when refrigerated. Ideally, to have the best result they should be kept in cool, basement like temperature. Something between 55 to 70 degree F is a very pleasant one for tomatoes.
Unfortunately that kind of a condition is not available in most households, however, if flavor is important to you, invest in a very small refrigerator($90.00 ones), so you can keep its temperature on cool (65F) and store tomatoes and maybe other fruits in that refrigerator.
For Bananas:
Ideally, do not refrigerate them, but if you have plenty, here is how to save and properly refrigerate them.
First, leave them at room temperature until they are just barely ripe, so if you've bought them green, they would be barley ripe on the third day. You want to see no signs of greenness, and a light yellow color.
Next, separate the bananas, and individually wrap each one with a newspaper (tightly rather than loosely). Place them in a plastic back and store in the lower drawer of your refrigerator.
After this, they will last up to 7-10 days. Take them out one or two at a time and costume quickly.
Fruit should never be stored in common domestic fridges (4°C). And tomatoes are a fruit (fruit is anything with seeds in it)
The exception of course is if you have a modern refrigerator with proper climate control, e.g. Fisher & Paykel Cool Drawer running in pantry mode
Most fruits undergo a slow enzyme ripening process (part of their natural life cycle), this is usually interrupted at low temperatures (<10°C) which leads to strange textures and tastes. Also most refrigerators are effectively dehydrators which will damage the outer layers of the fruit
If you have too much fruit on hand that is going to expire, you can also just freeze it whole for a future sauce, jam, or baking project
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.969713 | 2014-02-22T19:30:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42261",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Captain Giraffe",
"CoinsWorth",
"JCReardon",
"Vinko Vrsalovic",
"abukaj",
"asameshimae",
"darkloom",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98667",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98668",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98687",
"kinglive pc50 spam",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
76218 | Is it good to keep food in an opened can possibly in a refrigerator?
I often cannot eat all food in a can of ready-to-eat vegetable, cranberry/tomato/spaghetti sauce, or salmon.
I keep the rest in the original can in either the refrigerator or the freezer.
I recently saw on a can of orange juice that "Refrigerate after opening in a separate container". But I haven't found similar words on other cans.
Is it safe to keep food in an opened can in general?
Does my question depend on specific food?
It this a a metal can ? maybe it a safety issue against cuts ?
Metal cans. perhaps tin cans
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.969983 | 2016-12-07T21:36:10 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76218",
"authors": [
"Max",
"Tim",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2064"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
113218 | Is Light Egg Nog supposed to drink directly without cooking?
Is Light Egg Nog supposed to drink directly without cooking? Thanks.
Yes. Do not cook store-bought eggnog.
I definitely don’t cook it, but I often thin it out with some milk (cough and some liquor).
I drink a whole package in the picture, because it just expired. it tastes like sugar and I don't feel very comfortable. Is it healthy?
.....I..... 32 ounces is more eggnog than one would normally drink in a single serving.
Oh buddy. That’s thousands of calories of dairy and sugar. That would make anybody sick.
I drink 6 ounces or so at a time.
@Preston, the stuff tastes like glue if not diluted properly.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.970171 | 2020-12-18T19:35:47 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113218",
"authors": [
"Preston",
"Sneftel",
"The Photon",
"Tim",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
6010 | How can I make Chinese Fried Rice like they do on the East Coast?
I've been living in California for about 14 years and really miss the Chinese fried rice I would get at Chinese restaurants on the East Coast (Boston in specific).
The fried rice I get at Chinese restaurants in California is much lighter in color and flavor. I thought adding more soy sauce would do the trick. There's definitely something else in the mix. The rice that I'm trying to emulate has more of a malty, savory taste to it.
My fried rice started getting closer to east coast restaurant style when I started doing a couple of new things:
Use Chinese 5 Spice Powder - Like Indian Garam Masala, this is a spice mixture that is so common in Chinese cooking that it's sold pre-mixed. I've started using it in a lot of my chinese cooking. It makes a big difference.
Add a bit more soy sauce - This seems to be where most of your coloring comes from, so judge by look.
Use some sesame oil - I find sesame oil provides a nice flavor element in asian dishes.
Use more oil while frying the rice - I use a mix of sesame and vegetable or canola. This makes it quite a lot greasier than I was making it, but it's closer to restaurant style.
Let the rice sit while frying - Once the rice is in the wok, I don't stir it too much. This lets some of the rice on the bottom get a bit more fried than if you stir frequently.
Hope one of those helps.
I have a feeling the 5 spice powder might just be what I'm looking for. Also, do you know anything about thick soy sauce? Could this be something that is used in fried rice as well?
Thick or dark soy sauce is often pretty sweet because it contains molasses (often sold as kecap manis in Thai markets). It might be really nice in fried rice, but be aware of the sweetness before you start.
Does the 5 spice powder give it a smoky kind of flavor? Or perhaps that's from the heat?
I've never once had five spice in commercial fried rice on the east coast. Does this occur regularly outside fo the northeast?
What you're missing is monosodium glutamate (a.k.a. MSG, Accent, or flavour enhancer). Trust me: my girlfriend is from Hong Kong. Using stock, as The Galloping Gourmet suggested, is right on the money as most commercial stock contains MSG.
It's molasses, not more soy sauce, that you're after.
Use day-old rice and start with 1 teaspoon of molasses (less if the amount of rice is small), and add more to taste. You can always add more molasses but not take away, so be careful.
Does molasses give it the slight smoky flavor? That is one thing that I've noticed about restaurant fried rice. I could never get that nuance at home. Or perhaps my burners are not hot enough.
@milesmeow: what you're looking for is what Chinese cooks call 'wok hay'– the smokiness that comes from using a wok so hot that the oil smokes like crazy immediately after you add it. A typical home range burner produces about 10,000BTU/hr, while a commercial one is more like 30,000BTU/hr, but a commercial wok burners blazes at over 100,000BTU/hr!
If I'm looking for wok hay at home, I make a REALLY hot fire in my charcoal grill, put the wok right on the coals, and let it sit until a little drip of oil instantly smokes away into nothing. Your food wont burn if you keep it moving.
They use DARK soy sauce. One tablespoon per 3 cups rice is ideal. Stores like Whole Foods and Central Market carry it.It makes the rice much darker. Also, add large pieces of onion (1-inch by 1-inch) crispy tender. Some people add peas. Stir in scrambled eggs.
Not sure about East Coast but I know as a Chinese-Canadian that Oyster Sauce is a traditional ingredient in most fried rice dishes. That would shortly explain the darker color and savouriness.
Source: My parents from southern China
This is from a Polynesian Chinese restaurant owner and his daughters who are chefs as well.
It's black Chinese molasses or sweet sauce. This is found mostly in New England Chinese restaurants. You take rice cook it the day before and refrigerate overnight. You need a gas stove or high temp wok to obtain about 400 degrees. Stir fry your scallions, egg, shrimp, bean sprouts etc in the molasses, soy sauce(sparingly), neutral oil, like grape seed, and whatever seasonings you like in the pan. Add a little more molasses and put the rice in. The whole idea is to flash fry it at this point, hence the high heat and very brief cooking time. About a minute or two. That's how it's done. I just released a trade secret, but it is soooooo good!
The common neutral oil is rapeseed oil, not grape seed oil.
Dark Mushroom Soy Sauce is specifically the sauce. I call it antimatter because it is WAY BLACK.
A lot of people weren't seeing this as an answer, so I've removed the parts that were replies to other things, and left the part that appears to address the question.
Like the Californian, I too hate flavorless light-colored "fried rice." I am from the city of St. Louis, Missouri where the fried rice is dark, rich in flavor, not sticky (from stock during cooking), nor tasteless (from cooking fresh rice). While it is true that you want to make your fried rice with day-old cold rice, you want to add ingredients such as:
1) seasoned wok oil
2) chopped onion
3) mix in a separate cup 1 pkt of fried rice seasoning mix, DARK soy sauce, 1 tsp molasses, and 1 tsp fish sauce or oyster sauce. Add mixture to your rice when stir-frying over high heat.
Stir-fry until even in color and temperature. You can add scrambled eggs and green onions afterward if desired.
Never add lots of liquid to the wok when stir-frying pre-cooked rice unless you enjoy soggy rice clumps. The Chinese restaurants never serve clumped up fried rice because you can not get an even brown color throughout. Enjoy!
My wife worked at Dan Chan's in Fitchburg in the 70's. She said they used a dark thick Oyster sauce. It was my favorite. Can't get it here in North Carolina either. They use a yellow rice.
Try Maggi Asian Seasoning or Golden Mountain Seasoning.
I don't know who originally did -1 on this suggestion but I've tried this too and it also very savoury. :)
First, use whole grain par boiled rice. It is somewhat oval in shape. Do not use fluffy rice. I use garlic oil, good soy sauce, some oyster sauce and some MOLASSES, that is the secret ingredient. Add it all to the rice. fry up diced fatty pork then on a very hot wok add all the ingredients. Stir frequently for a minute or so. Add diced scallion.
I know what everyone means and it is frustrating searching for the recipe that anyone on the East Coast probably takes for granted. I have never achieved it. I am attempting to figure it out. Kekap Manis is a sweet and thick soy sauce. So to all those who might sneer at the molasses, do not doubt. I understand that if you cannot find the Kekap Manis it can be achieved by equal parts brown sugar and soy sauce, boiled till syrupy (Credit Recipe Tin Eats). Now this makes sense. The traditional Indonesian rice is called Nasi Goreng. The rice is dark, not sticky and it really is not fried at all as we might think: it is tossed in and heated with the aromatics and whatever else you actually fried first.. I understand that many if not most regions use shrimp paste. This is also not available easily. Nevertheless with these basic concepts in mind, this has to be close.
Kecap manis and terasi is more for nasi goreng than for Chinese fried rice. Like others have pointed out, you probably want to try Chinese dark soy sauce instead, which has a more richer flavor with a touch of sweetness.
Dark Chinese soy sauce - not molasses is what to use.
Hello and welcome to the site! Your answer doesn't provide anything new, it seems more like a "I agree" (dark soy sauce) and "I disagree" (molasses) statement. The way we do express this here on the site is by upvoting and downvoting answers - just stick with us a bit and you'll quickly get enough reputation to do so.
Dark chinese soy sauce has molasses in it.
It is molasses. I was told this by my fav chinese restaurant owner in Taunton Massachusetts (where I am from). My father likes it extra dark so he adds more molasses. It gives a sweeter flavor and dark brown. And they use pork rib meat with asso sauce (not spelling that right I am sure).
Welcome to Seasoned Advice, Shelley. Your answer appears substantially identical to the one from rozzygirl, which was posted almost a year ago. If all you're trying to do is agree with her, the way to do that here is by voting up her answer. If you feel your answer is different/better, perhaps you could add more information to clarify?
I use black strap molasses a little at a time for the color I’m looking for and it comes out very dark. But like someone mentioned before don’t you don’t want to use too much.
Soy Sauces: Both dark and light are VERY salty....THICK Soy is sweet because of added molasses, very thick, and not that salty...HARD TO FIND at most grocery stores...seek out an asian market. BE CAUTIOUS a little thick soy goes a LONG way.
Google THICK SOY or TYPES OF SOY SAUCE
This doesn't seem to add anything not already in the other answers.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.970327 | 2010-08-26T03:44:02 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6010",
"authors": [
"Brian Risk",
"Carsten Berg",
"Cascabel",
"ChefAndy",
"Francis",
"Jay",
"Jesse Palmer",
"Marti",
"Mike Sr",
"Orion Ahrens",
"Pdxd",
"Philip Whitehouse",
"Sandra shelter server",
"Skin Cancer",
"Sneftel",
"Stephie",
"Susan Miller",
"bikeboy389",
"dorien",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148990",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89405",
"janeylicious",
"milesmeow",
"rackandboneman",
"raji"
],
"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
} |
41372 | Which method of cooking does the age of the egg matter least?
I have a tray of older eggs (almost 2 weeks old).
Previously I never paid attention to thier age and cooked whatever I wanted, but after poaching some super fresh eggs obtained from the farmers market, I've seen how much better they are to eat and easier to cook (they stay together better).
Which method would give me similar results with any age of egg (within reason)? Obviously any flavour changes cannot be accounted for but with poached (and from sites such as Delia shallow frying suffers similar problems) eggs it is more difficult to cook and the egg itself falls apart as they age.
I am trying hard boiled eggs tonight as I suspect there are fewer factors to interfere with the outcome, but would another method for cooking perhaps be better?
Actually, hard boiling is one of the recommended uses for older eggs, since older eggs are much easier to peel.
I'd highly recommend against using old eggs if you were going to whip the whites, for example, or any other heavy "structural" application. Quiche would probably be fine.
Hurrah. My method and hypothesis were (somewhat) correct :)
You might try coddling them. Butter a ramekin or similar heatproof cup, crack in an egg, then cover with foil and place in a pan of near boiling water until the egg is done to your liking, usually around ten minutes.
You can also try boiling the egg in its shell for 30 seconds or so before cracking and poaching it as usual. The initial boil sets the egg slightly, which prevents the white from spreading so readily. You will probably need to experiment with your batch of eggs to get the timing right.
I like your poaching idea.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.971069 | 2014-01-22T18:47:36 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41372",
"authors": [
"Becky",
"Michael Wilson",
"NBenatar",
"Susan And Gordons Phipps",
"attila",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96410",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96411",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96414",
"john"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
55311 | Why Does a Lot of Pastry Have an Orange Flavor?
At several different bakeries I've gone to over time, I have gotten pastries from danishes to cinnamon rolls and so on. Sometimes those pastries (the pastry dough itself) have had a slight orange flavor, even though the pastry wouldn't have an orange taste based on its name/description.
Is there some tradition or reason that I've come across this or is it some property of a common pastry dough recipe/ingredient?
Are you sure it's orange, and not just vaguely citrus? Ascorbic acid is a fairly common ingredient in commercial pastries. I've never been able to taste it, but maybe some people are more sensitive.
Perhaps it's the ascorbic acid. I'll have to ask next time I'm at one of the cafes.
Coriander perhaps; or, orange residue (by-product of orange juice production) often found in cake mixes, etc.
Good call on the cake mix residue. Since the bakery obviously is making lots of cakes, too, that could be it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.971257 | 2015-03-02T20:47:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55311",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Chad",
"James Grentell",
"Jesse Carpio",
"Marie-Claire McKenna",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131424",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131425",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132406",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"user131426"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
32434 | Does the vegetable crisper make a difference?
My wife is always yelling at me for not putting the vegetables back into the crisper in the fridge. Does the crisper make a big difference vs. just putting vegetables in another part of the fridge? Or is it primarily helpful just in keeping it all organized?
Possible Duplicate: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/20373/8305
As stated by Jefromi back in a similar question;
The crisper provides a somewhat enclosed environment, which prevents moisture from escaping as rapidly. Vegetables keep best at a certain humidity, higher than that typically found in the rest of the fridge, but not so high that condensation starts accumulating on them. Vegetables kept in too-dry air in the rest of the fridge will tend to dry out and shrivel up faster; those kept in the crisper will retain their water and texture better, keeping them crisp.
Leafy vegetables are also much more prone to drying out, since they have much more surface area, while hardier vegetables with a decent skin on them (like bell peppers) don't dry out nearly as quickly. Fruits benefit somewhat from this as well, but don't generally need as high a humidity as vegetables.
Some crisper drawers have little sliders on them which vary the size of the opening to the rest of the fridge, letting you vary the amount of circulation and therefore the humidity; you can adjust this to suit what you tend to store in the drawer. If you have two crisper drawers, both adjustable, then it might be a good idea to put fruit and hardier vegetables in one, and more vulnerable vegetables in the other.
Also, by always putting vegetables in the crisper drawer, you can prevent potential cross contamination between foods i.e., the vegetables can never come in contact with raw meat, because they're all in their own separate drawer.
In general, if you answer a question by copying an answer from another question, it's a good sign the question is going to be closed as a duplicate and you might as well say whatever you have to say on the original question.
Ah, ok, sorry about that. Should I add my extra comments to your response on the original question, or would that be redundant?
New information isn't redundant; you're welcome to edit my answer or comment on it. I personally wouldn't post a completely new answer in this case, but that's always an option too if you think it's a substantial contribution!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.971388 | 2013-03-05T14:26:16 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32434",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Jay",
"chaosentity",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15736",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
45020 | Leaving buttermilk out overnight, recipe for food poisoning?
In the recipe for corn bread in The Bread Baker's Apprentice, the first instruction reads:
"The night before baking the corn bread, soak the cornmeal (1 cup) in the buttermilk (2 cups). Cover and leave at room temperature overnight."
Similarly (just found this randomly), a recipe I found online for "Overnight waffles" instructs:
"Before going to bed, combined the dry ingredients, then stir in the
milk, butter and vanilla. Cover with plastic wrap or a tight-fitting
lid and let stand overnight at room temperature."
Wouldn't the buttermilk spoil overnight and give you food poisoning, even with baking the bread in the oven at 350F?
Let's assume that we're talking about cultured buttermilk (the modern, sour kind that smells like yogurt), rather than the old-fashioned by-product of making butter, sweet cream buttermilk.
Cultured buttermilk is pretty acidic, with a pH of about 4.5. Acidity is one of the conditions that control the growth of foodborne pathogens and 4.5 is outside of the optimal growing range for most of the bad-guys.
If the buttermilk is fresh, it should have a living colony of good-guy, lactic acid bacteria. This should mean that as it warms up, your existing good-guy bacteria will multiply and lower the pH a bit more. Lactic acid bacteria (the guys that make cheese, yogurt, buttermilk, and sour kraut) help preserve things by making the food a hospitable environment for themselves and an inhospitable environment for bad-guy, pathogenic bacteria.
Since there are existing good bacteria, the pH is low, and neither the dry corn nor buttermilk is likely to bring in contamination from bad-guy bacteria, this instruction seems reasonable.
In fact, maybe the author wants the buttermilk to get a little more acidic (sour) overnight by allowing the lactic acid bacteria to develop a bit more.
That said, the buttermilk package says Keep Refrigerated, and it would be possible for contamination with a bad bacteria to happen and for pathogens to multiply overnight. So there is some risk.
You could soak it in the refrigerator if you wanted to play it safe.
Sources: reading about making cheese, making cheese, watching buttermilk get thicker and more sour in the fridge over time.
Buttermilk is fermented at room temperature. As you said, there is no harm leaving it out further at room temperature. Perhaps they say "keep refrigerated" just so it won't get too acidic and break and make their brand look bad?
Yeah, good point. I tend to keep buttermilk after it's Best By date and have noticed that it just gets "more buttermilky" -- more sour, more lactic-acid bacteria smelling, and thicker. I use it because those are all things I want. I've also heard that some people keep topping-up the buttermilk container with fresh milk to keep the buttermilk going.
This is one of those cases where yes, strictly speaking you shouldn't leave food out for more than 2 hours blah blah blah FDA blah blah blah. However, Peter Reinhart A) knows what he's doing and B) probably doesn't want to get sued.
So if he says leave it at room temperature, it's probably OK, with the proviso that your room temperature isn't ridiculously high.
The reasoning behind the room temperature recommendation is probably down to the need to keep the temperature of the dough above a certain level. If you want to be super safe, refrigerate your buttermilk then allow time for it to warm up a little before use.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.971593 | 2014-06-20T19:45:37 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45020",
"authors": [
"Dacona Medical Center",
"Phumzile ",
"SamBobb",
"Sobachatina",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25525",
"lwj786",
"spammer"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
46464 | Recipe calls for shortening, I want to substitute butter. Do I need to melt the butter?
I am baking bread, and the recipe (from the Bread Bakers Apprentice) calls for shortening. I don't have any in the house and would like to substitute butter. The recipe does not indicate that the shortening needs to be liquid. Should I melt the butter that I will be using in place of the shortening?
No, shortening is a solid fat. This means you have to substitute another solid fat, else the recipe won't work. So, use the butter as it is.
You probably will have to bring the butter to room temperature to be workable (shortening hardens less in the fridge). Don't use the microwave, it will produce melted spots. Leave it out overnight or longer, or, in the worst case, shave it into small sheets and leave these out for an hour or so.
Your texture will differ somewhat from the original. Lard might be the better substitute for shortening.
The usual trade off with butter vs. shortening is flavour for texture. Butter leads to a denser, but tastier loaf.
@ElendilTheTall the recipe is from BBA. If it is made with shortening, I assume there is a good reason for it, and I would try to find a textural substitute.
The only bread I am aware of in BBA that uses shortening is the standard white sandwich loaf, and if memory serves there is a side note alongside that very recipe that says you can substitute butter for shortening and vice-versa, with the caveat I mentioned above.
@ElendilTheTall I was making the marbled rye from BBA, which calls for shortening. In the end I melted the butter -- the recipe called for the shortening to be added with other wet ingredients.
@Jason now I'm home and could look up the recipe. It is indeed not a sweet bread (a creaming step with sugar or eggs would have been a red flag in melting), but still I think softened butter would have been the better substitute.
I agree with rumtscho - 'wet' doesn't necessarily mean 'liquid'. It didn't call for the shortening to be melted, so why melt the butter?
The exact intention of the recipe might be to have the fat as solid as it can be solid.....
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.971896 | 2014-08-17T21:32:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46464",
"authors": [
"Auri Aethyr",
"Denise Middleton",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Jason",
"Michele Armstrong Rachel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/111970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/111971",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/111972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/111995",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"mike okeefe",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
69200 | What caused smooth homemade nutella to become grainy in refrigerator?
I blended toasted hazelnuts in a vitamix until they were a butter, added melted chocolate, then added coconut oil to increase smoothness. Here are the amounts:
450 grams hazelnuts (unsalted, raw or roasted)
160 grams chocolate
50 grams coconut oil
Once it was blended, the texture was very smooth and silky.
After a day or two in the refrigerator, the nutella had become grainy.
When you taste it the graininess subsides as it melts in your mouth. This leads me to believe that the graininess is caused by hardened bits of oil, probably the coconut oil.
How can I further emulsify the ingredients to avoid this?
Genuine nutella turns grainy, too - seems not even the original manufacturer can avoid it. In my house, it's a cardinal sin to put nutella in the fridge.
Does the graininess go away if you let it come to room temperature and stir it a bit?
Just a note here. There is no need to refrigerate if your using coconut oil. You will be able to keep your Nutella shelved with the ingredients you used above for at least 2 months before it begins to become rancid. Possibly longer depending on the temperature of your space and exposure to air.
You're right, it's the coconut oil. Notice how shiny the batch was fresh? That's the oil separating. It would need constant stirring while cooling to keep droplets from forming. Steady cooling - I got that graininess in ice cream once by freezing too quickly from room temp.
Got an ice cream churner around to try with just fridge temp?
Maybe substituting canola oil for the coconut oil...
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.972092 | 2016-05-23T21:45:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69200",
"authors": [
"Alyshia",
"Batman",
"Paulb",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107825",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230"
],
"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
} |
22801 | Estimating sugar & cream for a coffee service
I'm helping to organize a workshop, and we're planning on providing coffee ... but not being in the catering business (nor a coffee drinker), I really have no idea how to estimate these things.
I found on Giant Food's catering tips page, the following recommendations:
Plan on guests consuming a cup of coffee every 1.3 hours (3 drinks over 4 hours).
Coffee consumption peaks in the morning, late afternoons and after meals; coffee drinkers will usually consume 1½ cups each.
Don't forget cream and sugar and sugar substitutes!
I've also found an estimate of breakdown of caff/decaf/tea if male or female groups, and I've misplaced the link, but I had previously found a site talking about how the length of the breaks can affect how much coffee people consume (if they have 30 min, they have time to drink & get a refill).
... but I've been unable to find any recommendations on how much cream & sugar to plan for ... obviously, it's going to vary depending on how many people are watching their weight and possibly regional, but do any of you have rough guidelines? (or better advice for the coffee estimates in general?)
and I should've mentioned ... 60-80 people, but I was hoping for generalized estimates, in case it's larger for the next time around.
I am making this a comment since I have never ran a coffee bar nor do I usually provide coffee for events. But I might just go to a local coffee shop and ask the manager what thier daily par count is for cream and sugar vs coffee. As how many cups served that par count is an estimate for and you have your ratio.
My company runs several coffee events per month. Here are some of my formulations that are a result of doing coffee tastings and events around Seattle:
3-oz of coffee by weight, brewed with 62oz water will yield and aiprot or a standard 12-cup pot of coffee (60-oz brewed coffee or 7 servings if you are using 8-oz hot cups). For coffee gigs I bring 1-pound of regular and 3-oz of decaf coffee per 25 guests. So for 50 guests you will need 2-pounds of regular and decaf is never more than 20% (even after dinner). So for 50 guests you will only need a half pound of decaf. And will probably not use more that one pot of decaf coffee.
Cream: 1-pint half & half per 25 guests. We just put the carton of half & half in a small bowl of ice. We use Organic Valley half & half with the little plastic cap/spout. It works well and is one less thing to clean up after the gig.
Sugar: 5 packets per 25 guests.
If you are worried about getting hit hard with coffee drinkers just double all of the above.
Only 5 packets of sugar per 25 guests? I'm either assuming that's a regional thing, or your 'packet' isn't one of those little 1tsp servings, as I've had co-workers who would put 5 of 'em in a single cup)
Of course this is a quite US-oriented solution, we would normally have a couple of Nespresso (or similar) machines with capsules rather than brewing dirty wat... ahem... I meant long coffee :D :D
My answer is geared toward North American coffee drinkers.
@Darryl : sorry for doubting you ... you're right in that we massively over-estimated sugar and sweeteners. (unfortunately, our event was the day after you responded).
Just get catering packs of sugar, sweeteners and UHT milk miniatures. If you don't use all of them then put them away and use them for the next one.
That could help solve the problem with over-buying (at increased expense and higher generation of waste), but doesn't help at all with making sure I don't under-buy, and then run out 1/2 way through, without having some clue as to how much to buy of those catering packs. I'm actually thinking about going with a sugar pourer (or two) and 5lb bag of sugar, as I can at least use it for baking afterwards ... but the cream and fake sweetener I'd still need estimates on.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.972260 | 2012-04-05T15:55:58 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22801",
"authors": [
"Big Dogg",
"Darryl",
"Debra Walker",
"Joe",
"Tamara A Garcia",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51421",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51986",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6755",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9873",
"jeffwllms",
"nico",
"user986730"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
9522 | How to dry out mash - added too much milk
I was just making some mashed potatoes and slipped when adding milk, adding probably 50% too much.
The mash is now very liquid. Whats the best way of saving it?
I am thinking of either heating gently to dry out a bit or adding some sort of flour to it, or both.
The mash will be used to make fishcakes if that makes a difference and has been seasoned with salt and pepper and butter.
As a culinary barbarian, I'd just add enough dehydrated instant potato flakes to get the consistency right. You should still end up with plenty of real mashed potato goodness in your fishcakes. Flour, wheat, corn or other is liable to add an off flavor.
Flour in that application once nearly got someone booted from Masterchef US :)
Instant masa would likely also work, and might not be noticed. They make the stuff pretty bland nowadays.
I keep a box of instant mashed potato flakes in the house. I use it only for two things: one is a super-quick pantry chowder and the other is to thicken over milked mashed potatoes. While I wouldn't want to eat a bowl of instant mash, a quick shake in this circumstance takes care of the problem and no-one's the wiser.
They're also great as a thickener for stew.
That's a great idea. Probably the perfect solution to this problem.
If you're going to try to dry it out, may I suggest spreading it out in a large shallow baking pan and putting it in the oven on low heat. Take it out once in awhile to stir it up a bit...make sure you spread it out again after you stir. A few rounds of this will probably dry it out.
I realise this thread is now years old, but I also recognise there are people (like me) who still discover forums like this years on.
This happened to me today.
I tried putting mine back in the oven, however nothing seemed to change consistency wise, so I scrapped that suggestion. I have instead decide to leave my mash, to cool and already it is thickening up. So for anyone who ends up in this predicament in the future, i'd suggest trying that. Seems simple really, but it works! ;-)
Welcome! We do appreciate good answers to "old" questions any time - unlike some forums where a topic is discussed once and then forgotten, SE sites strive to build a knowledge base out of question / answers threads. More info on our [tour] and [help].
Cream generally results in a better texture than milk when making mashed potatoes, but assuming you have your reasons for using milk (health concerns, allergies, etc.), there is only one way to literally dry it out, and that is to evaporate the water. Toss it in a pot and simmer it uncovered until it reaches the consistency you want.
Because it's potatoes, you might have to stir it very often or even shake the pot around in order to prevent burning and a nasty mess. This is actually what I always do to potatoes before mashing them (after boiling) to dry them out. I've never attempted it after mashing them, but the potatoes are already cooked, so I doubt that you can do any more damage that way.
If you just want to thicken them then add some savoury ingredients. I really wouldn't recommend flour, potatoes have enough starch already, but I'll often add cheese to my mashed potatoes. Hard cheeses like parmesan are particularly good if your aim is to soak up some of the excess moisture.
I'd also suggest, in the future, that you whisk in your liquid gradually to avoid this exact problem.
I usually use milk when making mash and it works fine. I cant use cream due to SO allergies (its lactofree milk). I think your idea of using cheese however is a good plan.
Personally, I never use either and used to use a small amount of butter and possibly some mustard.
@NBenatar : a lactose-free alternative is chicken stock; as starch from the potatoes creates much of the 'creaminess', you actually don't need to use any dairy or fat when making mashed potatoes.
@Joe: I don't think I'd call the effect of starch or even gelatin "creaminess". That pretty much always comes from fat (although I suppose it does not have to be dairy fat). The potatoes are thick, but I have tried many different recipes/preparations for mashed potatoes and in my experience, only the ones using actual cream or cheese are creamy. You could probably use liver for a genuinely creamy texture if you're not too disgusted by the idea; generally it doesn't have much taste of its own in small quantities.
@NBenatar, cream shouldn't contain any lactose, should it?
@Marti: I think in practice, cream does contain lactose because the separation process isn't perfect. It's low in lactose compared to milk but I guess if somebody has severe allergies then that's not good enough.
@Aaronut, I would think that someone with truly severe allergies would need to stay away from all milk products, even "lactose-free milk" (which is really lactose-reduced) and cheese.
@Aaronut : how would you describe the texture of a properly made risotto, if not 'creamy' ?
@Marti : most hard cheeses are naturally lactose free, as the lactose as broken down by the bacteria as the cheese ages, however, some people have issues with casein or whey, so 'lactose free' stuff will still affect them. (and yes, there's lactose in cream, as well as yoghurt that isn't made with live cultures, American butter, lots of prepared foods, as filler in some pills, etc.)
@Joe: Most risotto is made with at least one dairy product so it actually is creamy in the sense of fat; I actually had a hell of a time finding good dairy-free recipes for the family last month, and although I suppose I might still call those "creamy", it's very clearly distinguishable from the dairy kind of "creamy".
@Aaronut : I said 'properly made rissoto'. It might be finished with some hard grating cheese, but you're not going to get creaminess from that. I've always heard "creamy" to mean "cream-like" and not "must contain fat". Sometimes it refers to color, texture, mouthfeel, etc. ... and if you think it's hard finding non-dairy recipes, try ordering off most "american food" restaurant's menus (almost all appetizers and deserts are out, and likely 75% or more of the entrees) ... if you want dairy free, look to asian cuisine
@Joe: I can assure you that the risotto was "properly made" (it's not exactly that hard to make). The most commonly-used definition of "creamy" is containing cream; resembling cream is also a definition but the "creaminess" of risotto is a completely different animal, unless it's got some soft cheese mixed in.
Just leave it on low heat for a while with the lid off. A shallow gentle stir now and then will help too
You will probably burn the bottom layer, but that way you only lose a little, not the whole pot. An overnight pot soak remove the burnt stuff without sweat
I think over milking and longer cooking makes a nicer mash. And be careful of over stirring, mash isn't whipped cream, it's just a soft texture
Instead of butter to finish try a spoon of decent mayonnaise (real egg and good oil)
This is identical to my answer, but with more off-topic commentary and fewer suggestions.
@Aaronut What? It's totally different! No adding cream, how to fix AFTER too much milk added etc etc. What off topic commentary?
Yes, I rather figured that the cream was central to this, even though it was nothing more than an aside in my answer. Notwithstanding, your first and second paragraphs basically copy my answer and the third and fourth paragraphs aren't really relevant. Nothing personal, I don't think it's a bad answer, but I also don't think you deserved an upvote for repeating a previous answer and adding some extra stuff that doesn't help answer the question.
@Aaronut I didn't repeat anything, I use this as a technique, and you claim never to have tried? The "extra stuff" actually helps answer the question as in over milking is a valid technique, but requires careful stirring and often a sacrificial burn layer. How about trying it sometime before you criticise?
Had this issue and I tossed in fine bread crumbs until I got the consistency I wanted. Worked fine, just had to add a little more seasoning.
Surely there is no better water (liquid) evaporator than a microwave. Or is zapping verboten on this forum?
You are far less likely to scorch anything, but of course you can if you grossly overdo it.
You must place in porcelain or microwave safe plastic. Start with one minute at 800 watts. If you are nervous, open the door and look in after 30 secs.
My Asian friends will cook and reheat rice by no other means if this is available.
All you gotta do is put some grits in and call it a day. "Mashed potatoes and grits."
Great idea! In fact that's a whole new unexplored genre of cuisine: "X" and grits, the latest thing!
I just had this problem. I dried them over very low heat, open pan and stirred in carefully with fork so as not to stick to the bottom.
I added just a tad bit more butter towards the end when I felt I had lost too much moisture.
i had this happen during a dinner party. I simply cooked 2 large potatoes, peeled and mashed them right in !
Are you saying that you added more potatoes in addition to the first drying step, or that you started with only 2 potatoes?
Also if you did realize that you added a lot of milk but you didnt stir the mixture yet, you can without no problem remove the extra milk back to the milk container, if no then you will have to add something to thicken it such as bread crumbs, or even you can try to some potato or corn or rice starch works but it will slightly change the flavor of your potatoes, also flour also works or whatever you have on hand, and of course you will need to cook it at medium-low heat a few minutes to let it thicken enough.
I just tossed a bunch of flour in there when I realized my mashed potatoes were turning into potato soup. Worked out just fine in the end.
Not what I would suggest. As the flour isn't cooked, it a) retains its "flowery" taste and b) cant gelatinize, i.e. develop its binding properties.
Spread them in a 9x13 pan, and put in an oven (about 250°F - 350°F) and leave the oven door cracked open a good ways to expel the evaporating moisture. (Otherwise you're just macerating the potatoes) Stir occasionally. It will dry them out. Yes it will heat up your house but it will save the potatoes.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.972949 | 2010-11-27T17:39:39 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9522",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Barbara Eadie",
"Brian Congleton",
"China Mike",
"Dan J",
"Joe",
"Lorel C.",
"Marti",
"MikeJ.",
"NBenatar",
"Orbling",
"Pat Butcher",
"Phyllis Elrod",
"Preston",
"Stephie",
"TFD",
"Tabith",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19491",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19566",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19567",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"logophobe",
"rackandboneman",
"user19502",
"virginia"
],
"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
} |
17210 | What does gluten "do" in baking?
I saw many questions regarding converting baking recipes towards gluten-free, and it seems it's not an easy process. But none of the questions I came across helped me understanding what gluten actually "does" in baking.
The background of this question is that I've got friends visiting in October, one of them is a celiac, and there's a few baking recipes I'd like to try while they're here. Knowing what gluten actually "does" would help me to evaluate if it's even worth trying to convert the recipes ...
I went into some detail with this in my answer to What are the factors that affect the chewiness, softness, moisture of bread based desserts like cinnamon rolls?
To summarize my points there and add some more (simplified) detail on the chemistry:
Gluten is responsible for elasticity of dough, which is perceived as chewiness. The difference between bread, quickbread (muffins/scones), and cake is largely due to the difference in gluten formation, with cake having the lowest amount and bread having the highest.
It does not directly cause rising - the leavening agent (yeast, baking powder, etc.) is responsible for that. What it does do is form a protein network by cross-linking, which not only results in the elasticity above but also traps gas and prevents it from escaping during the baking process. The "rising" in baked goods is essentially just stretching of the gluten network. This is why hydrocolloids such as xanthan and guar gum can mimic some of the effects in gluten-free recipes; although the mechanism is completely different - in essence, they're creating a very thin gel.
Gluten is also exceptionally good at both absorbing and retaining moisture; it can absorb up to 150% (1.5 times its own weight) in water. One thing you'll notice about typical wheat products vs. their gluten-free equivalents is that latter don't last too long and have to be frozen or consumed quickly. Part of this is due to preservatives in commercial baked goods, but much of it is also simply due to the gluten retarding moisture loss. You can think of it as a kind of natural preservative.
It's activated by water and heat and is (relatively) slow-acting, which gives it a high tolerance with respect to time and temperature. This is why many people will tell you that bread is "forgiving" while cake and other low-gluten/gluten-free products are not. When baking without gluten, you will have to be very precise about all of your measurements.
Its coagulation action is actually very similar to that of egg whites, and pure gluten (AKA vital wheat gluten) is sometimes actually used as a replacement for egg whites. A meringue is just heavily aerated egg whites and specifically protein; gluten is basically doing the same thing inside of whatever you're baking.
Finally, it provides nutritive protein when eaten. Wheat gluten is about 75% protein and all-purpose flour is about 10% gluten. That means 7.5% of the flour you consume is actually protein. Of course that's nowhere near what you get from meat, but it's still a significant contribution to one's diet.
In short: Gluten does a lot of things. Keep in mind when doing gluten-free baking that a lot of the substitutes only replicate one or two of the effects.
+1 Thanks for your comprehensive answer. I missed the other post you linked to when searching for this stuff, probably because it didn't have the tags I looked out for.
You're absolutely right regarding the chewiness ... I've recently taken up baking bread rolls, and on the current batch I must have overdone the kneading ... I've never had rolls that chewy before ;-)
Gluten is a protein and binding agent that can be found in wheat and other grains like barley or rye. It helps dough to have an elastic type texture, and will help the dough rise and give a chewy texture. When substituting for gluten when cooking with gluten free flour, you add an ingredient called xanthan gum (there are other stabilizers, but this is my personal favorite as I think it turns out the best results). The xanthan gum will replace the gluten and does not affect people with celiac disease. Xanthan gum will add volume to your recipes and make sure that the product doesn't come out crumbly.
People with Celiac disease have a stomach lining that when exposed to the gluten toxin, affects their intestinal villi (villi are fingerlike projections that protrude from the intestinal lining that increase absorption). When exposed to gluten, the villi will shorten, swell and poorly function thus leading to malabsorption in this population.
I would also ask your friends how sensitive they are. Some people, even having a little wheat in the house can upset their lining. If you do decide to try to the new recipes (which I think is a great idea and fun!), make sure that you keep the gluten free flour away from any wheat products.
personal experience that has helped me convert my recipes to gluten free I do not have Celiac, but I have switched over to a gluten free diet, and I will say that it has been great. I do have more energy, and I just feel better overall. If you have the right recipe, gluten free meals/snacks/desserts, can be just as tasty if not tastier than gluten products.
This site is intended for culinary topics, not health, nutrition, or dietary issues. Please avoid off-topic discussion which does not directly answer the question. If you have questions about this policy, please feel free to start a discussion on our meta site. Please do not continue this discussion in comments; comments are intended for clarifications and corrections on questions and answers, not for extended discussion.
+1 Thanks for this, there's some interesting points I definetly need to take into account.
@takrl, I am SO glad that you found it useful! I have Celiac friends and I know how much they appreciate the little things. And as an ER nurse, health is so improtant to me, and it is so deeply woven into my cooking style which is why I wanted to give you extra information to help you decide about what to do when your friends get there.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.973736 | 2011-08-28T10:26:47 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17210",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"AtlasRN",
"Donna",
"Doran",
"Livi17",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36951",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37021",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6499",
"limalimolina",
"takrl",
"user36951"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
17001 | Why do scrambled/fried eggs stick less when cooked with butter instead of oil?
Whenever I'm doing scrambled or fried eggs, I use butter and a regular frying pan (aluminium I think) without any special non-stick coating. They never stick to the pan, it's as if they're floating on top of the butter within the pan.
My wife usually uses oil, and whatever she does, the eggs always stick in the pan, and it's a pain to get them out, and fried eggs usually become a broken mess.
So, why would cooking eggs with oil make them stick to the pan, and doing it with butter wouldn't?
Could it be that she adds the eggs before her oil is hot enough?
Its possible somebody will come along and give a technical reason for butter vs oil - but you've pointed out there's a difference in the person, and technique counts for a lot in the stick vs non-stick battle.
@rfusca Good point. I never actually tried using oil myself, because I don't like "oily" eggs and prefer the taste that using butter adds to them. But I'll persuade my wife to use butter next time, then we'll see :)
There is a physical difference: butter contains water and some non-fat solids. Don't know how that affects things, though.
Technique is the key here. If she is using oil expect she is adding the eggs before the oil is hot, she is probably also rushing her attempt to turn/flip/scramble/move them. One of the hardest things to learn when frying eggs is to walk away immediately after adding the eggs to the hot pan.
I notice you are in Germany, I don't know what your access to the USA's "Food Network" is but this episode of a Alton Brown's "Good Eats" can show your wife "eggsellent" technique.
(pardon the pun, couldn't resist...)
New Links:
Good Eats: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fx8up7UJv2s
Alton Brown on CBS Morning Show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pD3QeyK4bJY
Thanks for this, I suspect you may be right re. the "walk away" bit. I'll report our mileage. Re. TV, I currently only get Food Network UK via satellite.
I have the same experience. I can get non-stick with oil on a stainless steel pan if I pre-heat the pan before adding the oil, then let the oil get rather hot, and then add the eggs. But then I get the crunchy burnt edges I like and everyone else hates. Butter just works. I feel like there is need for more research on this question.
@BaffledCook...Thanks for taking out the dead links. Revived with some new ones that work...at least today :0)
OP-
I've had a similar experience, causing me to search out an answer. My eggs always stick with coconut oil and rarely do with butter. I am quite certain I follow the same process in terms of heating the pan and allowing the fat to get hot.
Here's my only (totally unsupported) speculation, based mostly on what I SEE happening in the pan: I think oils are pure fat while butter contains small amounts of water. As the water in the butter gets heated out it creates large enough bubbles to affect the surface contact of the egg with the pan, causing less opportunity for it to stick.
Any one have thoughts on this hypothesis?
I'd love to know what's really going on because it seems to make such a marked difference in how my breakfast turns out.
It can be tested using clarified butter.
@LookAlterno The solids in butter might also give some protection. If ghee works, but clarified butter doesn’t, this might be the reason.
Its technique here most likely and I imagine the difference between using butter and oil here is that you can see that the butter has to melt (and therefore get somewhat hot) before using it. Additionally, you're probably not standing ready to drop the egg at the exact moment it melts. In other words, odds are your butter is reasonably hot.
With the oil, its entirely likely that its a little pour of oil and then a few seconds later the eggs. Oil doesn't have the same visual clue that its ready as oil. (Although 'swish' around the pan will help tell you if its reasonably warm - it'll flow much faster.)
The technique I've always been taught (by a local chef in some classes years ago) in this regard is:
Pan on stove.
Heat.
Wait for pan to get reasonably hot.
Put oil/butter/fat/etc in pan.
Wait for oil to get hot.
Food!
I thought one should never heat a dry pan?
Oils with high saturated fat content (e.g, coconut oil) tend to be worse at "diffusing" throughout foods and consequently worse at protecting them from the hot pan surfaces.
Chemically-speaking, this is because saturated fats are ultimately more "hydrophobic" than unsaturated ones and possess stronger intermolecular forces (as seen via their higher melting points) as well -- a combination that makes saturated fats very avoidant of interacting with anything but themselves (or only other very "lipophilic" substances) and thereby worse at "intervening/interfering" between a very hot pan surface and whatever foods you are trying to fry with them in turn.
The problem with this theory is that butter is just as high in saturated fat as coconut oil. Also, I believe the OP's wife was using vegetable oil with no saturated fat.
@Marti Not quite -- it seems coconut oil is about 90% saturated while butter is only 64%!
@Marti And the OP never clarified "which" oil the wife was using for that matter either...
Unqualified "oil" never means coconut oil in my experience, though.
@ManRow Even this was more than a decade ago now, I'm pretty sure it was sunflower oil.
Butter is full of saturated fat, which is both very healthy and non-sticking.I got the same non-sticking effect with lard, tallow in my cast iron pan.
I think it has to do with the density of the egg, the oil and butter. Eggs have a density of around 1.03 g/cc, butter is around .96 g/cc and oil is around .91 g/cc. as you heat the butter or the oil the density drops even more and as butter contains water which has a density of 1 it is very close to the egg and should stratify with the solids at the bottom then the water and finally the fat. When the egg is dropped into the butter it sinks more slowly given the egg time to flash cook and make a layer less likely to stick. The oil lets the egg drop straight to the bottom much faster and the egg pushes the oil out of the way making contact with the pan and it sticks.
If it were truly a density effect, your numbers would imply that the egg would float better above the oil (larger difference in density).
It's got nothing to do with technique. That is a myth. The fact is that butter has a different molecular structure from pretty much every other frying oil, whether vegetable oil, sunflower oil, coconut oil or avocado oil. I believe the butter forms a temporary "non-stick" coating, a barrier, just as a non-stick pan has. I was amazed when I found I could even cook a perfect, fluffy omelette in a stainless steel pan using butter! The pan doesn't have ~any~ coating, by the way, and the omelette just slides out on its own. Completely non-stick! Since then I have retired nearly all my non-stick pans to the waste bin and only have stainless steel ones now.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.974267 | 2011-08-20T10:44:08 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17001",
"authors": [
"Alan Thompson",
"Cos Callis",
"Diane Bogaczyk",
"Hazel",
"Jeremy",
"Joe",
"Look Alterno",
"ManRow",
"Marti",
"Mercfh",
"Pete Becker",
"S. Burt",
"SDF",
"charisis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36433",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36434",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36435",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36648",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36663",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36664",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36667",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36705",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7606",
"iaina",
"labyrinth",
"rfusca",
"spacefaced",
"takrl",
"user128193",
"user36433"
],
"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
} |
42857 | What is the best way to filter Turkish coffee?
I wish to get rid of the remains of the coffee in a Turkish coffee cup.
I tried using the tea strainer, it didn't help much. I used cloth. The
results were better but still I could feel the particles in my mouth
while drinking the Turkish coffee.
What is the best practical way to filter Turkish coffee?
I think you got something mixed up there. It is normal to have noticeable particles while drinking Turkish coffee. Everybody uses a strainer for it, and it does result in a slightly "muddy" drink.
I guess you could pass the prepared Turkish coffee through a paper coffee filter before drinking, but this would be a very unusual way to do it. People who don't want to taste the particles just use a different brewing method in the first place. Making it with particles and then removing them is twice the work, and I can't imagine it giving you any taste advantage.
If you do any filtering, the coffee will end up less strong, both in taste and caffeine. It is the particles you taste which are the actual coffee. Another method which achieves strong coffee is true espresso. It needs an expensive machine which passes the water vapor through the grounds under pressure though.
thankf for the information. What other method would you suggest for brewing?
If you chose Turkish because it needs a minimum of equipment and effort, drip coffee is probably the next best in these criteria. All you need is a cone, filters (paper filters spare you the need to wash, reusable is cheaper in the long run), and a mug. The taste will vary tremendously depending on your skill and on the quality of the coffee you purchase. The process can produce both really good and really bad coffee.
I chose turkish coffee because it produces a strong coffee as compared to filter coffee.
@TheRebelAquarius it is strong exactly because nothing has been filtered out of it. I suspect that the Turkish coffee will get weaker after you filter the particles out. Another other way to get really strong coffee is espresso, but you need to invest a lot in equipment for real espresso. You can try if mokka pot coffee is strong enough for you, if not, you are looking at machines starting in the hundreds of euros range.
wow, that's informative. Please add your first two statements of your last comment to your answer.
I usually let the coffee sit for a bit, which settles a lot of the grounds at the bottom - then I simply use a ladle to slowly scoop out the top coffee, which tends to be clearer
You can use an Aeropress to produce concentrated (and high-quality) coffee without any particles. It's not actually espresso, but it's also much cheaper and easier than using an espresso machine. Or try a Moka pot.
I made turkish coffee with noticeable particles when I was about 7 yo, due to me not knowing that I should remove it from the heat only when the foam around the edge starts moving to the center, pretty much like this:
So are you sure you are boiling it enough time?
What is the best practical way to filter the Turkish coffee?
You won't need a strainer. Just pour it in the cup and let it be (DON'T STIR). By the time the temperature is about right to take your first sip, the coffee powder will rest at the bottom and the rest should be clear enough to not bother your tongue papillae. This happens probably because when the coffee is cooked well, it gets heavier. Stop sipping when you have reached the 'muddy' bottom, and the powder starts to get in your mouth.
Other tips:
You should mix it well at the beginning, but NOT further. This helps in many ways:
You will be able to see when it is ready with the 'foaming around the edge' method I mentioned above. When it's heated, it forms a light-colored foamy-like crust that puffs near the walls of the coffee pot and moves to the center to indicate that you should remove it from heat. If you are stirring it constantly, none or little foam will be formed.
This crust is called kaymak. In order to have kaymak in your coffee, you should pour it in your cup carefully - from a small distance and slowly - in order not to mix it, because it will disappear. Some say that coffee with kaymak is tastier/stronger. The ideal display of your kaymak should be like this:
It should have little bubbles and some holes that make the coffee beneath visible. If it is solid like this:
It means you put too much coffee/didn't boil enough time/let too much kaymak slip and you will experience that unpleasant - in your opinion - sensation of coffee particles in your mouth.
Good luck with your next try!
After you have finished brewing the Turkish coffee let it sit for a few minutes. Pour slowly into your mug stopping when you see the coffee turn cloudy. Immediately add sugar/milk to your own mug and stir. Don't stir again. The coffee grounds will settle to the bottom and become a clay like consistency. This way you will get very little ground in the coffee you are drinking.
I use a very fine cone filter. Takes slightly longer to filter. It does get rid of most of the grinds and then some, and while it is a bit weaker, it's still stronger and tastier than regular (drip, melita, etc, coffee).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.974890 | 2014-03-19T10:12:52 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42857",
"authors": [
"Alex",
"Alex Carlson",
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Lanipsel",
"Mystic Booze",
"Wojtasinski Walter John",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"jsanc623",
"rumtscho",
"user5561"
],
"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
} |
29653 | In Halwa, Milk tea, cake, Indian sweets, and Custard can white sugar be replaced with Jaggery?
Out of
Halwa (Gajar ka halwa, gajrela, a sweet dessert pudding from grated carrot, water, milk and sugar),
Indian Barfi (barfee, burfi, a dense milk based sweet confectionery from the Indian Subcontinent),
Custard (a cooked mixture of milk and/or cream and egg yolk; or made from readymade custard powder),
Milk tea, Cake, ...
in which items can white sugar be replaced with Jaggery (traditional non-centrifugal cane sugar)?
does this need 5 different questions for each individual item?
No idea, but personally I would use it for nearly everything if I could get it regularly. It tastes awesome!
@TFD It is easily available everywhere in India, but as they say that sugar can't be replaced with honey in tea, so I was wondering if replacing sugar with jaggery in any of the items would cause any problems?
Honey goes in tea fine. Much nicer than sugar?
@TFD http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15502/can-i-replace-sugar-with-honey-in-tea
The honey thing is nonsense; even if there is some flavor change, of course you can do it, and it is perfectly safe. Now, think about how jaggery is made--the cane syrup has to be boiled down considerably to get to the point where it will crystalize. It has already been heat treated.
Of course you can use jaggery in all of these recipes or in any recipe in lieu of sugar, but like all substitutions, they may not be perfect or one to one. The outcome and flavor profile will be slightly different.
Consider what jaggery is made of (per the infamous wikipedia):
Up to 50% sucrose
up to 20% invert sugars
moisture content of up to 20%
remainder made up of other insoluble matter such as wood ash, proteins and bagasse fibers
The parts that are not sucrose are the parts that are interesting. How will they affect your recipe? What adjustments should you make?
Invert sugars taste sweet, but are even more hydrophyllic than sucrose, and interfere with crystal formation of the sucrose. This may be an advantage or a disadvantage depending on the recipe. Candies dependant on sugar crystalization will be trickiest to manage.
Moisture means water, you might have to reduce longer or reduce water content elsewhere in the recipe, or it could be a non-issue.
Other content will lead to the unique flavor profile, which may be why you want to use it in the first place
In regards to the specific foods you have mentioned:
Gajar ka halwa -- You would have to adjust the ratios, but no reason it would not work based on how this dessert is described in the wikipedia article
Barfi -- I don't have any personal experience with barfi to know how much it depends on crystalization versus denaturing of the milk proteins for its texture--you would have to experiment. The descriptions I have read sound like it is more about the milk.
Ready made custard powder -- I don't know what ingredients are in the "ready made custard powder"--the result would certainly be safe. Assuming the custard powder contains proteins and starch which thicken the custard when you add it to milk or water, then I see no reason why the jaggery should not work, although the result may be somewhat less thickened.
Milk tea - no issues other than the flavor profile
Cake -- with appropriate adjustments (mostly for the water content) it should work fine, except possibly those made by the creaming method
Note that everything I have written is based on the science, and internet descriptions of local food items I am not familiar with. You should also consult local recipe books, and find variations which use jaggery--or the lack thereof. That should give you some idea what is common, and how recipes using jaggery vary from those that don't for the same item.
Baked goods that require creaming sugar and butter together (including some cakes) wouldn't work.
@Jefromi Interesting thought.... creaming does work with US type brown sugar--the jaggery would have to be signficantly wetter and softer for it to fail to cut air into the fat medium if grated down to crystals. I get the feeling the product is quite variable depending on source and treatment.
I doubt you'd manage to grate it down to the same granularity of crystals as granulated sugar, which is already enough of a problem. As for the moisture, even 10% would be a lot, and up to 20% is tons - the sugar we use for creaming has very little moisture. Judging by nutrition facts, even brown sugar is 97% sugar, 1% other carbohydrates, and at most 2% moisture.
@Jefromi Okay, I have edited the cake comment to exclude the creaming method.
The primary difference between white sugar and jaggery is that white sugar is refined and jaggery isn't and is in a more natural state. White sugar is simply crystalised sucrose whereas jaggery is unrefined whole cane sugar which includes the molasses component that refined sugar has lost.
It's this molasses component that gives jaggery its brownish colour which refined white sugar has had removed.
Molasses gives jaggery a more caramel flavour over refined white sugar and is probably a far better, purer product to use in place of refined white sugar in the examples you give. But do bear in mind the slight caramel flavour jaggery will impart due to the molasses component.
it's confusing that you use "refined" and "pure" as opposites. Generally speaking, refining makes things purer, by removing impurities. I think you mean that jaggery is "more natural" even though it is less pure, strictly speaking.
@KateGregory Point taken and posted edited to reflect your comment.
Jaggery gives more sweetness than the white sugar. Jaggery is used for making sweetened pongal. Even it can be added to coffee instead of white sugar to get taste.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.975438 | 2013-01-02T07:12:06 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29653",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"CWilkinson",
"Cascabel",
"Juniba Online Store",
"Kate Gregory",
"Michelle Lottering",
"Nɪsʜᴀɴᴛʜ ॐ",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Swiss Bliss",
"TFD",
"Teresa",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68977",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68982",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68984",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68997",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69003",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85628",
"john drage",
"sowderca",
"spiceyokooko",
"user68975"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
15471 | How many grams of gelatin are in stock/broth?
How many grams of gelatin are in 1 cup of stock made from cartilaginous sources such as pigs or chicken feet?
You'll need to go by the consistency of the stock. If your cooled stock is just slightly gelatinous, but falls apart easily when handled, it's probably around 1%. If it is as solid as "dessert gelatin" (Jello), it's around 3% or more. (source: "On Food and Cooking")
This is going to be tough to answer. Too many variables.
I pressure cook all my saved chicken bones until they can be pulverized easily between two fingers (only about 1 hour). Then I reduce the stock from 3 quarts down to about one. When cooled and poured into a can-and-freeze jar it will typically gel at room temperature.
The answer depends highly on the amount of feet used, the amount of water it was cooked in and how much reduction is preformed.
I know there are variables but any value for those variables would be fine by me, e.g., 4 chicken feet boiled in 3 quarts water for 24 hours yields X grams.
@free: There are way more variables than that. The temperature of the water. The pH. The specific animal even makes a difference. You have no hope of ever controlling all of these variables in a home kitchen. Industrial processes involve a completely different method of gelatin extraction, and even they don't necessarily have consistent quantity at the output (they just guarantee quality).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.975896 | 2011-06-15T00:03:07 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15471",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Tony",
"free",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6483",
"snailmale",
"surefoot"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
24771 | Why is my zucchini bread mushy?
I just followed this recipe. My only changes were to add walnuts, and some allspice. After the 50 minute baking time, it was still quite gooey, so I kept it in the oven, checking every 5-10 minutes. After half an hour of no progress, I gave up and pulled it out of the oven. It was still quite gooey.
The only place I can think of where I may have had too much moisture going into the batter, would be with the 3 cups of zucchini. It was rather wet... does "well packed shredded zucchini" mean I should pack it so tightly as to remove some of the moisture? Surely not.
Should I just keep baking the bread until it's done, or should I change the recipe somehow?
It could require more time, thanks to extra zucchini. It's a good idea to drain your zucchini right after grating. Not completely, just some of that collects at the bottom of the bowl. That, and a regular loaf pan of zucchini bread can take up to 90 minutes.
Following the recipe exactly doesn't guarantee the same result. There are many ingredients that may vary from different type. From that recipe, these ingredients come to mind as ones that can add water and make it mushy:
Butter has different ratio of fat and water
The eggs and the lemons have different ammounts of liquid in function of their size
Zucchinis may have different water content in 3 cups (well packed doesn't dictate the quantity of water)
The flour may have different absorbant properties.
I find that baking things too much may alter the result and taste. Next time keep in mind to modify the quantity of ingredients to fit your ingredients on hand; this should help along the final result so (the dough) isn't too mushy.
Here are some specific tips to aid your success:
You can try to add more flour to compensate for less absorbant flour or excess water
You can drain completely the water from the zucchinis
Then, after mixing the other ingredients, add that water in the bowl until the dough has the right consistency
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.976041 | 2012-07-01T03:38:54 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24771",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
24772 | When and why would one infuse flavor into sugar for baking?
Listening to The Splendid Table today, the first caller asked how to infuse flavors into her marshmallows. The answer provided was essentially to infuse the sugar, by placing herbs, tea, lemon rind, etc, in a sealed container with the sugar for a few days, so that the sugar takes on the desired flavor.
I can see how this would be necessary for flavored marshmallows.
However... around 39:15, the host says:
It's an old trick. Jerry Traunfeld ... mentioned this business about infusing your sugar when you're baking, with any kind of herb you like.
Why would one choose to infuse sugar with an herb while baking, rather than adding the herb directly to the recipe?
Adding herbs directly to baked goods usually results in very strong flavours. Infusing the sugar with the herbs gives a more subtle overtone rather than a full-on explosion. In some cases, of course, you might want a strong herb flavour, but where you just want a hint, infusing the sugar is great. The classic example is using stripped vanilla pods to make vanilla sugar, which adds subtle vanilla tones to cakes and meringues.
Couldn't you just use less if you want a subtle flavour?
Say you want to use a little rosemary, so you chop up a few leaves, then you stir it through the batter, then you divide it into cases. You now have, for example, 4 cakes with a bit of rosemary in and 8 with nothing. Infusing the sugar ensures even distribution of flavour.
While the amount of flavor can be a factor, often a bigger factor can be texture, or liquid released from the herbs when adding them directly. For example, when you infuse mint directly into cream, the mint will release enough liquid that the cream will no longer whip properly. Or with a meringue, you would rather have a smooth texture and even coloring rather than having specs of herbs, since there is nothing (other than the sugar) that you can infuse the flavor of the herbs into directly. Another method for adding herb flavor would be to create an extract by infusing the herbs flavor into a liquid (often a type of alcohol since oils can affect baking drastically), then reducing the liquid to intensify the flavor and reduce the amount of liquid necessary.
+1 for texture ... you don't want a marshmallow w/ flecks of stuff in it. (it's suck when whipping, and folding it in afterwards wouldn't give a consistent flavor through the whole thing)
There's another reason for using infused sugar, and that's complexity - preparing the sugar would let one deal with a single more complex (and more predictable) ingredient, instead of more than one individual ingredient.
So, if I had, say, orange peel sugar - I don't need to have orange zest on hand (or have to dig it out of wherever it may be hiding) if I want just a bit of orange flavor. Not to mention the difference between fresh and dried zest... I'd think a sugar made with fresh peel would be closer to fresh zest, than the dried zest from the spice rack, which is even trickier to have on hand exactly when one needs it.
And I could make a larger batch of orange sugar, and use it for several things, making it even more convenient to add just a hint of orange flavor wherever I'd like. If I wanted to use just a touch of zest, I would have to measure carefully, and mix carefully, each time... and being a bit offset in ratios and amounts of intense spices like zest could produce very noticeable differences, moreso than being a bit off in a bulkier and subtler ingredient like infused sugar.
Additionally, I could well make more complex infusions - like a citrus sugar with lemon and lime and orange zest, or an orange-and-vanilla combo, or, well, most any combination. This is again, a convenient and predictable flavor profile, instead of digging out multiple separate ingredients, and measuring a precise ratio for a very small amount (to get a subtle flavor). And with more complex ratios, it's easier to get a small but noticeable change, like this recipe tastes a little more lemony than citrusy, must've dropped in a half-pinch more zest. Or oh, this one's heavy on the vanilla, can hardly taste the orange.
Then, too, especially for more complex combinations, flavors that hold together for a longer time taste different from a simple mixture, when the flavors are given a chance to meld and mellow - the same basic concept behind long-cooking foods like beans or stew getting better for sitting longer, or other foods that age well together. A sugar infused with lemon-lime-orange, will come together with a single taste that's more smooth, or maybe more overall-citrusy, than tasting the individual hints of lemon and lime and orange zests in a different recipe.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.976215 | 2012-07-01T04:00:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24772",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"Joe",
"Mien",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74218",
"jrhoffa"
],
"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
} |
15514 | How do you properly cook cow tongue?
In Mexico, "Tacos de lengua" (cow tongue tacos) are popular, and I've come to love them! I want to learn to make them in the U.S. What is the proper way to cook a cow tongue? I've seen the taco stands remove the skin from the already-cooked tongue before slicing it to serve on tacos. But what did they do before then?
Standard prep for beef tongue seems to be: scrub it well and rinse, then soak it in cold water for 2-3 hours. Heat water to a low simmer (about 200F) and cook slowly for at least an hour per pound. Preferably cook as long as you can (5-6 hours) to get a more tender result. When meat is tender and cooked, remove meat and save the broth. Cool the tongue and peel off the outer skin. The broth may be reduced and added to vegetables and meat to create a richer, meatier taco.
I also found a tongue taco (how is that NOT slang for some sexual act?) recipe.
Personally, I'm also a big fan of cold boiled beef tongue with horseradish sauce. You can go from the cooked tongue straight to that just by slicing it up. Now I really want to make tongue tacos.
I would love to try tongue taco!
That's what she said?
I've only cooked cow tongue once, so don't pay too much attention to what follows. The tongue should be blanched to remove impurities (slime). Just put it in cold water and bring that to a simmer (as what Bob said, let it soak for 2-3 hours).
Then, change the water, start with cold water and simmer the tongue until done. Add the flavor you want. Check for doneness by sticking a needle in the flesh and there is no resistance.
Remove the skin. I've tried to remove the skin after blanching. No luck, it stuck to the flesh. Try it after cooking.
Cheers.
Having grown up on a farm in Nebraska I can speak from experience. There is no need to soak or blanch the tongue first. Thoroughly wash it is all you need to do. In a large stock pot add the seasoning you prefer. I use a large onion sliced, 4 or 5 bay leaves, dried oregano, fresh basil, garlic salt and Fiesta fajitas seasoning. Lay the tongue in the stock pot and cover it completely with water, then simmer for 1 hour per pound. Remove the tongue from the stock pot and let cool long enough that you can handle it without getting burned, then skin it. Do not let it completely cool or it will be much harder to skin.
Let cool overnight in the refrigerator and then slice crosswise in 1/4" slices. I prefer it cold on bread and butter with a sprinkling of salt and pepper; delicious! You can also make a sauce of sautéed chopped onions and garlic mixed with tomato sauce. Throw in several slices of tongue, let simmer for 30 minutes, remove from sauce and put on fresh hot flour tortillas (Lengua de Res tacos, pure heaven)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.976581 | 2011-06-16T05:56:47 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15514",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Chris",
"Joanne Garzia",
"Julie",
"Malarial",
"Mien",
"Sean D",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100175",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32883",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32884",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
7214 | How do I cook shrimp in butter?
I want to cook shrimp in butter. My problem in the past has been that the butter burns if it gets too hot but the shrimp remains fishy if the butter does not get hot enough. Any advice?
Use clarified butter. It will handle considerably higher temperatures without burning/smoking.
I think adding some liquid oil like olive oil will prevent butter from foaming at higher temperatures. (or you can use some flavorless oils)
Why should that happen? First, olive oil would be totally useless, because its smoke point is as low as butter (unless refined). Second, the stuff in butter which decomposes at high temp decomposes regardless of what you mix the butter with.
@rumtscho olive oil's smoke point is at least 75-100 degrees (C) higher than butter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_point
depends on the kind of oil you use, unrefined OO is 160°C. http://www.goodeatsfanpage.com/collectedinfo/oilsmokepoints.htm But even then, the main point stays - butter will burn at over 150°C, no matter what you mix it with.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.976836 | 2010-09-13T00:47:18 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7214",
"authors": [
"Dustin",
"Elie Lambbert",
"Grace and Favour",
"Sinan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14705",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
9994 | How to remove a smokey/ charcoal taste from food?
I just cooked a huge batch of burrito filling. Everything seemed okay, but then it turned out to have a really disgusting charcoal aftertaste. I think maybe some burned bits got stirred in while I was cooking it. Can you tell me how to remove the taste? I find it inedible, but it's about $50 dollars of ingredients. Any advice would be hugely appreciated.
If you catch it before you've stirred it in, you can sometimes scoop out all but the stuff at the bottom of the pan into a new pan, but once it's mixed in, I don't know of any way to mask it.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I don't think there is anything you can do to remove that flavor. It sounds like what is often described as "scorched" flavor. In restaurants, that is well known as the one flavor you can't mask, you just have to dump the whole batch and move on. You can feel free to take a shot at masking it with acid (lemon, vinegar, ...), salt, sugar, and spices, but I don't think it is going to work.
This happened to me last summer when on vacation and I was making a large pot of sauce in a really lousy pan on the vacation rental. It was thin metal, on on an electric stove, and quickly burned the tomato sauce to the bottom of the pan.
We transferred it to a new pan, but it was too late.
Lots of advice online about mixing in peanut butter or whole peeled potatoes as solutions that will not affect the flavor of the tomato sauce.
We tried both. Neither made a difference.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.976953 | 2010-12-11T06:28:06 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9994",
"authors": [
"Axxelsian",
"Joe",
"Lisa",
"Rosa",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20466",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96854"
],
"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
} |
7227 | How do you handle the fires caused by adding wood chips to coal?
I've been using wood chips in my BBQ (adding them to the coal) and I enjoy the flavor they add but I have a tough time cooking with them because:
They cause flare ups
I have to close the lid to smoke the meat
Opening the lid would let out the smoke yet handling flare ups isn't possible without access to the food
Of course, I've tried soaking the wood chips in water hours before using them and the only thing that buys me is a slight delay before the flare ups begin. Maybe 5 or 10 minutes, tops. Then, as soon as the wood ignites, I get fires burning the food.
What are some ways to handle flare ups when BBQing with wood chips?
What kind of temperatures are you tying to cook at with the wood chips? I've never had this issue, but I'm not trying to cook steaks when I do it. I find that properly controlling airflow can stop flare ups, but that has an effect on the temperature.
Don't bother soaking them. Dried hardwood doesn't readily soak up water, so for this to work you'll have to either soak for a rather long time or start with green wood... but if you're using green wood then you don't need to soak it.
For good, consistent smoke, you want to control heat and airflow: as hobodave notes, you can control heat by simply moving the chips away from the coals. If the design of your BBQ allows, you can do as he suggests (horizontal separation); otherwise, try placing the chips in a pan above the coals.
For airflow, you can adjust the vents on your BBQ - if you're getting flair-ups with the lid on, chances are you're letting too much air through. You can also limit airflow to the chips themselves by wrapping them in a packet fashioned from sturdy aluminum foil with holes punched in it (but you'll still want to separate them from the coals, or you'll just burn through the foil and be back where you started).
I find hardwood dies absorb water, but needs 24 hours of soaking.
@yossarian: yeah, if you can remember a day or so ahead of time, you can make it work. I prefer a foil packet anyway though.
How can you forget? What's more important than smoking?!?
@yossarian: smoking now... ;-)
I keep a coffee can of soaked chips in the deep freezer. They're always available at a moment's notice.
@Dennis: that's a great suggestion!
I ended up using an old, small, thick metal pan that my wife used for bread loaves and I put woodchips inside and set that on the coals.
Once your grill is heated up move the coals, and the wood chips to one half of your grill leaving the other side without any direct heat. When a flareup is encountered while grilling, simply move the food out of the flames to the "cold" side of the grill until it is under control.
If you desire not having to deal with the flareups at all, simply add the wood chips to only one half of the grill, and cook on the other half (over coals). You'll get the wood smoke you desire, without the flareups.
I've seen suggestions to do something similar, but with the added protection of putting the chips in an aluminum pan.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.977110 | 2010-09-13T05:47:21 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7227",
"authors": [
"Cathy",
"Dennis Williamson",
"Guillermo",
"Sean",
"Shog9",
"danny gaffney",
"gMale",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14740",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14741",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"justkt",
"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
} |
13507 | Suggestions for storing homemade frozen custard
I've been having a hankering for Rita's ice cream because I love frozen custard. It's so much richer than vanilla ice cream. I've decided to try to make it myself with this recipe.
I have the Cuisinart ice cream maker to mix it in. I'd like to make a big batch (quarts or gallon size would be good) of it can anyone recommend good storage containers? I would like one with a lid because I wouldn't want the custard to smell like "freezer" or get frozen crystals on top. Any tips or suggestions? Thanks!
Comments for other frozen custard recipes you've liked would be awesome too if you know of any! :)
Any air tight plastic container will do to keep smells out. I use either cheap, disposable plastic leftover containers, or used ice cream tubs that I saved from previous purchased ice cream.
As for the crystallization- The only way to prevent that is my having no air in contact with the ice cream at all. I don't know how to solve that completely. I avoid the issue by not making more than we can eat in a reasonable amount of time (a week or so).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.977491 | 2011-03-27T22:14:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13507",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
14936 | Bad eggs in baking?
I had some eggs that were a couple weeks overdue and I used them in an off-the-shelf cake batter. I've had eggs that past due date before without issues but these were two weeks overdue and I thought they smelled a bit off but I couldn't be sure.
Would anyone know if bad/old eggs in baking would make you sick? The eggs are cooked in the batter so I was hoping that they would still be ok.
The standard test for eggs is to slowly lower your egg(s) in cold water. If it floats, throw it out. The smell test will only identify severely rotten eggs, while the float test will hint at how well the egg will perform as a binder in baking recipes.
If it helps, the FDA standard best-by dates are normally 1 week prior to the use-by (which is the date the food is considered no longer fit to use). The standard use-by date for eggs in the US is 28 days after being laid. After 28 days the chances of bacterial growth within the egg are significant enough that they're not worth using.
Just for the record, eggs can be kept out on the counter for several weeks without spoiling. An egg that has spoiled would have done so whether on the counter or in the fridge and probably spoiled before it got to you. This is also a good reason to crack eggs into a small bowl before adding them to whatever you are making. It lets you catch the bad egg before adding it in.
That test measures how much water has evaporated from the egg, nothing else It does not indicate safety or quality.
Always trust your nose!
The "best by" date is a useful reference, but it's somewhat arbitrary and may not be consistent among different producers. Eggs might be perfectly safe after that date, but eggs can also go bad well before their "best by" date, if for example, they weren't maintained at the proper temperature.
Eggs can be dangerous, but still smell perfectly fine. However, if your nose detects even the slightest hint of a suspicious odor, it's not worth taking the chance of cooking with them. In addition to the possibility of getting sick, the spoiled egg could ruin the flavor of whatever you are baking.
When shopping for eggs...
... look for the production date code. This three-digit number identifies the day of the year the eggs were packaged. For example, the eggs on the left were packaged on March 14th, and the eggs on the right were packaged on February 19th:
To buy the freshest eggs, simply choose the package with the highest number (until January, when it starts back at 001 again).
Given that, as you say, “Eggs can be dangerous, but still smell perfectly fine.”, I'm guessing that the first line actually means “Always trust your nose if something smells bad (but not it if it smells OK)!”? (Of course, that applies to pretty much all foodstuffs, not just eggs.)
I'm just here to chime in that cooking does not necessarily render spoiled food safe!
I'm sure most of you here already know this, but for those of you who aren't aware:
There are three different modes through which pathogens transmit food-borne illnesses:
Infection
Intoxication
Infection-mediated intoxication
In the case of #1, yes, simply achieving lethality would render the food safe for consumption. However, in the case of #2 & #3, simply cooking out the pathogens is not sufficient to prevent foodborne illness. This typically refers to spore-forming, gram positive pathogens such as, e.g., Listeria monocytogenes, etc.
In the OP's case, chances are the only pathogen of concern would be Salmonella, which would be rendered safe at an internal temperature of 165°F (refer to Ceres or Tompkins papers). However, I don't think it needs to be said that one should never intentionally adulterating the food you are preparing with questionable ingredients, regardless of the expected outcome!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.977599 | 2011-05-20T01:42:09 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14936",
"authors": [
"Brent Writes Code",
"Brian Burns",
"Escoce",
"Sneftel",
"gidds",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68458"
],
"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
} |
40355 | Can Southern Blue Whiting replace Cod?
Can you use Southern Blue Whiting (which is a small codfish) in place of Atlantic Cod in most recipes? Other than the size difference between the two, are there any important differences to bear in mind when substituting?
(Southern Blue Whiting from a few miles up the Queensland coast was the only cod-like fish the local fishmonger had in stock)
Cod is cod, a smaller variety's characteristics won't be so different as to make much difference in a recipe.
Really any mild-flavored white fish with a medium strength flesh is a reasonable substitute for cod, in fact due to cod stock depletion you'd be doing nature a favor by picking something locally caught.
Alton Brown did a great Good Eats on that. Sustainable fishing may be the most important thing we can do for the planet.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.977940 | 2013-12-18T06:31:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40355",
"authors": [
"Jolenealaska",
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93825",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93827",
"jay613",
"zander83"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
22294 | Adjusting an instant-rice recipe for regular rice
I'm trying a very simple beans-and-rice recipe, but I noticed it calls for instant brown rice, and I'm using regular.
The recipe has me cooking the rice within a quick sauce (tomato, black beans, seasoning), but I'm worried (albeit with no actual specific foundation) that the sauce might not work well under a much longer cooking time. Whereas stirring it in mid-cooking sounds like a Not Good Thing for rice.
Do I need to do anything special to make this substitution work?
Instant rice is just parboiled rice made to cook faster. Since brown rice takes a significantly longer time to cook than minute rice, you might try cooking your rice first until its 1/2 to 2/3 done, then transfer it to the sauce to finish cooking and absorb the flavor.
That "sauce" should work fine with a longer cooking time. I'd just go for it.
If you want to be careful, it should also be fine to cook the rice partially, with the seasonings and any liquid from the original recipe, and then stir in the rest for the remaining cooking.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.978049 | 2012-03-15T20:30:20 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22294",
"authors": [
"Aaron Lowe",
"Akshat Batra",
"Kevin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50011",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50015"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
74297 | Can I freeze beef stew?
I've made too much beef stew, and I'd love to be able to freeze it instead of letting it go bad.
It's a stew with cooked vegetables and chunks of beef.
Will this freeze and defrost well?
(If it matters, I bought the beef frozen, not fresh -- but I think the "don't refreeze" guideline is before cooking.)
I do it all the time -- but try to use appropriately sized containers, so you're stuck with so much you get tired of it again when you thaw it out.
Yes, you can freeze stew. You may find that the vegetables are a bit softer or broken into smaller pieces after thawing. If you used a thickening agent (flour, cornstarch), it may separate as it thaws in the refrigerator overnight. To remedy that, remove a bit of the liquid, simmer with a bit more thickener and whisk so that it stabilizes. Then, gently stir into the stew as you reheat it.
And, you're correct, 'don't refreeze' applies to the raw meat, not to when it has been cooked.
The only thing I'd add would be that cooked potatoes (if you use them) tend to get a weird texture when you freeze them. Otherwise, no problem!
@Tristan I've found that potatoes in stew freeze OK. Out of liquid they generally don't.
By all means, freeze the stew! Having some ready meals in the freezer is a wise move, come winter or on a hectic day you'll probably be grateful for it.
Your meat won't suffer and while the veggies might get a bit mushier, I assume in a stew they will be quite soft already.
The don't re-freeze is more about quality of raw meat than about food safety - if you defrost in the refrigerator where the meat will never get in the "danger zone".
"Don't refreeze" is absolutely about food safety. It's actually over cautious, but the rule is simple enough for people to remember, and the actual safe limits aren't. The "danger zone" is also an oversimplification. Food poisoning bacteria can grow in fridges - they just do so very slowly.
I would add to cool the stew a bit in the freezing container(s) on the countertop first, then in the fridge for a couple of hours before putting in the freezer. This helps the liquid/gravy not to separate in the freezer.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.978181 | 2016-09-27T16:20:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74297",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Joe",
"Martin Bonner supports Monica",
"Tristan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2794",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68357"
],
"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
} |
18917 | Will avocado stay fresh longer if stored in the refrigerator?
Should I store avocado in the refrigerator or will it make no difference for how long they stay fresh?
Related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89/what-can-i-do-to-help-my-avocados-ripen
Ripening of the avocado is slowed down greatly by refrigeration, so it is usually a good idea to let the avocado ripen fully at room temperature. Once it is ripe, it can be stored in the refrigerator for at least a week. This way, it is ready to use whenever you want it. Fortunately, there is a day or two when the avocado is ripe, but not too ripe, so if you check on it everyday when ripening, you will be able to save it at the correct ripeness without worrying about it too much.
Putting an unripened avocado in the refrigerator may prevent it from ever ripening completely. Once cooled to near freezing (40F in most refrigerators), it seems that some avocados (maybe it depends on the type) don't ripen anymore, even when removed to room temperature.
We refrigerate a lot of avocados. They do ripen after being taken out, but they seem to take longer to ripen than avocados which were never chilled. So be patient.
I store my avocados in my kitchen, uncovered, at room temp until I need them. It is alright to store an avocado in the fridge if you do not intend to use it right away. The cold temperature will inhibit the avocado's ripening. It may need a day or so out on your counter to ripen once it has been removed from the fridge.
If it is already perfectly ripe I would use it asap and not store it in the fridge. Also, if you are making guacamole store it in the fridge with the avocado's seed in the same container, it is supposed oxidize (turn black) less/slower.
I have never found the "store it with the seed" advice to be true. And we use a lot of avocados.
Yep, the "store with the pit" idea is a bit of a myth - it just prevents browning where the pit is touching the avocado instead of air.
You can try freezing them, however I've never tried it personally.
Ripe fruit can be stored in the refrigerator uncut for two to three days. To store cut fruit, sprinkle it with lemon or lime juice or white vinegar and place in an air-tight container in your refrigerator. If refrigerated guacamole turns brown during storage, discard the top layer.
When you have an abundance of fresh avocados, consider freezing them. Pureed avocados freeze very well and can be used in salads, sandwiches and dips.
Wash, seed and peel the fruit as described above.
Puree the flesh, adding one tablespoon of lemon juice for each two pureed avocados. Pack the puree into an air-tight container, leaving 1 inch of headspace.
Seal and label the containers.
Freeze and use within four to five months.
Source: Selecting a California Avocado
Yes. Storing them under cool temperatures works well.
You're not adding any new information here. How cool temperatures affect avocados has been discussed in greater detail in earlier answers.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.978403 | 2011-11-13T02:07:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18917",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"FuzzyChef",
"Jack Armstrong",
"Jolenealaska",
"Lynn Ruzicka",
"Peter.S",
"Roger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41014",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41015",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41016",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"jeremyfisher",
"sharon dobrovolny",
"user41036"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
12631 | Is there a more exact temperature for cold smoking?
In researching cold smoking a product there is quite a large gap between 80-100* . Does anyone use a more exact temperature? Does it vary because of the product? Any little hints to give the smoking a bit of a spicy kick into the final flavour?
The person who wrote this, agrees with you on the 80-100° part.
However, in his salmon recipe, he advices to smoke below 85°.
So my guess is that it depends on the food you're smoking.
The purpose of cold smoking is to preserve meat and add smoke flavor without actually cooking the item being smoked. The amount of smoke kills bacteria and creates a harsh environment for more to go. So the temperature of the smoke doesn't really matter as long as it isn't hot enough to cook the meat. That is why in cold smokers there is large amount of cooling tube between the fire and the actual meat and why you still cook things like bacon and ham before consumption. My rule is as close to room temp as I can get it, with out having an excessive amount of tubing, as I find the meat takes the smoke better at those temps and I run no risk of rendering any of the fat.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.978667 | 2011-02-27T16:04:18 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12631",
"authors": [
"Adri1818",
"Brinn Belyea",
"Diana",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26058"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
44329 | Keeping meat safe all day?
I would like to be able to take meat (e.g. a whole chicken) out of the fridge in the morning (6am) and put it in a oven that is set to turn on approximately 10 hours later, so its ready (or mostly ready) when I arrive home from work (4/5pm).
This is obviously not safe to do without some sort of chilling. Is it possible to use something like ice in or around the meat to keep it cool during the day?
I was thinking of using stock ice cubes (frozen stock), inside the cavity of the bird. Hoping it would melt during the day, keeping it safely cold but not impairing the flavour. My alternative idea is a block of ice under the (metal) baking tray but this would be harder to arrange.
Is this (or similar) a safe idea?
In simple terms, meat is safe either at fridge temperatures or cooking temperatures. You cannot leave meat out all day in a switched-off oven, which is essentially room temperature: 2 hours at room temp is the maximum recommended time throughout the meat's lifetime.
Your various suggested methods of cooling involving ice are impractical at best and unsafe at worst. You might keep the inside of the chicken cool if you put ice inside, but what about the outer parts? Also, what would happen to all the water left behind by the ice as it melts?
Seeing as you can't keep the meat at room temperature and you can't practicably keep it cool, I suggest you instead cook it: get a slow cooker (they are very inexpensive), use joints suitable for slow cooking (such as thigh), put it on in the morning, and your chicken will be fall-off-the-bone tender, and safe, when you get back from work.
If you want to have both white and dark meat, joint the chicken (really not that hard - or your butcher could do it), cook the legs/thighs as above, and keep the breasts in the fridge. When you get home, roast the breasts in the oven while you are preparing vegetables or getting changed or whatever, and you have a whole bird cooked and ready to go.
It was late and I was tired. Edited.
+1 for chicken thighs as potential candidates for slow cooking. They are very forgiving which is important in a slow cooker environment. I ate a thigh this evening that read 195 degrees (F) when I pulled it out of my slow cooker (before carryover). I thought for sure it would be practically jerky but it was surprisingly moist even at that high temp.
No, there isn't a way to make this safe. Even if you pack the chicken in ice, it's not going to stay safely chilled. You could make it somewhat safer by starting with a frozen chicken, but even that would be unsafe according to all reputable sources.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.978804 | 2014-05-22T20:54:32 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44329",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"Joseph E candiloro",
"Mohammad AlKurdi",
"Nestor Bestor",
"Preston",
"Rashid",
"Spammer",
"Stratoshift",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104165",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.