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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
13332 | Why does bread taste raw if you stop baking it and continue after it has cooled?
Unlike, for example, almost anything that is made on the stove and even cakes (of course, as long as your cake doesn't fall as you take it out of the oven), if you stop baking a loaf of bread for some reason before it's thoroughly cooked it will never lose that raw taste, no matter how much you bake or toast it later.
Why is this so? Is it a property of bread? Is it something to do with gluten?
Hot gasses such as steam and CO2 trapped inside the dough by the crust are important to help properly bake the bread, as well as to give it form and structure. If you cut a slice off the end of the bread before the bread has finished baking, you completely change the conditions under which the bread finishes baking: steam will escape rather than building up, the internal temperature probably won't rise as much, and the bread will tend to dry out rather than cook.
If you're not sure whether your bread is done, you should take its temperature. An instant-read, digital thermometer with as fine a probe as possible is best because it compromises the crust the least.
For the same reasons, you should let bread cool as @justkt suggests before cutting into the loaf. Bread smells great when it's hot, but it tastes best when it has cooled somewhat.
To understand this, you have to understand what happens to bread while you bake it. I get all of my information from The Bread Baker's Apprentice by Peter Reinhart.
First you need to gelatinze your starches (which make up 80% of the flour in your bread). During gelatinization starch absorbs and traps as much liquid as it can hold then bursts, flooding the liquid with starch molecules and thickening the mixture. This happens between 180 degrees F and 212 degrees F. So the center of your bread has to reach 180 degrees F for this change to take place. Otherwise the texture will always be a bit doughy. This is probably the main cause of your problem.
Second you need to caramelize sugar on the crust. This happens at 325 degrees F. This will happen early, as your crust reaches nearly the temperature of your oven.
Third the proteins in your bread need to be denatures, coagulated, and roasted. Proteins are tightly coiled molecules. They denature (unwind and straighten) between 140 and 145 degrees F, then as temperatures rise they wrap themselves with each other to create tightly bound chains of proteins (coagulate). After that the proteins roast to create a nice flavor. If you bread didn't even get to 140 degrees F it won't be quite right.
For a hard crusty bread you should bake to 200 degrees F internally. For a soft, enriched bread it must reach at least 180 degrees F.
After baking cooling is also important to avoid a doughy textures. As long as the bread is above 160 degrees F it is still gelatinizing. If you cut into it you'll mess up the process. You need to let it cool down. Not only are your starches settling but your bread is sweating (moisture is evaporating) and the taste is intensifying.
So the main key to avoiding rawness is gelatinzation, and the two steps are baking to 180 degrees F and letting it cool down past 160 degrees F before cutting (but ideally cooling to room temperature for optimum flavor).
Your second bake probably didn't get to 180 degrees F in the center, as you would've quite burned your crust by then.
As with other oven preparations, such as when roasting beef, where it can be a problem to get the inside of something to a certain temperature without burning its outside, wouldn't the above mean we could bake the bread at a low temperature and then form a crust at high temperature? That might even allow to do the crusting part later, maybe even after freezing.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.979071 | 2011-03-21T10:52:03 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13332",
"authors": [
"Hanno Fietz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2911"
],
"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
} |
62351 | What precautions need to be taken while using sour culture for setting yogurt?
The home made yogurt culture I have is sour.
Is it possible to get non sour yogurt from sour culture?
What precautions need to be taken while using sour culture for setting fresh yogurt?
Hygiene is your most important tool to successful (and safe) yogurt.
Everything should be spotless and sanitized appropriately.
I have made a yogurt that made me really sick, so take that as a warning to maintain good hygiene while working with cultured foods.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.979712 | 2015-10-07T07:20:07 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62351",
"authors": [
"Dan Parks",
"David Nicol",
"Kathy Bensmiller Kbens74",
"Ken Chapman",
"Michael Pickard",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148175",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148176",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148226"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
31978 | What do eggs with two yolks indicate?
For the first time I have seen hen eggs with two yolks.
Do they indicate a special kind of hen?
OR A special kind of grain fed to the hen?
OR Some scientific procedure which makes hens produce such eggs?
Are these kind of eggs safe to eat?
Double-yolked eggs are the result of an anomaly in the egg generation process in the hen.
They can happen in any breed of hen, on any feed. It is a result of two ova being generated at the same time, and then encapsulated in a single shell. According to My Pet Chicken, it happens more often with younger hens.
I am not aware of any process to intentionally foster double yolked eggs, but that doesn't mean such a thing doesn't exist.
They are safe to eat, although they may be visually startling.
Like twins in humans?
In the broadest sense, yes, kind of like a situation that might possibly lead to fraternal twins in humans. There are many factors in each species, and mammals and birds are pretty different in the details--for example, the whole shell thing.
Rarely I (unknowingly) buy a whole box of double-yolked eggs, so it seems to me it's not always by chance. Can it be induced somehow? I don't remember anything particular about those boxes, but maybe you know?
@jkadlubowska If you have enough egg production, they can be segregated by candling the eggs...
@jkadlubowska All the 12 the eggs I bought few days back too have this double yolk issue!
It's discussed in the PDF you linked in another answer.
The way I heard it from my grandmother is this indicates very well-fed, healthy hens. It was very desirable, and hens laying these on regular basis were a serious bragging right. Such eggs were also considered more valuable as summarily they contained more yolk matter.
A hen aged between 20-28 weeks has a one in a hundred chance of laying a double yoked egg. Since all the eggs in a box usually come from the same flock and all the birds in the flock are the same age, if you find one double yolk, the probablity of finding more in the box is high. As double-yoked eggs are larger than single yoked, if the eggs are graded to be the same size in a box, the probability of finding them increases.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16118149
According to my onetime teacher in Reproductive Biology at Oregon State University (Go Beavers!), Fred Menino, hens commonly lay multiple yolk eggs (I think the record is 9 yolks, but I may be mis-remembering) when young, before they are completely reproductively competent. To some degree this is a result of the selective breeding programs we (humans) have used to increase the numbers of eggs chickens lay in their most productive laying years, which favors hens that reproduce early in life.
So, to answer the question(s): Yes, it is a special sort of hen, bred for generations to lay huge numbers of eggs. It is not a special kind of grain; though the diets of commercial layers is very carefully chosen to maximize egg-laying, that just means getting the hens the closest to perfect nutrition for making lots of eggs. The scientific procedure is selective breeding for maximum egg-laying. This is very powerful. It's not "genetic engineering", but has results very quickly, and has been practiced since humans have been breeding animals for food and profit.
The eggs are as safe as any other egg.
Yes, it is a special sort of hen, bred for generations to lay huge numbers of eggs. Please add sources to support your claims.
This is the story of domestic animal culture. I don't think the claim is sufficiently outrageous to require citations--in fact it is completely reasonable. Just as we breed milk cows to give lots of milk, corn to give lots of grain, domestic chickens for laying have been bred to give lots of eggs. Daily laying is not a strategy wild birds engage in!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.979807 | 2013-02-16T17:14:58 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/31978",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"CodeCamper",
"Marieah",
"Peejat",
"Peter Taylor",
"Philip Barham",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SF.",
"Shirley chandler",
"alloverone",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102269",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73515",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73584",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73815",
"jkadlubowska"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
32278 | Can I bake bread in pieces?
Because bread is basically brick sized and shaped, it'll take a long time to get cooked properly.
Assuming I don't care about the shape, does it make sense to cut the bread dough into small pieces and then place them all separately on the baking sheet?
How much cooking time reduction should I expect? Do I need to take care of anything else in this case?
Smaller breads are usually called rolls or sometimes buns. There are also a lot of names for specific kinds of rolls, beyond obvious things like "sourdough rolls".
You can certainly take an existing recipe and just form in to more, smaller pieces, and reducing baking time. They'll look funny if you just cut it into pieces, though; you should reform them into something rounder.
It's hard to say exactly how much less baking time it'll take, since it depends on exactly how small you make them. It might be anywhere from roughly a quarter to half the original baking time, and especially for smaller rolls with shorter baking times, you'd probably want to increase the temperature so they'll still brown by the time they're done. Very small ones will be on the low end of the time range, and need more increase in temperature; larger ones will take longer and not need as much temperature increase.
Given all that, you might want to just look for a recipe for rolls that suits you. Simpler, less chance of messing up!
Thanks for mentioning the new words "rolls and buns". Will look in Google. But anyways, if I make them the size of cup cakes, can I assume the "time" for cupcakes? Means 10 minutes? Or in any case it is going to be baked for a long duration as compared to cup cakes?
@AnishaKaul If they're that small, yes, maybe ten minutes and increase the temperature by 50-75 degrees, but I'd really recommend just finding a recipe and avoiding the uncertainty. To some extent you can get away with it by just checking on them until they're done, but still, it'll just be a lot easier with a recipe.
Ok, I should keep cake temperature "plus" 50-75 degree.
When both of you are talking about 50-70 degrees, are you meaning Celsius or Fahrenheit?
@J.A.I.L. I am talking about Celsius. :)
Sorry, I meant Fahrenheit. My mistake. And I'm talking about temperature difference between rolls and full bread loaf, not anything to do with cake.
The precise time when any (wheat) bread is done is when its center reaches 94℃ (~201℉). That works independently of its size and shape.
The longer a bread needs to be baked depends mainly on its shape: a dough with its center farer from its surface will need more time for the heat to go over that distance. The heat from the oven will need more time to heat the center up to those 94℃.
Baking time also depends on the size, albeit less than on the shape. If you put a 1 kg dough in a hot oven it will need more time to heat it than a 1/2 kg one.
Please don't get offended if I disagree with your statement: "bread is basically brick sized and shaped". But there are really many different sizes and shapes for stuff people understand as bread. Just two examples on French common ones:
Boule
(Source: Wikipedia)
Boule, which means ball in French, are traditional French bread round shaped, and are not strange to weight something between 1/2 and 2 Kg.
Baguette
(Source: Wikipedia)
Baguette, which means little rod in French, is probably the most well known French bread but, surprisingly is not traditional: it was invented less than 100 years ago as a mean of making bread quickly.
A 1 kg boule needs something about 1 hour baking, while 4 baguettes of 250 gr need less than 1/2 hour (despite been the same mass in the oven).
I chose those two because they are extreme examples: a sphere can be proved mathematically to have its center farer from its surface than any other solid of the same volume. Rod shaped or flat breads will have it's center closer to their surface than other shapes. So shape matters more than size.
You can use both variables to bake bread in less time: small (I.E: 100 gr) and not round buns will need least time to be ready. Probably less than 15 minutes. But notice they will also go stale faster once out of the oven, as air will also reach the center sooner, and dry it quicker.
"Please don't get offended if I disagree with your statement: "bread is basically brick sized and shaped"." There isn't any reason to get offended, the brick shaped bread is the only bread that me and my family have seen in India.
+1 for math :-) I should point out that I do have some recipes for yeast raised breads (from reputable sources--King Arthur Flour) where the final internal temperature is 195 F (appx 90.5 C), but these are probably the exception rather than the rule. Baking most yeast raised breads to 198-200 F internal temp AS @J.A.I.L indicates is probably a good bet, if the recipe does not give you more specific guidance. I never liked the "thump test" myself, where you thump the bottom and a "hollow" sound is supposed to indicate doneness.
@AnishaKaul I would think nan is also a good example of a bread that's not brick shaped. If you combine both approaches, making your bread in smaller, single serving sizes, and also modify the shape for faster baking, the ultimate result would likely be similar to nan or pita bread (or, I suppose, bread sticks, if you go with a baguette shape).
It'll work fine. The only thing is that if you just cut the dough into random chunks, your finished rolls will look irregular; you might want to look up some instructions on how to shape rolls (it's easy enough to do but a bit difficult to explain).
While this is true and, actually, a good comment on the question, it should've been posted as that (a comment), and not as an answer.
@J.A.I.L. I don't see why this should be a comment. Yes, the other answers give much more information (and it is your right to downvote if you think this answer is wrong or does not bring any new information). But the OP asked whether it would work and the user answered "yes", so it is an answer, even if its quality is not stellar.
Agree. +1 for not deserving -1.
@HenrikSöderlund Rumtscho in fact said that you should downvote if it's wrong or doesn't add new information, i.e. it's not useful like the hover text says.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.980268 | 2013-02-28T05:04:45 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32278",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Cascabel",
"Henrik Söderlund",
"J.A.I.L.",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Theodore Murdock",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9057",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
44283 | What is the best way to get rid of the ants from the box of clarified butter?
The clarified butter is in a semi solid state in a transparent plastic box covered with a screw type lid.
I don't know how the ants went inside but now I can see those ants roaming inside the box - over and inside the clarified butter.
I was thinking of heating the butter and thus melting it down and then I could simply use a tea strainer to filter the ants out, but I think that this process will kill the ants and then I'll have dead bodies of ants and probably the juices from their bodies inside the butter which I find disgusting.
What is the way to get rid of them?
You're worried about the bodies, but did you ask the ants if they've been good and wiped their feet before entering your jar?
I would probably just call it quits and throw out the whole pack - who knows where those ants have been?
what type of ants do you have in your area? If it's a variety that people eat anyway, it might not be as bad. We have odorous ants around here, which smell nasty, so I'm guessing taste nasty, too.
Eating ants = lots of beneficial proteins, no?
The best way to get rid of the ants? Toss the ants and the butter in the trash or a trash bag that you can quickly seal to prevent the ants from spreading around your house. Then, wash the container and check it for any holes or openings where the ants could have gotten in through (can do a water test - fill it with water and see if any water escapes). Then, go out and buy fresh butter.
I know that I'm very late in giving a reply, but I also faced the same problem. What I did was to keep the ghee in sunlight; when it melted, I filtered it, then boiled it to prevent any germs.
You boiled the ghee?? That might deteriorate the quality of the fat and even affect the flavor.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.980749 | 2014-05-21T11:14:47 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44283",
"authors": [
"Cynthia",
"ElendilTheTall",
"GameRoom",
"Joe",
"Luciano",
"Mat",
"Michael Saikali",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10161",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104065",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104081",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"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
} |
29918 | What hole size to prefer in the bread for what reasons?
I have seen someone asking how to get big holes in a bread? and then someone else asking how to get small holes in the bread?
Why would someone like big holes and the other person small holes?
Question: Is it all about the looks? Big holes look fancier than the smaller ones OR do the size of the holes impact the taste and texture of the breads?
Big holes = more butter!
I believe this is not a duplicate because the referenced question asks for how to manage the holes in bread; this question asks why is that an interesting or important feature.
There are lots of styles of bread, which of course different people have different preferences for, and which lend themselves to different applications.
First, what do the holes indicate? The holes are pockets or cells in the gluten network in the loaf--so the stronger the gluten network, the larger the holes can expand during proofing. similarly, the more active the yeast, or the longer the proof, the larger the holes will have the potential to expand.
So large holes tend to be found in breads with strong gluten networks, which have longer proofing times. These loaves will have chewier texture, and yeastier flavor, which can be very delicious.
For other applications, such as a typical US-style sandwich bread, the desire is for a more tender product, which is indicative of less gluten development; also, large holes would let spreads or condiments soak through the bread more easily, which is not so desirable in a sandwich to be eaten out of hand. So these loaves are typically ones with smaller holes.
So the holes are either a factor themselves (as in sandwich bread), or indicative of other qualities of the loaf (as in so-called artisan style bread)--but either way, they are a very visible indicator of the nature of the loaf, and so getting the desired holes will help get the desired loaf qualities.
I am sure there are many more qualified bread experts who will give you a more detailed answer...
Agreed. Smaller-holed loaves, like 'standard' sandwich bread, are almost always enriched with fat and milk, which has the dual effect of tenderising the bread and reducing hole size. Larger-holed loaves, for example pain a l'ancienne or ciabatta, are often very lean with little or no fat in them at all, and are subsequently also much chewier.
@ElendilTheTall thanks for clarifying, in my first comment I had understood vice versa.
@ElendilTheTall Many traditional breads have small (or "non visible") holes but not enriched with fats. Such as this one or this one Spanish breads which have quite a chewy crumb
True, but they are exceptions rather than the norm, and I note they go through a special process to achieve that density of crumb.
Now I wish I read Spanish--and no, I don't think google translate does the job.
@ElendilTheTall I don't think they are are exactly exceptions. They are exceptions that happens in every country: think of French Miches or all rye bread from central/northern European countries. I put those 2 Spanish examples because they have an even denser crumb (because of the "refining" proccess: an intensive degass).
@SAJ14SAJ That's true. I didn't check the English translation. It seems Google Translate is misunderstanding prieto in the first example. It should have picked "tight" instead of the Caribbean "dark" meaning.
The size of the holes in bread is largely due to the water content of the bread, although the yeast used and the method used also makes a difference. In general the more water in the bread the bigger the holes.
There's been more than one discussion on this exact topic before, here is one that has some excellent information.
in general the more water in the bread the bigger the holes. So why should I put lots of water in the bread? What would it give me besides big holes? Why would I want big holes?
I really recommend you read the link I posted, it goes into great detail on that point.
@AnishaKaul i think your answer is going to depend on the application of the bread. If it's sandwich bread you may not want a dense chewy texture since you want to focus on the ingredients inside. But if you want to emphasize the bread a chewy big bold bread may be what your looking for and therefore bigger holes and probably bigger flavor.
@AnishaKaul, your whole discussion on holes, while bringing out the experts on bread knowledge, may be quite the red herring. What kind of bread do you want - chewy, soft, hard, delicate? The size hole each of these come with will be what they are by nature of the bread's ingredients and preparation. Just trying to help! :-)
@KristinaLopez Okay, I haven't ever eaten any other bread than the sandwich bread, so I really don't know how would other kinds of breads taste! :( What is that big holed chewy bread eaten with? Just curious.
@Anisha Kaul: I see that you live in India. I am assuming that this type of bread is not a common thing over there. Here is a good picture of bread with big holes: http://zolablue.smugmug.com/photos/244769142-L.jpg. And here is another picture where you can see that the high hydration (which gives a loose dough) has made the loaf quite flat: http://www.robinson.to/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/white-sourdough-bread-cut.jpg. If you want to try making this style of bread yourself I would recommend Jim Lahey's no-knead bread: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/08/dining/081mrex.html?_r=0
Isn't that like french bread? Maybe the kind that comes in long skinny loaves that has a crisp crust? I found the whole "hole" discussion fascinating actually! :-)
@HenrikSöderlund I definitely had not seen the bread with such big holes! Thanks. What do you eat that bread with?
@HenrikSöderlund, excellent picture of big-holed bread! I can almost taste it!
@Anisha Kaul: This style of bread is nearly always used for one of two things: 1. Sandwiches of all sorts. 2. Served plain with butter on the side as an accompaniment to other foods. You might for example get a small basket of sliced bread and a small bowl of butter when ordering a soup in a restaurant.
@HenrikSöderlund Thanks. Is there a remarkable taste difference between big and small holed breads?
@KristinaLopez: You mean baguettes? If so, then yes, baguettes belong in this category. At least when they are properly made, which usually means they're made with sourdough.
@Anisha Kaul: I would say yes. A really good bread with big holes does taste a whole lot better than regular "sandwich-style" bread. There is much more flavour, the inside of the loaf is chewy but also kind of creamy in a weird way. And if the crust is really dark brown and hard (the way I like it) it gives a great crunchy contrast to the soft interior.
@HenrikSöderlund Wow, I think I'll try it now! Thanks.
But of course the flavour does not come from the holes. The flavour and the holes both come from the method of baking. High hydration, good strong (high protein) flour, long proofing (rising) times are some of the factors that contribute.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.980961 | 2013-01-09T09:18:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29918",
"authors": [
"An0num0us",
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Brendan",
"Cathy Bowen",
"ElendilTheTall",
"GdD",
"Henrik Söderlund",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Jack Denz",
"Karolis Staskevičius",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Piskr",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"citizen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69692",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69693",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69696",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69704",
"user69693"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
54010 | What is the meaning of the term whole grain?
Often I have read that whole grains are healthy.
So, what is a whole grain and what is a non-whole grain?
The Pasta I have says "Durum wheat" as the ingredient. What should I understand by that?
Graphics and quoted text from: Whole Grains Council
Grains, by definition, have 3 major parts: the germ, the endosperm, and the bran.
Whole grains are those that have all of the parts of the natural seed, or kernel (not including an exterior husk that is generally inedible).
To be called "Whole Grain" the product must still have all of the bran, endosperm and germ that it had when it was in the field, although it can milled, ground, cracked, natural, whatever...as long as it still has all of its parts.
If a food label states that the package contains whole grain, the "whole grain" part of the food inside the package is required to have the same proportions of bran, germ, and endosperm as the harvested kernel does before it is processed.
Refining normally removes the bran and the germ, leaving only the endosperm. Without the bran and germ, about 25% of a grain’s protein is lost, along with at least seventeen key nutrients. Processors add back some vitamins and minerals to enrich refined grains, so refined products still contribute valuable nutrients.
This graphic shows what's lost when wheat is refined, and what's added back when it's "enriched":
Durum is just a variety of wheat. Unless it specifically says "whole wheat" or "whole grain", you can assume that it is refined.
You just had to use diagrams didn't you? ಠ_ಠ
@ElendilTheTall As soon as I saw that you had posted an answer, I knew you were going to say that :)
You're supposed to be asleep!
I think she won d00d.
"is required to have the same proportions of bran, germ, and endosperm as the harvested kernel does before it is processed." IIRC in many countries (including the US) these proportions are defined by law rather than by reference to the actual harvested grains that the product was made from.
@Random832 That may be right, it wouldn't surprise me, but the proportions "by law" would be based upon the proportions in the actual harvested grains.
It must be right. It's from the future. Copyright 20004
Whole grain refers to any grain where the whole grain is used - that is, the germ (the reproductive part of the seed), the endosperm (the 'flesh' of the grain) and the bran (the skin).
Non whole grain usually means the bran has been removed.
This is really a whole other question, but 'durum wheat' is merely the variety of wheat used to make the pasta.
This is really a whole other question, but 'durum wheat' is merely the variety of wheat used to make the pasta. But how would i know whether it is whole wheat or not? If it not whole wheat then what is it?
@TheIndependentAquarius: It will say whole grain, if it's whole grain. At least here in the US, if it doesn't say whole grain, you can assume that it is not.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.981581 | 2015-01-26T14:38:37 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54010",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Brad",
"Chryss Jenkins",
"ElendilTheTall",
"GdD",
"John Kane",
"Jolenealaska",
"Leslie Wood",
"Noni Wright",
"Random832",
"Roger Barton",
"Stephen Miller",
"Tray Jud",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127008",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127011",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127014",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21659",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7495"
],
"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
} |
42858 | Does it make a noticeable difference if I don't prepare the Turkish coffee in a Turkish coffee pot?
Here's a Turkish coffee pot.
I don't have any of those so I use stainless steel vessel to prepare the Turkish coffee.
Does it make a noticeable difference if I prepare the Turkish coffee in a stainless steel vessel rather than a Turkish coffee pot?
No, you don't strictly have to, although having a pot with a similar shape helps. For people who want to have a clean pot of the right size at all times, it makes sense to have a dedicated pot. Whether to use a traditional one or not is a matter of taste.
Nowadays, it is likely that you have a smallish pot in your kitchen which is clean (not soaked in old grease like the typical clay cooking pot in a medieval Ottoman kitchen), so there is no pressing need to dedicating a copper pot to the task.
What is convenient to have is a pot with one long grip, because you can pour the coffee through the strainer easier than when you have two small handles like on a soup pot. You also want the surface to not be too large. The coffee should be at least 2-3 cm deep, else too much water will boil out during preparation, and the coffee may overheat and scorch. If you are drinking small cups, you will need a smaller pot. The material is not important, as long as it is suitable for boiling water on stovetop.
But as long as the pot allows you to have your coffee deep enough, and you feel comfortable enough with pouring, any pot will do. My father has been using a smallish saucepan for decades and has always been happy with the results.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.981880 | 2014-03-19T10:17:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42858",
"authors": [
"BeaglesEnd",
"Deb",
"Edward Cox",
"Mujib Sani",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100182",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100187"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
43235 | What is a mixed spice with respect to a cake?
1 tsp mixed spice
http://www.maryberry.co.uk/recipes/baking/whole-orange-spice-cake
What does mixed spice constitute of in terms of cake?
Mixed spice is a blend you find in the UK. It's a mix of cinnamon, ground coriander, nutmeg, ginger, and cloves. Some recipes call for mace, caraway, and/or allspice as well. It's a bit like garam masala, there's no set blend. It's as simple as mixing together equal quantities of each, although you may want to add double the mace if you opt for it.
If you want a store bought substitute in the US, it sounds similar to pumpkin pie spice, except maybe the coriander.
That sounds about right actually now that I think about it.
Corriander is quite odd in that mix; did you perhaps mean cardamom?
I know it sounds odd, but it's almost always in mixed spice. Cardamom isn't one of the traditional ingredients.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.982057 | 2014-04-03T08:11:01 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43235",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Dave LeBlanc",
"Dirk rapiddawn",
"GdD",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"spammer",
"waterproof"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
13345 | Why does fondue sometimes "curdle" and what can I do to prevent it?
Once when I was making a pretty standard fondue (50% gruyere, 50% emmenthal, white wine) the cheese somehow "curdled" and became a mix of a slightly fondue-tasting liquid and a rubbery ball of cheese, completely useless for fondue purposes.
Why and how does this happen? Was it the quality of the cheese, did I overheat the wine before adding the cheese, or did I add too much/too little cheese at once?
Cheese sauces will curdle more easily if they are not acid enough.
I struggled with homemade mac-n-cheese until someone pointed this out to me. The wine that Zippy suggests is one solution to adding acid without undesirable taste.
Normally, you start adding the cheese when the wine is simmering and stir regularly as you add it. If necessary, you can add a tablespoon of corn starch dissolved in some white wine to homogenize the mixture.
+1: This is the right answer. The cheese must form a kind of solution with the wine. The nasty ball of sludge is the result of throwing it all in a pot and heating it up...It's like making a cheese sauce with a Béchamel base except the wine is less forgiving...Stir stir stir.
White wine has a pH of 3 to 4 and is acidic enough to curdle milk and the milk proteins in cheese. The key to success is to choose a wine that is not too "dry", heat it first to drive off the volatile acids and then gradually add the grated cheeses while stirring constantly. If the cheese curdles you're done. I've never been able to reverse it. Start over.
Add cheese more slowly. And more importantly: keep stirring. The Swiss give the fondue a little stir every time they dip the bread into the pot ... you get more cheese on your piece of bread, and help keep the cheese in the pot smooth.
As soon as the wine is simmering, you add a tablespoon of corn starch dissolved in some cold white wine. Stir in order to make a very light "sauce".
Then you add the grated cheeses.
So the best way to make cheese fondue is not to add a cornstarch solution afterwards as so many recipes tell you to do, but before you add the grated cheeses.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.982189 | 2011-03-21T19:42:05 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13345",
"authors": [
"Robusto",
"Satanicpuppy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70736"
],
"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
} |
8103 | What will happen if I substitute beef liver for pork liver in sausage?
When we bought our cow this year, we opted to take all the organ meat. So, I now have a bunch of beef liver, I don't actually like beef liver cooked with onions or any other preparation I've encountered. I do however like liverwurst, and braunschweiger. Both of these sausages are traditional made with pork liver. I've never encountered pork liver in any other form though, so I don't know how it tastes by comparison.
Are the two livers roughly itnterchangable in other ways? Fat content, texture, etc.
How do they compare flavor wise?
Am I doomed if I try and make sausage out of beef liver?
Last time I had pork liver I was a kid, but I remember it being strong flavored (compared to the beef liver with onions I occasionally still eat). If it's any inspiration, the Braunschweiger sausage is sometimes made with just beef liver.
Well, at least here in germany it really is common to make liverwurst with beef liver (or more often and expensive: calf liver). So go ahead - you really won't regret it! Taken the percentage of actual liver in liverwurst you won't taste any difference, though I'd say beef liver tastes better.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.982501 | 2010-10-14T15:47:41 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8103",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/183",
"papin"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
43926 | Why does the kneaded dough form a skin when exposed to air and what are the possible ways to prevent the skin formation?
I knead the whole wheat flour with water and when I am done I keep it covered with a loose lid on the kitchen counter for a hour.
I have noticed that a brown coloured skin gets formed on the surface of the dough which faces upwards.
Q: What is the cause of that skin formation?
Q: Can it have bad health effects if I eat it?
Q: What are the ways to prevent it from occurring?
The skin forms because water evaporates from the surface of the dough. The middle doesn't dry out because the drier dough skin is less porous, and so the rate of moisture loss slows down as the skin forms.
It's perfectly okay to eat it, it's just the same dough but drier. Whether it is pleasant to eat is another matter of course. It won't become unsafe until it's been sitting around long enough for moulds and bacteria to grow on it to significant levels and that's not going to happen in an hour.
You can prevent it by preventing the moisture loss from the surface. You've got some options here. For my bread dough I cover the bowl with cling film, which provides a fairly good moisture seal. Moisture still evaporates from the dough, but reaches equilibrium with the air trapped inside the bowl and so doesn't continue to the point where a skin forms.
If cling film is likely to touch the dough itself, it's going to stick to it, so it or the dough need to be oiled to prevent that.
You could also cover it with a clean damp towel. The water in the towel helps create a moist environment around the dough surface, thus discouraging drying of the dough and the formation of the skin. This method is also commonly seen in bread recipes.
I cover my bread dough with a clean damp towel and I've never experienced the "skin" that the OP describes.
When letting my bread dough rise I coat the bowl and the dough with oil, of course I have to work the oil coating into the dough after it is done rising, but this is the most fool proof way I have found to prevent the crust. I usually knead the dough using flour to prevent sticking after the first rising, but I have also used more oil to prevent the dough from sticking to the board when I knead it after the rise- I use this method when I do not want to add more flour to the recipe. It works fairly well- but involves slightly more manipulation. Hope this helps.
Yes I've discovered that in the years since writing this answer - I now routinely oil my rising dough.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.982625 | 2014-05-06T04:43:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43926",
"authors": [
"Chirag Naresh",
"Gwynfor",
"Lizabela",
"Matthew Walton",
"Navajo Dreamchild",
"good kind Bona Vista",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103084",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103090",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61005",
"starsplusplus"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
42424 | What is the difference between instant and filter coffee?
http://www.brucoffee.in/OurCoffees.aspx
They have labeled their coffee's as instant and filter.
What would be the difference between them? Why should I choose one over the other?
"Filter" coffee in general, is coffee beans that have been roasted and ground and is for use in coffee making machines. This makes 'fresh' coffee that may have a variety of qualities not found in instant - such as sweeter or more distinct flavours, etc.
"Instant" coffee is normally a coffee that has already been made (they had the fun already!) and is dried (usually through freezing) into a dehydrated state, hence we just add water and get coffee.
I would think that most people who have drunk proper (freshly made) coffee would prefer the flavour, quality and effects from caffeine, over that of instant. For me, instant is a back up, in case the real stuff runs out, but I feel always tastes a little woody and not as satisfying in terms of a caffeine hit. There are several coffees available now - Kenco Millicano is one - that offer both instant and some kind of coffee bean, but all I see is coffee grinds in the bottom of the cup, and not much difference in flavour.
The difference is that instant coffee dissolves in water whereas filter is ready ground that does not and still a filter is needed when making it one way or another. Instant coffee is most convenient since it actually dissolves in a cup and can be stirred in - yet instant coffee and ready ground coffee mixes are more likely to have fillers hidden in them compared to whole bean coffee
When roasting coffee, some of the smaller beans get burnt and others broken up. These are great to use in the cheap ready grind and the Tim Hortons, Starbucks and instant coffee blends. Whole bean coffee is better as any non coffee fillers would not be as easily blended into the containers
So they speak about the dust in teabags - yet with a great big cannister of ready grind coffee at a Costco going for as little as a dollar and fifty cents you would probably wonder what goes in it and instant coffee being even cheaper for the cup than bagged tea one would wonder what goes in it
John, please try to stick to the question. Yes, whole beans are typically considered superior to ground for many reasons, yet this part does not really answer the question about the difference between instand and ground coffee. I see you are quite new here, did you take the [tour] and visit our [help] yet? This is a good place to get a better idea of how this site works. And perhaps you would also be interested in our sister comunity Coffee SE - but only if you promise not to jilt us for them ;-) Welcome to Seasoned Advice!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.982884 | 2014-03-01T05:31:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42424",
"authors": [
"Aft",
"Leon Colla",
"Lori Lynn Thiessen",
"M. F. Bostanci",
"MVTC",
"Michael Roberts",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159262",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99078",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99220"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
44870 | When a recipe asks for 1 cup of sugar, should I assume powdered or tiny crystals form?
When a recipe asks (without clearly specifying) for 1 cup of sugar, should I assume powdered or tiny crystals form?
"Sugar" without any other description refers to granulated sugar. Granulated means crystals somewhat larger than the crystals in caster sugar, which is another commonly used crystal sugar in the UK. In other countries these smaller crystals may also be called superfine sugar or baking sugar. You can generally use granulated or caster/baking/superfine sugar interchangeably, but the volumetric measurement (spoons or cups) will be slightly different since granulated sugar is coarser than caster sugar. You might find this Sugar Conversion Tool helpful.
If the recipe wants you to use the powdered form of sugar, it will specify powdered, confectioners or icing sugar, which are all the same thing.
FYI, Caster sugar is only commonly used in_baking_, in the UK. Recipes would specify caster sugar if required, otherwise I would assume 'sugar' to mean granulated as well.
@ElendilTheTall OH! Thank you. I'll edit accordingly.
It asks you to use white crystal sugar.
If you needed powdered sugar, it would use one of the following words: powdered sugar, confectioner's sugar or icing sugar.
Some supermarkets sell "baking sugar" which is still in crystals, they are somewhat smaller, so they dissolve faster. Most recipes don't need this kind of thing, it is required to make your almost perfect cake one percent more fluffy, but an eater has to be pretty perfectionistic to notice the difference. Also, it only works with recipes which measure by weight. In almost all cases, you are better off to buy the plainest sugar you can find.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.983152 | 2014-06-14T10:24:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44870",
"authors": [
"Bill Weisberger",
"DukeofBurgundy",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Emilee Emilee Samfilippo",
"Hicare Qatar",
"Jeannie Speakman",
"Jolenealaska",
"Marcel Bankmann",
"Shivani",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106652",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106653",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106656",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106727",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"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
} |
33531 | What does karate chop in a french bread dough mean?
http://www.steamykitchen.com/75-baking-the-perfect-loaf-of-french-bread.html
Now do a little “karate chop” lengthwise down the middle of the bread and stretch out the long ends again. Fold over in half. The karate chop helps get the middle tucked inside.
I didn't understand this "karate chop" thing. What exactly does it expect me to do after I fold the sides of the dough?
In context, it means to press down with the blade of your hand, to facilitate folding into thirds:
I put an orange line near the part of the hand you would press with.
This is not a standard culinary term, by the way—the recipe author is being cute.
In practice, you could use the handle of a wooden spoon, or press a little groove in with your fingers, as well.
Haha, it's not everyday you get to explain what a karate chop is on stack exchange. I really hope you were making karate noises while you were posting this
Thanks for explanation. Now it seems I asked a too simple question! :(
No, it was a very strange usage in a recipe....
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.983317 | 2013-04-16T14:23:44 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33531",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"jalbee"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
74362 | What happens to raw honey after the expiry date? Will it be edible?
I have got a 3 kg pack of raw wild unheated honey. Expiry date is 18 months from packaging.
What is expected to happen to it after the expiry date? Will it be edible?
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/the-science-behind-honeys-eternal-shelf-life-1218690/?no-ist
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/pyramid_honey.png
It is probably a best-before date (possibly regarding crystallization of the honey or other cosmetic changes), and should still be edible afterwards.
Most honey has historically been stored raw, it is still sold in the comb in places, and has still been known for having a long shelf life if left in a closed container. Honey has mild antiseptic qualities, and too little water, for most anything nasty to grow in - usually the heating and other processing has more to do with appearance and texture (crystallization and cloudiness, and also batch consistency and efficiency), rather than specific safety concerns. And if it does go bad, from exceedingly poor storage, too much moisture, or something of the sort - it should be very apparent, and on the surface only.
That being said, if you have concerns about your honey specifically or believe that its raw nature poses more risk - you should act as it seems safe for you. Putting the honey in the fridge should double the shelf life, at least, though it will also encourage crystallization.
Honey doesn't expire. It's the only food that doesn't. However, you should never feed it to children under the age of one regardless of its freshness.
If you find that it has crystallized, you can microwave it to re-liquefy it, but make sure you do it in very short intervals; as little as ten seconds at a time, and never in a plastic container. Sugar heats up quickly and much hotter than other liquids so it will melt through your honey bear before you can say just right. If you want to heat it in the plastic container, heat up a container of water big enough to hold the the honey bear with a little extra room. Then place the container in the hot water to liquefy the honey.
I've yet to figure out under which conditions it crystallizes and which it doesn't, but I'm sure there's some trick to it. I do think that temperature has something to do with it, but I've had honey crystallize in the summer and stay liquid in the winter, so who knows.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.983442 | 2016-09-29T04:09:58 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74362",
"authors": [
"Sobachatina",
"Thorst",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23870"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
76168 | How do eggs relate to the texture of the cake?
But to answer your last question, eggs role in cakes isn't necessarily
to contribute flavor, but more as a binding agent, which ultimately
determines the texture of your cake (e.g. light and airy, or thick and
dense).
http://www.chowhound.com/post/eggs-put-cake-700653?commentId=5538121
So, does lots of eggs mean light cake or dense cake? How does this work? What can happen if I put too many eggs in the cake?
"What can happen if I put too many eggs in the cake?" - are you not using recipes? Or is it just a hypothetical about the effects of a mistake?
@Jefromi of course i will be using receipes. I just wanted to know what can too many eggs or too less eggs do to cake.
What cake? Eggs have different roles in different types of cake.
@Jefromi I think the question is good - eggs don't seem to come in the same size everywhere, and some people (me included. sadly for the OP, I prefer not using eggs at all) prefer ratios to recipes.
And different cakes use different parts of the egg.
@rackandboneman A ratio is still a recipe in the sense I meant - it's a known good way to make a given cake, which in particular tells you exactly how much egg you should be using. I was merely trying to clarify whether the OP was asking about mistakes in existing recipes or trying to invent or deliberately modify recipes. The two deserve very different sorts of answers.
@rumtscho I do not know. See if you can give some generic idea about eggs used in different kinds of cakes.
The problem is that giving some generic idea takes a whole book chapter. That's why I think you should focus your question, it is too broad. If you really want to know all of it, there are books which describe it.
Can you suggest some "basic/beginner" cakes names which I can add in this question? @rumtscho
I'll take a stab at this broad question, because I think it deserves at least an attempt at a general answer.
Eggs are very important to the texture of many cakes, but as noted in comments, the effects of changing the amount of eggs are really dependent on the type of cake. To generalize:
For cakes that are intended to be light in texture already, the quantity of eggs is generally pretty well calibrated to maximize lightness -- adding or subtracting a significant amount of egg is unlikely to improve the texture.
For dense cakes, the exact amount of eggs is frequently more about richness and flavor than creating a precise texture. However, shifting the number of eggs appreciably could change baking time and how the cake sets.
Unbeaten eggs are (as the question notes) mostly for binding, rather than lightness. They also provide a richness to the flavor and can soften the texture. Yolks alone (or using more yolks than whites) are also often used for richness, as in very dense or velvety cakes (like flourless chocolate cakes). Whites even unbeaten will bulk up the cake a bit and can help support the cake's structure through earlier coagulation during baking. However, having more unbeaten eggs doesn't necessarily mean a "lighter" or "denser" cake: that will depend more on the other proportions of ingredients and how high the cake rises before the eggs coagulate.
Beaten eggs are generally used to add lightness. Beaten whites provide the most lift and lightness (as in angel food cakes). Beaten whole eggs or beaten yolks can also contribute something to lightness, particularly when they are beaten together with something else to stabilize them (most commonly sugar) and/or heated gently until they become "ribbon-like" and thick (but not so hot as to coagulate). Often whites and yolks are added separately, with the beaten whites sometimes folded in toward the end to add extra lightness. In general, the foam from whole eggs is a lot less stable, so whole eggs are frequently beaten into recipes after the primary bubbles are created (e.g., through creaming butter with sugar, or other possible methods).
So, in general, it's not so much that "more eggs" means lighter or denser or whatever -- it really depends on the detailed mixing methods and how the eggs are used.
When eggs are used for lightness (for example, when whites are beaten separately and folded in), the addition of another egg or two may sometimes be useful for increasing lightness, while removing some egg will likely make the cake more dense (and somewhat less rich). But again, this really depends on the exact composition of the cake already. For most recipes, there is often a "sweet spot" where the right amount of eggs will stabilize the structure and keep the cake light, whereas less might result in a denser and drier texture with a tougher crumb (more like a sweet bread than a cake, or perhaps more crumbly given the low gluten content of many cakes), and more will provide no further benefit and will eventually begin to weigh the cake down (and will start to create a noticeable "eggy" flavor).
By adding even more eggs, eventually the cake texture will begin to change significantly as it becomes more dense. Without sufficient flour to balance the eggs, eventually the cake will have a custard-like texture and flavor, first likely resembling "French toast" and then with a huge excess of eggs becoming essentially a custard OR developing curds and clumps of egg protein and becoming more of an odd "baked omelet" (depending on proportions of other ingredients).
A final factor is balancing other leaveners and moisture if adding or reducing eggs, since a final contribution of eggs is simply their liquid content. Significantly reducing eggs will impact the moisture of the cake and in extreme cases could result in a heavy dry crumbly mass or a wet mess that won't set. The thickness of the batter is also generally calibrated to the amount of leavening (e.g., baking powder). Too much leavening in a thin batter, and the bubbles will be too big and will rise to the top of the batter and burst. Too little leavening, and the cake will never rise. Either way, you could end up with a dense final product if things are out of balance.
Many eggs is more material, egg is a dense material, so it becomes more dense.
Eggs are also not a stable material, so too many eggs makes the cake unstable, wobbly, and the texture becomes slimy.
This sounds more undercooked than overegged?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.983635 | 2016-12-06T04:12:06 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76168",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
78679 | All the cold pressed virgin sunflower oil in shop is in transparent bottles. Does it mean it is already rancid?
All the cold pressed virgin sunflower oil in shop is in transparent plastic bottles. Does it mean it is already rancid because of exposure to light?
Does it make any sense to purchase such oil now?
Direct sunlight may be a problem, not light in general.
I'm fairly sure the manufacturers and supermarkets are not in the business of exclusively selling rancid oil.
Sunflower oil has a shelf life of around two years. The turnaround time for oil is fairly high, so the bottles probably haven't been out on a relatively bright shelf for all that long. Check the use by date and as long as you have, say, a year to use the oil, it will almost certainly be fine.
I read on the internet that when the oil is exposed to light, it goes rancid. Can you explain for how much time can the oils be exposed to room light before they go rancid? You mean to say that if the oil is under use by date, then even if it is exposed to light it won't go rancid?
Assuming it has been stored reasonably normally as opposed to in strong sunlight, then yes, I would assume that it has not gone rancid before the use by date. The rancidification process is a slow one. Otherwise no one would sell, or buy, oil in clear plastic bottles.
The main issue here is what you do with it after purchase. If you leave it on your counter, exposed to bright light, in that transparent bottle, and it takes you a year to go through it, then it may well go rancid. But it's not instant; it still takes time, and it's not like leaving it out a few days, whether in the store or in your home, is going to ruin it.
Just don't add water to it or feed it after midnight.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.984107 | 2017-02-24T06:55:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78679",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Cascabel",
"Dawood ibn Kareem",
"ElendilTheTall",
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
8459 | Vacuum-packed (or not?) bacon, safe to use?
I purchased a 3-pack of bacon a week ago, basically 3 vacuum packed (is that the right word for this?) bacon, stripped together (probably made together, seems like the plastic was just sealed between three clusters of bacon.)
I have discovered that one of the packages is not void of air, but it is apparently airtight, I can squeeze on the package and it doesn't give in or seem to vent any air, it just contains air, whereas the other package (I have already used one) is void of air, which is what I expected it to be.
So my question is, is the package that contains air safe to use?
The expiration date on the packages are middle of next month, so they're well within their intended usage, but I'm just not sure about the air.
Does anyone know?
Considering they were cheap packages, I will probably just toss it, but since I planned on using the packages for dinner today, I probably need to come up with a backup plan, unless, of course, it is entirely safe to eat.
So what's the verdict?
The existence of gas in a vacuum-sealed environment could be a sign of microbial activity. I would assume that, since the package appears to be sealed, that the gases in it were introduced from within. I would toss that one and feel OK using the other two.
Ok, that sounds like a plan then.
Give it a sniff. If it smells ok then it probably is.
I've stopped looking at sell by dates/ use by dates etc and have started using my nose.
Supermarket bacon in this country is sold in plastic boxes which contain air. They usually last approx 1 week once opened.
I buy my bacon from my butcher and it is just put in a plastic bag. Not had a problem so far.
I came up with an alternate plan, I just take off the package that seems OK, and take the other one back to the store, I probably stop by there tomorrow. With any luck, they'll give me a new one.
I just called Farmer JOhn regarding the same situation. The consumer rep advised me to toss the bacon because it must have been compromised. She said that it would not be safe to eat and offered a coupon to replace another package. She advised that microbacteria could be in the product and I should not cook and eat it!
Bacon keeps for weeks even if not sealed as long as it is kept refrigerated. It contains salt which preserves it.
You're assuming that it wasn't sealed. If it was sealed properly, and has now filled up with air, that's a sign that something is horribly, horribly wrong.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.984266 | 2010-10-24T14:49:08 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8459",
"authors": [
"Adele Huughe",
"Angeline",
"Joe",
"John Varghese",
"Lasse V. Karlsen",
"Shema Abraham",
"Terry",
"Wiley Devore",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127094",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17378",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17379",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17380",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3033",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76892",
"kyticka",
"user21485"
],
"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
} |
67769 | When potatoes are part of, say, Bacalao, why aren't they boiled into a mash?
If I boil potatoes for an hour or more they invariably turn into a mash.
Why doesn't this happen if the potatoes are part of Bacalao that is left to simmer for a lot longer?
One possibility: Boiling potatoes subjects them to what amounts to violent action, which is bound to damage the potato. At a simmer, the potato is handled much more gently. Perhaps the difference is why a potato in bacalao lasts so much longer than one that is just boiled. Other possibility: I use potatoes in several soups, and my personal theory is that because potatoes absorb salt, it makes them more stable. They will cook down to mush eventually, but it takes a lot longer if there's salt involved. (Sorry about all the edits. It posted this comment every time I hit the Enter key.)
Does this answer your question? Why do potatoes cook more slowly in a stew?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.984506 | 2016-03-26T16:47:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67769",
"authors": [
"Edina Fedics",
"Esther",
"Gary A. Van Hoose",
"Phil Wheatley",
"Shalryn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162722",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162723",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162724",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388"
],
"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
} |
77849 | Is there any potential harm to using warm water in my sourdough starter?
My house is cold. It is regularly around 13 to 15°C (55 to 59°F) and it is only with a lot of (expensive) heating that I get it up to anything approaching "normal" room temperature. My sourdough starter is about three weeks old and is healthy enough (I've made several loaves with a decent texture and taste) but it does seem a little down in the dumps compared to many that I've seen online.
I've tried adding warm water rather than room temperature. I mix water half from my filter jug and half just boiled, which is about 53°C (127°F). I add it to my starter and the combined temperature is about 33°C (91°F).
This, along with several tea-towels for keeping that heat in, seems to help. The starter is significantly more bubbly and active and actually come close to doubling in size like everyone says it should!
But I'm aware that heat can kill yeast cells. Am I putting my starter at risk by this method? What do I need to be wary of?
I think it's worth mentioning that there is an appliance designed to solve this problem, the proofing box. One such example is here: http://www.kingarthurflour.com/shop/items/bread-proofer
I would limit the temperature of the water to around 110F.
140F is widely cited as the "Death Temperature".
At 120F the yeast is at it's "injury point" meaning you are harming the yeast, but may not kill it.
Some claims can be found stating water temperature as high as 95 can produce off flavors from the yeast when making bread. However, this really won't apply to your starter since it will make up such a small percentage of the loaf.
Here is a relevant, although not duplicate, SA post asking when eyast is killed: What temperature of water will kill yeast?
Some sources to skim through on the topic:
http://www.homebrewtalk.com/showthread.php?t=67272
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC232826/
https://www.exploratorium.edu/cooking/bread/yeast_temp.html
https://www.reference.com/science/temperature-kills-yeast-6cd7b72a3ed2d24b
Thank you. This is really interesting and useful. Presumably the moment the water hits the flour and existing starter in the bowl it will be significantly cooler -- this must give a little bit of latitude! But I will go a few degrees cooler from tomorrow.
It may work, but it is risky. It is not just a matter of accidentally killing the yeast with too hot water. A starter is a battlefield of many different bacteria and yeasts, and the environment determines which strain will dominate in the long run. An environment which starts at 33 C, then cools down to 13 over a day, then gets back up to 33 is a very different one than an environment which stays constantly at 20.
It might be still workable if the starter is behaving OK for now. But if you want to be on the secure side, it would be better to provide the right environment for the yeast. There are professional proofing boxes, but you can probably repurpose something else, or build your own. Especially if you are good with circuits, a small isolated box warmed by a single 100 W lightbulb can be easily held at the proper temperature if you rig it to a cheap thermostat that turns the bulb on and off. You don't need very tight control of the temperature, so you don't even need electronics (but you can of course use them if you feel like it). Other lower-tech solutions like the beer cooler sous vide hack should also work well, and keep a much more constant temperature than throwing 33 C directly into the starter.
That's all really interesting. It seems a bit elaborate for what I'm aiming for, though! But I will use slightly cooler water to reduce the temperature swing.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.984732 | 2017-01-27T23:37:44 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77849",
"authors": [
"J K",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53137",
"lonesomeday"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
32564 | How to know whether the whole unpeeled garlic is still edible or not?
My whole unpeeled garlic has turned "very soft". Its internal texture has changed too.
What are the indicators of non-edible whole garlic?
There are three signs you want to look for on garlic that indicate you may not want to use it:
Signs of mold, especially black mold. Discard the garlic.
Soft to finger pressure. It is rotten. Discard.
Sprouted. While it is still safe to eat (if it doesn't have other issues), it may be bitter.
Good garlic should be quite hard when pressed with your fingers, and preferably is not sprouted. Some people even remove the green core of partially or beginning to sprout garlic when they prep.
Firmness is my go to measure for garlic quality, especially at the market. I only buy rock hard garlic!
Is there a source which says that if the garlic is soft then it is rotten?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.985023 | 2013-03-10T06:56:20 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32564",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"ElendilTheTall",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
33135 | What should be understood by "refrigerate until firm, 2 hours or overnight"?
The cookie recipe asks for:
1½ cups plus 1 tablespoon all-purpose flour
1¼ teaspoons ground ginger
1 teaspoon ground cinnamon
¼ teaspoon ground cloves
¼ teaspoon freshly grated nutmeg
1 tablespoon unsweetened Dutch-process cocoa powder
¼ pound (1 stick) unsalted butter, room temperature
1 tablespoon freshly grated peeled ginger
½ cup packed dark brown sugar
½ cup unsulfured molasses
1 teaspoon baking soda
1½ teaspoons boiling water
7 ounces best-quality semisweet chocolate, cut into ¼-inch chunks
¼ cup granulated sugar
then, it asks us to combine all these ingredients and
; turn onto plastic wrap. Pat out to a 1-inch thickness; seal with wrap. Refrigerate until firm, 2 hours or overnight.
Questions:
How do you define "firm" here? Something which is not melting, or something which we'll have to crack with our hands?
There is a great difference between 2 hours and overnight. So, what temperature should be set of the fridge that'll result in fast firmness in less time? Will that be counter productive? Can I use the freezer?
I would interpret that as "at least two hours". If you're making the cookies in the daytime, put it in the fridge and go do something else. If you're making them after dinner, put them in the fridge and come back to it tomorrow. Sure, maybe it will be firm enough after 92 minutes if you checked all the time, but probably not. It needs 2 hours, and it won't hurt to have more so you don't have to stay up late to pull the cookies from the fridge and do the next step.
See also: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29270/what-does-an-overnight-chill-do-to-cookie-dough-that-a-4-hour-chill-doesnt
Having actually made exactly this recipe before, I also happen to know that you left out the last bit, which is to roll the cookies into balls by hand, chill again, then roll them in granulated sugar. This makes it particularly important that they're firm; otherwise they'll melt all over your hands, because it's a pretty soft dough at room temperature. And even the warming from rolling them is enough that you want to chill them again before rolling in sugar, because otherwise the sugar will mix into the surface rather than sticking on it and looking pretty like it's supposed to.
When cookie recipes ask to be refrigerated for a period of time or overnight, it is about more than simply the final temperature. You cannot, for example, chill the dough in an ice water bath (sealed in plastic, for example, to keep it from getting waterlogged) to get it to a lower temperature faster. The outcome is about time as well as about temperature. In fact, in some ways time is more important, and the refrigeration is to keep it safe (since cookie dough usually has raw eggs).
While the final temperature does effect the firmness of any fats or shortenings in the cookie directly, and that effects how easy they are to roll out, another major issue is hydrating the flour.
The longer the rest, the more time there is for the starch granules in the flour to absorb water, which will make your dough more cohesive (stays together well) and workable. This is especially important for rolled out or sliced cookies, which I suspect your particular recipe is.
The texture of rested dough will be putty-like and pliant, It will not crack easily when pressed, rolled, or pinched.
The majority of this effect takes about four hours—I am surprised your recipe specifies only two hours. Overnight is even better, although not usually necessary.
Note: Most refrigerators would be approximately: 40°F / 4.5°C, since you asked what temperature is expected.
See also: What does an overnight chill do to cookie dough, that a 4 hour chill doesn't?
thanks for the answer, and the explanation - "cohesive (stays together well)"
When I've seen that step in cookie recipes, generally there's no way you can over-firm in the fridge; if you're doing all the steps on the same day, it'll take two hours to set, but if you're trying to prep the night before, you can break for the night at this step.
Generally you'll have a wet, sticky, soft dough you can't cut into shapes, and after a trip to the fridge, it'll be firm enough to hold a shape when you go at it with a cookie-cutter (or roll it into a pinwheel and slice, or whatever shaping is happening). It's basically letting the butter go back from room-temperature-butter consistency to fridge-butter consistency.
Firm here means that it should not be supple, nor too hard to be easy to cut. It will be sustaining shape. If you have a round cylinder of cookie dough, cutting it should keep the cylinder in the same shape rather than flattening the sides where you are holding the dough and flattening the dough around the cut (dough too soft).
2 hours or overnight means at least two hours. 2 hours to get some of the benefits of firming the dough; more could potentially give you a better result; the dough is firm all the same after the night.
as mentioned by @SAJ14SAJ, resting the dough may give you other properties such as different elasticity and cohesion. I don't know what the author of your recipe had in mind; he may or may not look for those properties to change.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.985127 | 2013-03-30T12:09:13 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33135",
"authors": [
"Amelie",
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Cascabel",
"Helena Johnson",
"Josh Johnson",
"Kate Gregory",
"Luke",
"Martin Komara",
"Matt",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76706",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76717",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76718",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76721",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76728",
"joseph",
"lilHar"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
29292 | Which parts of fresh Fenugreek am I supposed to throw off before attempting to dry them out completely?
The fresh Fenugreek which I bought contains:
- long stems
- green leaves
- yellow leaves
I wish to know what parts of fresh Fenugreek am I supposed to throw off before attempting to place them drying out completely?
I would just pull off all the little stems with leaves on them off the big main stem and leave it at that.
You can remove the yellow leaves if you wish, but there's no harm in leaving them on. I presume once dry you will crush all the leaves and small stems for storage, so leaving the yellow leaves on will not make any difference.
Removing the big main stem will simply help speed up the drying time.
For convenience of moving and turning you can leave them complete, but you should remove the smaller stems with leaves once they're dry, the large stem doesn't generally get used.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.985517 | 2012-12-19T08:19:33 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29292",
"authors": [
"Bahrom",
"Haley Townsend",
"Khaled",
"Norbert Schuch",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67967",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67969",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67986"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
28917 | Why do we need to soak dry Fenugreek leaves in warm water, and then sprinkle salt over them?
What's the benefit of soaking dry Fenugreek leaves in warm water and then sprinkling salt over them?
From: http://www.everestspices.com/masalas/kasuri-methi
Soak the Everest Kasuri Methi in boiling water with a pinch of salt.
From: http://www.rakskitchen.net/2010/07/dal-fry.html
add kasuri methi leaves(soak in hot water before adding)at this stage.
From: http://www.tarladalal.com/Aloo-Methi-%28-Punjabi-Recipe%29-22789r
Wash the fenugreek leaves and chop them finely. Sprinkle some salt over them and keep aside for about half an hour.
Why we add fenugreek leaves in dishes:
Normally in Indian dishes we used to add herbs for removing common health issues,the benefits of adding fenugreek leave and indian herbs while cooking can be seen here:
http://chefinyou.com/ingredients/what-is-fenugreek/ (for new users: what is it and what uses it has)
http://www.indiamart.com/glittoexports/spices-leaves-spices-3.html (indian common herbs)
Why we sprinkle salt after soaking in hot water:
Normally hot water is capable to remove the common uncleaned strains... and some common small microbacteria (as normally this kind of herbs were grown under muddy conditions so there were more chances for microbacteria's)
We used to sprinkle salt over herbal leaves for mainly two reasons:
To bring taste
Why is it important to add salt during cooking?
The main reason for sprinkling salt was the herbs were normally salt absorbing interigents so we sprinkle salt after soaking in hot water
hope it helps
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.985623 | 2012-12-05T06:39:14 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28917",
"authors": [
"Darktux",
"James Hoyland",
"Noah Jane Eliot",
"Riki137",
"Shoib Memon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66954",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66984",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73678",
"user3554129"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
40696 | Can cooking in a larger than intended vessel be disadvantageous in some way?
I have a big pressure cooker (3.5 litre) in which I cook 3/4 cup Lentils (on gas stove) intended for 2 people. Can it be disadvantageous in some way?
Are there some serious reasons that I should consider buying 1.5 litre pressure cooker to cook that amount of food?
Of interest: http://www.hippressurecooking.com/pressure-cooker-sizes-and-types/
Every pressure cooker has a minimum amount of liquid which it must be filled with, in order for that liquid to evaporate and provide the pressure increase.
Check the manual for your pressure cooker to ensure that the small quantity of lentils you want to cook is at least the minimum.
If it is not, you can either prepare more lentils (hopefully you can use the leftovers), or perhaps get a smaller pressure cooker.
Of course, it doesn't take very long to cook lentils conventionally, so when you want only a small amount, you might consider cooking it in one of the traditional stove top or oven methods.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.985769 | 2013-12-30T12:08:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40696",
"authors": [
"Gunit21",
"Kushagra Gupta",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94718",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94719",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94720",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94727",
"leftcalifornis",
"user94720"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
33587 | What quantity and resting time should be preferred for active dry yeast when it is supposed to be used in place of quick yeast?
That's the question.
What quantity and resting time should be preferred for active dry yeast when it is supposed to be used in place of quick yeast?
Please specify in spoons or cups.
All different types of yeast can be interchanged. What differs is the starting amount required and how quickly they rise, and how they are best activated.
Quick or rapid rise yeast activates easily when mixed with your dry ingredients and a hot liquid. Typically the liquid added to the flour mix would be about 120-130°F (49-54°C).
Active dry yeast should be activated in a warm (110°F/43°c) liquid for a few minutes.
The two yeasts can be substituted for each other fairly equally by volume or weight.
With live yeast cultures, you must always observe the outcome, or high how the bread rises, not just a prescribed or predicted rise time. Rapid rise yeast will tend to rise somewhat more quickly than active dry yeast, but you need to monitor the progress.
You will find that the very warm ambient temperature that have previously indicated you have where you are makes the yeasts of any type act more quickly than many recipes designed for US room temperatures (with air conditioning) of about 70°F (21°C) predict in any case—this is going to be the more influential factor.
So, if the quick yeast calls for 2 hours resting time, what resting time should I consider for active dry yeast then at 32 Celsius?
Less. You will have to watch and observe. The recipe should give you a guideline such as "until doubled in size". But it is too dependent on specific conditions for me to give you an exact answer.
why did you say 'less'? Quick yeast works more quickly than active dry yeast, so shouldn't the dough with ADY take more time to rise?
Temperature is very important.
assuming that the temperature for both yeasts is 32C.
I am sorry, I just cannot tell you the answer because I have never proofed at such high temperatures. I can tell you that of the three factors, type of yeast is by far the least important. Initial amount of yeast is very important for short fermentation; temperature is very important for all fermentation, and dominantly important for long fermentation. Its an exponential growth curve whose exponent increases with temperature, but whose coefficient is related to yeast type. You must look at the result for being done, not how long to expect.
let us continue this discussion in chat
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.985888 | 2013-04-18T10:27:35 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33587",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
8694 | Paella and seafood casserole
What is the difference between "seafood casserole" and "paella"?
Paella is a specific type of rice dish, cooked in a wide, flat pan. Although sesfood is typical, it can also be made without seafood. (I typically just do chicken and sausage)
Casseroles, however, are typically a higher sided earthware or similar dish, and baked. They typically have starch, but it might be rice, noodles, or a biscuit top. They might use a cream based sauce, or cheese, which would not be included in a paella.
I don't agree with the answer that states
"paella is a specific type of seafood casserole"
A Casserole is cooked in the oven (usually in a casserole dish or dutch oven), a paella should be cooked on the stove top in a paella pan or frying pan.
Pealla is a specific type of seafood casserole. Every square is a rhombus but not every rhombus is a square.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.986123 | 2010-10-30T23:47:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8694",
"authors": [
"Martin Epsz",
"Tim Lymington",
"V. Chandrasekhar",
"dangold",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17815",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18041",
"mmcghan",
"placeholder"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
8633 | rice and paella
To make Paella: What is best practice to cook the rice?
do you have a recipe? Does it not provide a technique? Have you tried it and been disappointed?
Yes I have it, but I never did it. I'll do it for the first time next weekend at a special dinner. Maybe there's a good practice, for me unknown, to cook rice in Paella?
Well, tomorrow is the Paella day! thank you all. Maybe I can upload a photo...
Best practice: You fry the vegetables and the meats. You 'fry' the rice in oil (extra virgin olive, of course). Just make sure all the grains are covered with oil (don't deep fry) Then you add a hot broth. Leave it on a nice flame for about 10 min. Put in a hot oven for the remaining 10 min. Done.
Best practice: The paella (the pan) should not be crowded with rice. Too much rice will not give a good result.
Paella with onion is not paella (don't ask me why, as peppers can be added). In theory, onions will add moist to the rice and will make it 'pass' it's point.
The rice should be 'al dente' done but not overdone.
Leave the paella in peace for about 5 min, covered with a newspaper.
For the special ingredient, look at my answer to this question.
GUI! Hello, very nice your response and tip covered with a newspaper, I think is very good, especially if it contains good news :-)
About Saffron ... is the essence of these recipes.
Covering paella with newspapers was common in Spain long time ago but not anymore, as the ink used for printing is not eatable (read it as "poisonous"). What I see being used today are plain cloths.
A few resources:
Alton Brown did a great overview in a recent episode of Good Eats. If you can find the episode somewhere, he offers some good instructions on how a paella is done.
Also, food52 did a recent recipe contest on Paellas
There are several cooking recipes on wikipedia, for starters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paella
very good! I think with all these tips, I will manage a special paella.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.986246 | 2010-10-28T16:56:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8633",
"authors": [
"Catalastic",
"Cinthia",
"Devin",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Sue Marrinan",
"Szabolcs",
"cartonn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17711",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17726",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17727",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17729",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3130",
"justkt"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
9989 | Cracking open a pistachio
Is there a special tool available just for cracking open pistachio nuts? I'm asking because as I have gotten older, I have developed severe arthritis and joint pains, making opening them with my fingers very painful. I've always loved pistachios and hate having to ask my wife to crack them open for me.
I have tried using regular nut crackers, but the pistachio either slips out without cracking or the nut inside gets crushed.
This is not really an answer to your question, but you could try getting the pre-peeled pistachios. They're often sold unsalted, but I'm sure you could salt them yourself, maybe with a bit of oil or so to have the salt stick to the nuts.
I can't believe I didn't think of this. That is a good idea. Thank you!
i usually use half of a previously-opened pistachio shell! use the tip of it as a bit of lever: slip it into the opening of the one you're working on, and rotate it, and it will open it as easy as pie. the downside is that you will be able to eat many, many more pistachios this way. i usually end up with a mouth raw from all the salt, haha.
This is not a bad idea, but after trying it I find it difficult to grip the pistachio shell this way. However, you have given me the idea to use a small hand screwdriver to "twist" open pistachios! It isn't perfect, but it's the least painful technique I have tried yet. Thank you.
it does take practice, i admit. if a small screwdriver works better, i say go for it! i'm glad it's been of help. : )
If you spread out a bunch of pistachios on your counter and use a large oven sheet on top, you can apply a light pressure and roll the sheet in a circular motion. It will split the shells right off. I learned this trick when I was in Turkey.
Do you mean a stone? Seems like it would work, but you'd risk fracturing it. And, a flat metal tray might bend.
The specific tray that I use is a pizza tray, which is pretty thick and doesn't bend easily. I have used a normal rectangular baking sheet also, but it does bend.
Interesting. I may give this a try.
I use the pliers on my multi-tool for especially resistant pistachios, but I don't know if that is a really an answer for you because it requires fine positioning of the nut (so that the jaws come down on the seam near the base of the nut) and coordination between the hands--if you're in pain this may be nearly as difficult as other methods.
This is a good answer, but as you suspected it is still rather painful for me. Thank you for the suggestion!
How about a butter knife of a clamming knife
The suggestion of a small screwdriver seems a bit awkward to me for the job. A butter or clamming knife should fit in the hand much better.
Position the unopened nut in the side cutter slot of your electrical pliers with the ridges against the sides. The pliers will close enough to open the nut but not enough to crush it. Don't have that kind of pliers? You're out of luck.
Well the best general answer is the one about opening with a pistachio shell half - with average strength and dexterity, that works really well.
But that doesn't address your question - what is feasible with arthritic hands?
There are pistachio cracking machines, but they are pretty expensive. They work by squeezing the nuts between two rollers. The user turns a crank.
Here are some other simpler things that wouldn't hurt to try:
http://pistachionuts.net/
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Vintage-Metal-Nutcracker-for-Pistacia-Vera-Antep-Pistachios-Tool-Kitchen-Opener-/171792015444
http://www.theworldsbestnutcracker.com/
And long shots:
https://www.amazon.com/Nutcracker-Hazelnuts-Almonds-Filbert-Pistachios/dp/B076WZJDJF/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8 (poorly reviewed)
I use a table spoon and twist it to bust them open
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.986731 | 2010-12-11T01:37:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9989",
"authors": [
"Dean",
"Erik P.",
"FlashDaggerX",
"Gwenn Dunlap",
"James Slagel",
"Naomi Campbell",
"Stephanie",
"franko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20463",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3233",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3760",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68890",
"toon81",
"user56reinstatemonica8",
"user58225",
"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
} |
12466 | How do I start juicing?
A recent question tipped me off about juicers. I have heard of them before, but I had always written them off as TV informercial gadgets that were not really useful. Is this true?
If I had and orange, a tangerine, and a grapefruit, could I just put them in a juicer and have my own fruit "cocktails?" Is there a special juicer, just for amateur cooks?
I recommend this juicer I have it and use it every week to make lemonade:
Peel 6-8 lemons
Add to juicer
Mixing in a large pitcher, add water and sugar to taste.
Refrigerate
It's absolutely delicious. It's all I drink, no more soda.
Last week I made cherry juice. De-pitted the cherries and repeted the same steps as above.
I've also made carrot and beet juice, but they test very strong and work better when you mix them with other juices - orange juice for example.
My experience with juicing grapefruit is not good. The juice comes out very bitter and tastes very strong.
In general, to reduce the bitterness in citrus juices, peel the fruit first before adding it to the juicer. As in the lemonade example, I sometimes use the lemon peels to make Limoncello, or keep a few in the fridge to garnish my coffee. If you have no use for them, they will at least make your garbage smell very good.
Maintenance
You need to clean the juicer after each use, which can be discouraging. If you have someone who lives with you, have them help. My husband peels and juices the lemons, I wash the juicer parts while he mixes the lemonade in the pitcher. It takes us about 15 minutes from start to finish.
Experiment
You can throw anything in the juicer as long as you remove large pits and cut it to a size that fits the opening. It will fit a whole lemon but you need to halve an apple.
The juicer - at least the model I have - also comes with a recipe book. Not that I ever used it. I just use whatever I have left over and try to make something tasty.
For citrus fruits (oranges, lemons, grapefruit, ...) you're better of with an "Orange Press" rather then a juicer, you'll get more juice out of it.
Juicers are indeed infomercial goods.
I have one and indeed, cleaning it is not an easy job. We also have to clean the head with something like a toothbrush.
Another downside is that it takes quite some kitchentop surface, and you're probably not going to "juice" it everyday...
That said, you can get really great juices out of it. Carrots, tomatoes, radish, ... that's stuff you can only juice with.. a juicer..
You are completely correct about juicers being infomercial gadgets. You're probably thinking of the Juiceman Juicer. This model apparently also acts as a food processor (the older models were simply juicers). You certainly don't need a special amateur one, just go for a relatively inexpensive model if you don't plan on using it often like most infomercial products.
As for the fruit mixture, you can throw virtually any fruits and/or vegetables into the juicer and it will extract the juice from them. Try experimenting with a variety of different flavors, and you may find something you really like. I personally enjoy the grapefruit-strawberry-grape mix - very high in anti-oxidants. Watch out if you have high blood pressure though, as the resulting drink will be very high in sugar. Try mixing less quantities of fruit with more water after it's juiced for a lighter fare.
Very interesting! I think that is the very infomercial that I have seen! If the price is right, I may give this a try.
Many years ago, after reading many whole-food/raw-food sites, we bought an Angel juicer (I think ours says "Angel One") I won't repeat the touted advantages of this type of juicer (they're well-covered on the linked site), I will say that it works really, really well for us, chewing up anything you stuff into it, extracting juice from leafy vegetables as well as fruit.
The downside is that it's very heavy and it's hard to clean. We end up using a toothbrush to scrub out the gears and the mesh plate.
One minor benefit is that the pulp left over after making carrot juice works really well in carrot muffins.
To answer the actual question, with this juicer you could just peel the orange, tangerine and grapefruit, stuff the sections into the juicer and you'll get a nice, thick juice out.
I juice everyday and have been through 4 juicers over the years.
Some tips:
Don't worry with juice recipes. Once you start juicing you'll find you really start to feel alive and taste becomes strongly influenced by how great you'll know it makes you feel. I just chuck anything in and it tastes different every day but always good. Well I put too much garlic in once, but you learn those lessons.
Juicers, such as the one seen in the movie Fat, Sick and Nearly Dead are nice in that can take many fruits whole, cutting down on prep. I blew two of these up (however it was their first release). Now I have a juicer with a small chute and I have to do more prep work, however that allows me to at least see there are no worms in the apples etc.
Juicing of course removes valuable fibre. I add the fibre from some fruits back in and my auger-style juicer spits out that fibre as I juice. Centrifugal juicers like popular Breville one in the movie make it a lot harder to selectively do this. You may even like to consider blending as opposed to juicing.
Try to get veges into the juices. Fruit only juices are extremely high in calorie, are high GI and of course miss out on many of the vitamins and minerals found in vegetables.
Compared to other styles of juicers that squeeze or chew, the centrifugal juicers struggle with leafy vegetables.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.987195 | 2011-02-22T02:25:02 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12466",
"authors": [
"Akabelle",
"Allineas42",
"Chef Ed",
"Christopher Shroba",
"Dave Long",
"James Slagel",
"Sebas",
"cafeTX",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25671",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25678",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25700",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25702",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3233",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55396",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55423",
"rllr",
"rubik"
],
"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
} |
10377 | My bacon is a mess
A few days ago, I tried cooking bacon on the stove for the first time, following the directions on the package to a T. I left it in the frying pan for 3 minutes, just like it said. Unfortunately, at the end of the 3 minutes, my bacon was stuck to the pan and smoking. The only thing I can think that I did wrong according to the directions was that I used an egg timer to time the 3 minutes. Is there a "bacon timer" or something like it I should be using instead? I know it sounds crazy but what else could possibly be wrong here? My wife told me frying bacon was easy and I don't have the nerve to just ask her what I did wrong!
I have some tips in my answer on this question: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5042/does-bacon-need-to-be-fried-until-crisp/5046#5046 ... As with other answerers, I believe the most likely culprit is too hot of a pan. I definitely recommend starting with a cold pan, or at least a pan on lower heat, and cook the bacon lower and slower. But baking is by far the easiest/most foolproof way!
I assure you, egg time is the same as bacon time. :)
@stephen is right: oven baked is best. I want to try this method next time http://lifehacker.com/boost-your-oven-baked-bacon-with-an-aluminum-foil-rack-1211445902
My guess is that your pan was super-hot when you put in the bacon, and the fat didn't have time to render out fast enough to work as lube in the pan to keep things from getting sticky and then burnt. I've never been able to cook bacon in three minutes, it usually takes closer to 15. Next time, try using the oven and baking it. Still tastes like bacon, less fat gets on the plate, no spatter on the stove, and no more little grease burns on your arms (or am i the only one to get these).
Also, are you sure it was bacon, you can't just fry up bacon bits, that doesn't really work well.
I will also say that I prefer the oven to make bacon. It is easier to control and get the temperature closer to what you expect.
I do it stovetop all the time, or in the George Foreman grill. Just don't use high heat! Most packages of bacon will say medium heat, unless they're "instant" bacon (which could be the problem here).
@Aaronut: instant bacon? What is this? Never seen one here in Germany...
I'll add that, if cooking in a pan, the best "grease" to start cooking your bacon in is a little bit of water. By cooking in a tiny bit of water initially, it lets some of the fat render out before the bacon gets the full on heat, preventing the burning/sticking problem. This also helps with more consistently cooking leaner bacon well.
Spider Robinson says that the fool-proof method to get perfect bacon is to cook it naked. You will NEVER turn the heat up too high again!
Now, since that doesn't work for me, I make my bacon in the oven. Put it on a baking rack over a sheet pan and bake at 400 degrees for about 15 minutes. PERFECTION!
This is how my wife taught me, and it works great every time. Especially for getting the whole batch uniformly crispy. With bacon that's cut thin (aka: purchased on the cheap), this takes finesse with a flip mid-cook, and will probably take 2 cookie sheets per 1-pound package. Don't let the raw bacon overlap, or it often becomes inextricably stuck together.
I agree with boxed-dinners, you probably had the stove on too high. You might also have been using turkey bacon or some super lean variety...In that case, add a little cooking oil first to prime the pan.
And you don't need a timer for bacon. It's bacon. It's done when it looks like something you'd want to put in your mouth, and at a normal cooking temp you've got an easy 10-12 minute window between "raw" and "cinder". Generally I like mine toward the "cinder" side, but if you like some tasty fat to remain, you can take it out before then.
Use bacon with a good amount of fat on it (bacon with no fat is crispy which is very nice but might not be what you want on this ocassion).
Use a good quality, standard olive oil in your pan. Do not use extra virgin olive oil as this has a lower boiling point and will just smoke.
Use a medium heat and be patient. Watching bacon cook is a joy in itself anyway.
Alternatively to the above, use a grill as that cook the bacon really nicely and will burn off a lot of the fat.
No need to time the cooking - just do it by eye. Thick bacon will take longer to cook.
Have a look at http://www.baconaholic.com for bacon goodness.
Why would one use olive oil to cook bacon? Bacon already has more than enough fat to cook itself.
Only if needed.
@Aaronut: Well, I've used peanut oil to cook bacon fairly often—in the deep fryer. Mmmm, bacon…
@aaronut: If you add some oil to start, it doesn't shrink as much.
@Aaronut Our local pigs are very low in fat (think free range, not cruelly stuffed in cages!), olive oil is required to get a proper cook. So it depends where you live, and what you buy
My best luck with stove top bacon has been to start with a cold pan. Put the bacon in the pan without separating it. Let the pan warm up gradually, medium/medium low heat, and separate the bacon slices as they warm up and stop sticking together. Keep cooking, although you can probably turn up the heat slightly as the pan gets a little more fat in it. Good bacon takes time.
The best way I know to contain the mess and assure perfect bacon is to bake it in the oven a la Alton Brown. Put a cooling rack on a 1/2 sheet pan and lay out the rashers. Start the pan in a cold oven and heat to 400F. When the oven comes to temp, turn the bacon rashers over with tongs and check them every 5 minutes until they are as crispy as you want them. This method makes the best bacon IMHO-- crispy on the outside, with a slight chewiness in the center, and never greasy as the cooling rack lets the fat fall away. Additionally, save the bacon drippings collected in the sheet pan for other recipes. Throw any leftover bacon (what?) in a zip top bag for storage in the refrigerator and microwave for 10 seconds the next morning to return it to bacon-y goodness.
I wonder how the result here differs from that of @Elizabeth's answer?
Good observation, I didn't read past the "naked" part :)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.987642 | 2010-12-21T14:34:33 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10377",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Brian Ortiz",
"Chris Macksey",
"Justin Long",
"Kelly Adams",
"Naomi Campbell",
"Paulb",
"Rosa",
"Satanicpuppy",
"ShikharDua",
"TFD",
"Techboy",
"catohound",
"derobert",
"eckes",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21190",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21258",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24497",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3760",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4733",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/823",
"jttout",
"molly",
"rettops",
"stephennmcdonald",
"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
} |
8881 | What's the difference between a burrito and a tortilla?
I was in a Mexican restaurant with some co-workers recently and noticed that many of them ordered a "burrito." What's the difference between this and a tortilla? I thought that's what they were called.
Funny trivia: "burrito" == "little donkey"
burrito : tortilla :: sandwich : bread
Depending on where you are, the word tortilla can mean a few different things. In Mexico it refers to a flatbread made of either wheat or corn and a few other ingredients. These flatbreads tend to come in standard sizes in the United States at least, one of which might be labeled the "burrito" size.
A burrito is one use for a tortilla. A burrito consists of a wheat flour tortilla wrapped around a filling. Often the filling might include beans, cooked meat, rice, and perhaps vegetables.
It seems to me the more authentic the Mexican food the more likely you can order tortillas as you would any other side.
Oh. Well that's very interesting.
Many mexican restaurants I have been to will give you some tortillas on the side when you order an entree (Arroz con Pollo, Fajitas, Carnitas, Carne Asada, etc.). This would be the equivalent to getting garlic toast with an American meal, or Naan with your Indian dish.
A burrito is usually wrapped in a (flour) tortilla. Tortilla is just the bread; burrito, taco, fajita, etc. is how you use it/what you put in it.
Tortilla is flatbread, burrito is what you do with it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.988157 | 2010-11-05T17:05:11 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8881",
"authors": [
"FrauB",
"Ishaan Singh",
"JSM",
"James Slagel",
"Jared Updike",
"Racheet",
"Sobachatina",
"chickpeas",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18157",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18161",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18171",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3233",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/866",
"jeff gedgaud",
"john3103",
"mdegges",
"mohit Krishna"
],
"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
} |
9248 | Our broiler "ruins" pans when we use it
Whenever I broil something (like a piece of fish) in the oven, using either a 1/4 sheet pan or a 9 X 13 pan for example, any fats wind up burning onto the pan and I can't get the pan clean. It's almost like the pan which starts out nonstick winds up nonstick AND seasoned.
Is there a way to keep the pans from getting the fats burned on, even in the short time in the broiler, or is there a type of pan that resists the "seasoning" that goes on, so it's easier to get them clean?
As it stands now, we have a couple of pans that are safe to use in the broiler because they're already ruined. It would be nice to think there was a way to use whatever pan and not worry about it.
General advice, any time you're cooking something that is going to become one with the pan under high heat, cover the pan with foil before you put the stuff on it.
As another possibility you can buy a stoneware baking sheet. They season more like cast iron, so burned on fat is fine. Or you could just use cast iron...It's pretty much impossible to get something permanently stuck to cast iron, unless you were using it as a crucible to melt silver or something...
Ah, nice suggestions for pans that take seasoning. I'm going to withhold calling this the solution for a bit to see what I hear, but this seems solid. One concern I have is that the stoneware and cast iron seem a little heavy for a quick cook process like broiling. Perhaps a carbon steel pan like a traditional crepe pan might be good, though. Thanks.
I find that dual layer pans, foil, and/or baking stones all weather the broiler without much mess.
I found a source for carbon steel 1/4 sheet pans online, so I'm going to look at one of those. I still don't want to go as far as something really heavy because I don't want to have to preheat the sheet like you'd have to with stoneware or cast iron (otherwise you risk leaving the bottom raw while the top is nicely done).
+1 for foil. The easiest type of cleaning is the type you don't have to do.
@bikeboy389: The stoneware pans are actually better than you'd think for heat conduction. Not nearly as bad as cast iron
Most nonstick pans should not be used under a broiler. If it's getting hot enough to turn oil to a polymer, it's way too hot for the nonstick coating. A plain stainless steel pan would work much better, and is easier to clean off burnt-on fats.
Like you said, the fats "season" the pan. And the kind of pan that takes "seasoning" the best is one that is meant to take it . . . cast iron.
That's a good point. I don't think we have any 1/4 sheets or metal bakers that aren't some variety of nonstick, and I'm sure they're bad for broiling for that reason too.
Yeah, worse comes to worse, you can attack a stainless steel pan with oven cleaner. Can't do that with aluminum or non-stick.
That was my first reaction too ... 'non stick? under the broiler?' I don't think any of them are rated for that sort of heat. I'd get a dedicated ' broiler pan '
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.988335 | 2010-11-19T04:00:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9248",
"authors": [
"Andrew Morris",
"Bruce Alderson",
"Geraldine Davis",
"Joe",
"Mally",
"Marti",
"Neil Meyer",
"Satanicpuppy",
"bikeboy389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18908",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18911",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"renee turners"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
25528 | Chinese rice vermicelli tastes of chemicals
We bought a large package of dry rice vermicelli recently at our local Thai market. We've cooked it a couple of times, and both times once it starts to boil it gives off a chemical odor, sort of like lye or chlorine (not really either, but that kind of thing). It doesn't rinse off, though rinsing helps a bit. Once rinsed, the chemical smell is not strong enough that it's a problem if you have any kind of sauce on the noodles, but eaten plain they definitely have a chemical funk.
I haven't cooked with this style of rice noodle a lot (we usually do cellophane noodles, which seem different), so maybe this is normal. Can anybody tell me if this is something we should expect with this kind of noodle?
The package was new, clean, and in perfect condition, so if there was some kind of contamination it happened in the factory.
I've made rice vermicelli many times, and I've never smelled anything like what you describe. I suggest throwing out the ones you have, and buying a different brand (or maybe shopping at a different store).
I had the same experience, with the smell as described. I found this article about oxalic acid and tinopal being found in rice noodles, but it doesn't say whether it results in a smell. I don't have an ultraviolet lamp at home to check if that was the issue (as mentioned in the article).
Hi and welcome! That sounds interesting but maybe you could include a bit of a summary in your answer? Answers that rely on a link-only are discouraged because they aren't useful in the future if the link changes / dies.
Oxalic acid (which is harmless up to a certain dose, it is in a lot of leafy greens, those very rich in it are usually supposed to be cooked) and Tinopal (laundry brightener ,has no business in food) found in rice noodles.
I've edited your answer to make it more clear that you actually don't know whether the article applies here - you and the OP noticed the smell, the article mentions oxalic acid and tinopal, but there's no connection.
I would not eat those noodles. It sounds to me as if something like a cleaning compound was spilled on them in transit. If contact was prolonged, chemicals could pass through the packaging without it being unsealed, and a wipe with a cloth would make the package "look right".
We just bought vermicelli noodles and after boiling them there was an intense chemical odour. At first thought it might just be the mung beans because we'd never had those before haha. Then after seeing people comments about potential chemicals seaping into them or being used to bleach them, as described in this article http://vnnewscenter.blogspot.com/2013/06/how-to-tell-noodles-contain-toxic.html , we thought it better not to risk it, and threw them all in the bin.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.988614 | 2012-08-07T00:40:54 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25528",
"authors": [
"Aaron Alfred",
"Cascabel",
"Gayle Kosola",
"MAMK",
"PeterJ",
"ROB CALHOUN",
"Willie Bill",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131934",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58465",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58466",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58473",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58517",
"rackandboneman",
"user58465",
"user70672"
],
"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
} |
16176 | Cumin-flavored vodka
I want to make vodka or liquor which tastes similarly to Brennivin. The taste which dominates Brennivin is cumin so you can say that I can basically want to prepare cumin-flavored vodka or liquor.
The question is how should I process vodka to achieve such taste?
I would try Dave Arnold's cream whipper infusion method. It is very fast and flexible, which will allow you to experiment to find your ideal flavor. You'll want to play with the ratio of cumin to vodka, whether you toast the cumin first, and and whether you lightly crush it. After you depressurize the vodka, be sure to strain it and let it sit about 10 minutes before judging the flavor, it seems to take a little while to settle. And of course if you overdo it a bit, you can always dilute the output with more unflavored vodka.
That's a great idea. I wouldn't have thought about it. Thanks!
In Sweden we have a long tradition of herb and spice infused spirits, or "snaps" as we call it. Many of these are made with caraway and/or dill seed, which are also the ingredients which characterize the Aquavit type of spirit, common in both Sweden and Denmark. I have only made it myself once, but it was quite successful and extremely easy to make. I cannot remember the exact recipe I used, but the ingredients were dill seed, caraway seed and lemon zest. I think the proportions (to one standard bottle of vodka, 700 ml in Sweden) were something like a table spoons each of dill and caraway seed, and lemon zest from about 1/4 lemon. All of this was just combined in a jar and left to steep for a couple of weeks.
Alton Brown did an episode in which he feature flavor infused Vodka, I suspect the Pepper Vodka recipe would work for your purpose, though you will probably need to experiment with ratios. If you need any help 'experimenting' let me know, I volunteer to help :oD !
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.988879 | 2011-07-15T18:45:59 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16176",
"authors": [
"Al Marquardt",
"Carla",
"Synryu",
"Tracy Logan",
"davidmneedham",
"fitzhugh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34433",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34434",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34435",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34436",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34440",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34447",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34448",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5397",
"pawelbrodzinski",
"user34436"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
14268 | What kind of alcohol has least carbohydrates?
I'm looking for types of alcohols which have least carbohydrates. I'm looking for more of a ranking than just a single one, as it would be clean spirit, wouldn't it?
The general idea is to know what to choose over what when I want to limit carbohydrates and have a drink.
To make it more like a measurable criteria I'd say that I want to get equally drunk so amount of drink I need to consume would vary.
Keep in mind that alcohol itself has a bunch of calories. Something like 7 calories per gram (compared to 4 calories per gram for carbohydrates).
Liquor or distilled spirit would be a better term. Ethyl alcohol is typically not considered a carbohydrate.
All distilled spirits have no carbohydrates at all. Vodka, whisky, whatever. Only alcohol, water and aromatic compounds can ascend the spiral in a distillation process.
So a standard alcohol portion (10g ethanol) from a distilled spirit has 0 grams carbohydrate.
Properly made table wine shouldn't conatin carbs either, as all the grape carbs should be fermented. Sometimes substances which aren't recognized in a food are counted towards carbohydrates, that's what a source claims is made with wine.
Then there is sweet dessert wine, there you have 3-4 grams of carbs per 10 grams of ethanol (70-100 ml depending on wine), because it has more sugar. I didn't find information on fortified wine, but as they have more alcohol than sweet dessert wine and probably about as much unfermented sugar, it is about the same or somewhat less.
In beer, expect something like 7-8 g carbohydrates per 200 ml (I am assuming an average ABV of 5%). A big comparison of American beers is given here
I can't help you with liqueurs, they typically are infusions of plants in distilled alcohol, but may have sugar and other stuff added. It depends on recipe.
While ethanol is not, strictly speaking, a carbohydrate, I'd consider the effect of the alcohol itself. If your goal is to avoid the weight gain associated with carbohydrates, I'd suggest that the alcohol itself is more significant. While carbs will at least provide energy, alcohol is very poorly metabolized.
Huh?! Either the calories of alcohol are metabolized and there is weight gain from them, or they aren't, then there is no weight gain from them. "Carbs will at least provide energy" - that's what he is trying to avoid. So what are you trying to say here?
On a side note, the point of a low-carb diet is to manage the insulin-glucagon system for blood sugar regulation. Calories from anything but insulin-activating carbohydrates are considered immaterial in such a diet. But we don't need to discuss this here, I provide this as background info.
@rumtscho Agreed. The question wasn't about calories, but carbs. Too much alcohol can give some diabetics a low blood sugar emergency.
If you think about it, the idea is to avoid sweet and sugary - so gin, vodka, whisky etc with a diet soda mixer will beat anything else for low carb.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.989059 | 2011-04-22T19:04:56 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14268",
"authors": [
"Brendan Long",
"OpenID-test2",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6241",
"paparazzo",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
76273 | May I add whole wheat flour/Chickpea flour to garlic chicken soup?
http://www.food.com/recipe/chicken-garlic-soup-32282
They haven't mentioned which flour are they using.
Because I am health conscious, may I add whole wheat flour/Chickpea flour to garlic chicken soup?
What will be the side effects?
This gets simple when you consider what the flour is used for:
You create a roux, which then thickens the soup. The starch in the flour is altered during the cooking process and then binds the liquid.
You can use any kind of flour that contains starch, but depending on the starch-to-other-components ratio, you might have to use a bit more for the same thickness. Unlike for baking (gluten!), chickpea flour will work fine in a roux. Also, a non-white flour might be visually less appealing because the external parts of the grain may give the soup a greyish or speckled appearance. Note that the less refined your flour is, the more it might influence the taste of the soup. But whether this matters obviously is a question of personal taste.
The choice is yours:
A few tablespoons of white flour in a pot of soup probably won't compromise your dietary regimen, but it's probably not worth going out to buy a whole bag for a single use.
Chickpea flour might appear to work in a roux, but I would bet on the mechanics behind it being different entirely.. it is far more protein heavy than any "flour flour", it behaves not entirely unlike eggs if mixed with water.
Indeed, I would expect some surprises when substituting flour. For example, I once tried making veloute with pure potato starch (I was cooking with friends and realized that I am in a gluten free household in the middle of cooking!) and it turned out quite strange. Edible, but everyone was put off by the texture before getting pursuaded to try.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.989390 | 2016-12-09T09:46:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76273",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
74395 | What are the signs that indicate that raw honey has spoilt?
If the raw honey goes bad, how would I know?
What should I keep on looking for? Floating fungus?
Honey might go bad in two ways - one involves stuff growing on the surface of the honey, the other involves the honey itself fermenting. In both cases, the spoilage is connected to exceedingly poor storage - as other answers mentioned, honey is difficult to spoil... but difficult is not the same thing as impossible, right :)
Honey that ferments is usually linked to high water content - some honeys have a higher water content naturally, some might have water added at some point (for example, to deter crystallization), some might have water leaked into a container and puddled on top or along the edges, and honey will absorb moisture from the air if left unsealed, and eventually reach a saturation where the water is no longer a limiting factor to yeasts. In any case, part of honey's preservative qualities is the lack of available water and too high concentration of sugars inhibits most spoiling organisms - so when that extra water becomes available, honey turns from "never goes bad" to "potent food source for yeasts", especially since as the yeast eat the sugars, they also lower the concentrations from something inhospitable to yeasts, to something that can support more yeast growth - so the fermentation will continue progressing. A small puddle of water can gradually lead to a whole container fermenting because the local dilution is much greater than the total water percentage, and once given a foothold the yeasts will keep eating the concentrations further down into yeast-inhabitable ranges.
Some fermentation is more problematic than others - for example, mead probably originates from a spontaneous fermentation of honey that was enjoyable, on the other hand, different yeasts may give off bad odors and off flavors. If your honey has fermented to the point of spoilage, it will smell bad, look cloudy, and taste terrible. It will also foam (carbon dioxide production), may separate, may bulge if the container permits, all that good stuff that warns if any foodstuff in fermenting. There is some stuff on that page about natural beneficial fermentation and typical crystallization patterns, but that isn't relevant to the question of spoilage
The other way honey might go bad, is having some debris accumulate on the surface of honey (cross contamination), that gives some mold or other bacteria enough food to get a foothold. Again, honey itself is a poor source of food if properly stored - not enough water, not enough available food to get a foothold - but add debris, crumbs, or whatever that can spoil more easily right on the surface, and that can give mold or whatever enough of a toehold to build a floating colony, as you envisioned. If there's enough debris or moisture on the surface, the mold might start nibbling at the surface of the honey - which will start lowering the sugar content to something mold can find hospitable, much the same way fermentation can progress.
You might be able to simply remove the colony or even the top layer to salvage the honey, if you are willing to risk it, since honey is known to be rather inhospitable to dangerous organisms. And if the honey is properly stored afterwards, any critters left shouldn't be able to re-colonize since they needed the crumbs to get a toehold in the first place - but only you can decide what you will risk.
BTW, if your honey started fermenting, don't toss it, just make a batch of excellent mead.
Heavy amounts of crystallization will show that the honey is old, but warming it will melt the crystals. Never seen it get fungus.
Well Honey is the only food that never goes bad, hence you will not find floating fungus like thing even after thousand year, actually raw honey is anti fungal. http://truththeory.com/2013/07/20/there-are-shocking-differences-between-raw-honey-and-the-processed-golden-honey-found-in-grocery-retailers/
above link provides you the difference between raw and processed honey.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.989560 | 2016-09-30T03:16:49 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74395",
"authors": [
"SF.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666"
],
"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
} |
87420 | How to infuse flavors into steamed vegetables?
Tried to put 5 smashed garlic cloves in boiling water in a hope to get the spanich flavoured but failed. Spanich was being steamed in that vessel.
I intend to steam cook mushrooms, spanich, green onions, and cauliflower.
What is the way to infuse strong garlic, ginger, and black pepper flavours in them?
To set expectations here, you aren't going to infuse flavors into the middle of steamed vegetables and fungi, you may get some flavor penetration on the outside, but the best bet for flavored vegetables is to coat the outside with the flavor.
When you put flavorings into water for steaming food most of the flavor stays in the water rather than getting onto the food, it's a waste of good ingredients to be honest.
Many of the flavors you are working with are oil soluble, so your best bet would be to infuse the flavors in oil then mix with the food after steaming. A tablespoon or two of vegetable oil on low heat would be enough, you could add the garlic, pepper and ginger to the oil and cook it slowly to extract the flavors, then discard the solids. The oil could be drizzled on the vegetables. You could also go for a higher temperature method, sauteing the garlic, pepper and ginger for a short time in oil before adding your steamed vegetables to the pan and sauteing them with the flavored oil. I've used both methods, slightly preferring the second one because I like the extra flavors you get from the maillard reactions.
My guess is that the physics simply don't work out for this application.
The first step of your desired process is to extract the flavours from the herb, spice, etc into the surrounding water. This process will take time, even when you finely chop them. It's possible that the steaming is complete before this process has sufficiently progressed.
The next step is vaporizing the dissolved flavours into steam. Again, in the beginning you will produce pure water vapor and only over time as step 1 is taking place will you slowly get some flavors into the steam. It's possible that your flavors will be too heavily dilluted even at their peak.
Step three would be to attach those flavours to the target vegetable. Here I must point out that you're never going to get all the flavor to stick to the veggies and the water vapour to pass on. They will, if anything, stick to the vegetables in the same proportions as they exist in the steam.
You could try to steam them over a strong broth instead of water and see how well it takes on the broth taste. If it doesn't then step 3 doesn't work and you can forget about it. If it does then your problem lies in steps one or two. In that case I'd suggest that you first dissolve the desired flavor into water in a strong enough concentration and then use that water to steam the veggies.
Alternatively you could try and place the flavor source with the vegetables to see if the impart more taste through direct contact.
Finally you could try to produce an essence/reduction/sauce of the desired flavor and apply it to normally steamed vegetables.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.989872 | 2018-01-31T09:37:26 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87420",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
42437 | What is it that a filter Coffee maker can do that we can't do in a better or equivalent way at home?
So, for knowing what is it all about, today I purchased some filter Coffee.
I followed the steps of using a strainer and liked its taste.
I want to know what is it that a filter Coffee maker can do that we can't do in a better or equivalent way at home?
Does Coffee maker works like the steps shown in the above link?
Do you have some specific product in mind when you say "coffee maker"? There are many different types of coffee makers, and some will do what you want them to, others won't, and will produce a different coffee. If you are looking at a specific maker, you have to link it so we can tell you if it is similar to what you have linked. In general, with a filter, your coffee will be somewhat thinner than with a strainer.
By the way, the WikiHow strainer method is fairly unusual. Turkish coffee uses a strainer, but it boils the coffee grounds instead of letting them steep in the hot water like tea.
The method outlined in the linked page is closest to French press brewing. You also have perfect control of the of the temperature of the water, and the length of the brew time.
A French press works essentially the same way, but the plunger filters out the grinds by pressing them to the bottom of the pot. If you pour immediately, the outcome is essentially the same. If you don't pour the coffee out right away, some people believe that it picks up off flavors from the grounds at the bottom of the pot. This method also produces coffee with a certain amount of grounds or sandiness at the bottom.
I have never heard of an automatic coffee maker that fully replicates the so-called straining method from that page.
After the French press, perhaps the most similar is the manual drip coffee maker, such as the famous Melita cone drip coffee maker or the Chemex. Normally, with this type of equipment, you put the grounds in the filter in the cone, over the coffee pot. You then moisten them, and slowly pour hot water through. It seeps through the grounds, picking up flavor, and the drips into the pot. The advantage of this is that you control the water temperature and pour time, which some coffee aficionados are very particular about in getting their perfect cup.
An automatic drip coffee maker essentially automates the manual drip process, at the cost of giving up control of the temperature and pour rate to the machine. The manufacturers do try to set them close to what are often considered ideal values. They are pretty successful for pour rate, but only the best machines do as well on temperature.
What you gain is a high level of convenience, which many people find an acceptable trade off. These are probably the most common type of coffee maker in the world, due to their simplicity, effectiveness, and convenience.
Please note that coffee generates a lot of passion and excitement among its fans. I believe the truth is that with quality coffee, and care, and reasonably good equipment, any of the brewing methods can produce a quality cup, although each of us may have our favorites.
If you like the so-called strainer method from that web page which is specifically about when you don't have specialized coffee equipment, I suggest you try a French press. It is not automatic, but it can produce a very high quality result.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.990131 | 2014-03-01T18:47:08 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42437",
"authors": [
"Angel Umeh",
"Investing Guides DK",
"dgs187",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99099",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99105",
"iamadnan",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
51990 | How to roast peanuts for peanut butter?
Do I have to roast peanuts before grinding them or after grinding them?
Does it matter?
May I roast the peanuts with their papery skin on?
What should I expect from the output if I make the peanut butter with the peanuts with their papery skins on?
If you're going to roast the peanuts, definitely roast them before grinding. Do like you would any other nuts: in the oven, maybe 350F, spread out not too deep in a pan, until they smell toasty and nutty, making sure not to burn them.
If you ground them into peanut peanut butter, and then tried to roast it, it'd be a lot tougher to roast. You'd have to spread it out in a thin layer on a pan, since if it's thick only the surface would really roast. You'd have to be really careful about overroasting, since you won't be able to directly see if the bottom is scorching. And then you'll have to scrape out the pan to try not to waste any, and still have a greasy pan to clean up. Roasting before, on the other hand, is easy. There's space for air between the peanuts so they'll all roast. You can easily give them a stir if you need to, and see directly whether they're burning. And the pan will basically still be clean when you're done.
Whether or not to remove the skins is mostly down to personal preference. You will end up with flecks of skin in the peanut butter, so if that bothers you, remove them. If you're really sensitive (and eating the peanut butter mostly by itself) it's possibly you'd notice a texture difference too. But they won't taste bad (some people even think they improve the flavor), so do whatever you feel like!
If you do want to remove the skins, you can and should wait til after roasting: they should be much looser and easier to remove after roasting. You might even be able to get a lot off simply by putting them in a bowl or colander and shaking. Otherwise, putting them in a kitchen towel and rubbing around should work pretty well.
No - you don't have to roast them but you probably want to. 10-15 minutes at 350 - until shiny - should do.
I wouldn't leave the paper on - it won't blend well.
Output with paper on? There will be unblended paper chips in your peanut butter. Even if you can't see them... they're in there.
Use a food processor while the nuts are still warm. Pulse a few times and then remove 1/3 of the crumbles if you want chunky peanut butter. Run the processor for about a minute, now it will be hard and crumbly - no worries, just continue processing for another minute or two. Add you oil/sweeteners/flavors and continue processing until smooth. (Note, you won't ever reach store bought smoothness.)
You didn't answer whether I should roast them before or after grinding.
First line I said that you don't have to but if you do, roast at 350 for 10-15 minutes. Hope it helps.
No it is not helping. I am not asking for the duration. I am asking about the timing ... before grinding or after grinding.
ah - I would roast the raw peanuts whole, then grind while still warm.
Why would you do so? What will happen if I do the reverse?
It would be weird to grind them, roast them, and then grind them again. It just seems like an unnecessary step. Edit: though I guess you might be able to get a more intense roast that way.
"Even if you can't see them... they're in there." - if you can't see them are they really unblended?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.990397 | 2014-12-26T17:04:34 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/51990",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Gringo Dave",
"Jasper Todd",
"John Britto",
"Melissa Pirtle",
"Preston",
"Random832",
"Teresa Tong",
"farhanhubble",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123323",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123325",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123331",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126958",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7495",
"samantha Puszyk"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
56779 | What is the white sauce of Domino's pasta made of?
What is that made of? Can it be replicated at home?
It's Alfredo sauce and according to Domino's nutrition guide it's made of:
Water
Cream (Cream, Milk)
Parmesan Cheese (Part-Skim Milk, Cheese Cultures, Salt, Enzymes)
Asiago Cheese (Pasteurized
Milk, Cheese Culture, Salt, Enzymes)
Margarine (Palm Oil, Water, Salt, Vegetable Monoglycerides, Whey Solids,Sodium
Benzoate [Preservative], Natural And Artificial Flavor, Citric Acid, Beta Carotene [Color], Vitamin A Palmitate Added)
Seasoning
(Maltodextrin, Nonfat Milk, Modified Corn Starch, Salt, Enriched Bleached Wheat Flour [Bleached Wheat Flour, Malted Barley
Flour, Niacin, Reduced Iron, Thiamine Mononitrate, Riboflavin, Folic Acid], Disodium Inosinate, Disodium Guanylate, Xanthan
Gum, Spices, Mono And Diglycerides)
Butter (Butter, Salt)
Parmesan Cheese Concentrate (Parmesan Cheese [Pasteurized
Milk, Cultures, Salt, Enzymes], Water, Salt, Natural Flavors, Yeast Extract, Sodium Phosphates, Sodium Citrate)
Modified Corn Starch
Garlic (Garlic, Water)
Chicken Base (Chicken Meat, Chicken Juices, Salt, Potato Flour, Flavorings, Sugar, Disodium
Inosinate, Disodium Guanylate)
Parsley
Salt
You can definitely make something similar at home. You should also be able to buy something like it in a jar at your local grocery store.
The Maltodextrin, Nonfat Milk, Modified Corn Starch, Xanthan Gum and Mono and Diglycerides are for thickening and stabilizing what would otherwise be a watery mess with melted margarine floating atop. You can use thickening agents available from your supermarket instead. The Disodium Inosinate+Disodium Guanylate combo is to enhance the umami flavor of the Parmesan and chicken (and to my cynical mind, in order to avoid putting MSG in the ingredient list). You can probably ignore these taste enhancers if the cheeses and chicken stock provide enough flavor, otherwise you may need to add MSG.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.990678 | 2015-04-18T17:06:57 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56779",
"authors": [
"Chris Steinbach",
"Dennisse Bosa",
"Eric Brueggemann",
"Jessup Hetzman",
"Raylene Mackay",
"Scott Thompson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135021",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135024",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135028",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
14874 | Freezing temp of carbonated beverages
I sometimes put bottles of soda in the freezer for 20-30 minutes to get them near frozen (taste SO much better that way).
If I time it just right I'll pull the bottle out and the liquid will appear completely liquid until I loosen the cap - the liquid will then spontaneously turn into slush.
Can anyone explain why that happens?
(this being my first post on the cooking stack exchange I apologize in advance if it's deemed unsuitable)
Obligatory mythbusters: Instant Frozen Beer
It's an instance of Supercooling. The liquid is chilled to below its nominal freezing point, but it doesn't transition to solid, largely because there isn't any growth catalyst for ice crystals. But agitate it, or open it, and the disruption jumpstarts crystal formation, and it freezes solid in seconds.
This happens because the process of crystallization requires nucleation points to begin. When the soda is lying in the freezer in it's smooth bottle, there aren't any nucleation points.
When you open the bottle, the carbon dioxide dissolved in the soda forms bubbles, which in turn create turbulence. This turbulence creates the necessary nucleation points for crystals to form.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.990837 | 2011-05-17T20:37:47 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14874",
"authors": [
"Jason",
"Nikita Rybak",
"Zissou",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31361",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31366",
"kevingreen"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
14882 | Making patties from half-cooked ground beef
My roommate decided to store a sizable purchase of ground beef in the freezer. For reasons I don't entirely understand, he would thaw it as needed at cook temperature in the microwave, then refreeze.
Quite a bit of this beef remains, and it's been in the refrigerator since I discovered his shenanigans, but unfortunately it's difficult to make patties out of the meat because it's partially cooked. I don't want it to go to waste, so what might I use to hold it together while making burgers that still taste like burgers?
For my part, I suggest you explore the wonders of Spaghetti, and that most American of dishes, the "Sloppy Joe."
You can try adding binders like egg and/or peanut butter (or bananas if you're vegan, har har) in order to firm up your beef for pan frying (forget the grill, it ain't happenin), but, while that will help, it'll definitely change the flavor...possibly for the better. I've been known to add those things to regular ground beef (Also, applesauce, which will not help your problem here, but is quite tasty).
Of course I can make other things, but if I feel like burgers, at least I can get some suggestions on what to glue 'em with. Thought of egg already, so maybe I'll experiment with that; peanut butter seems like it would just liquefy and be generally unhelpful. And of course I don't expect to do anything other than pan-frying at this point.
@jon: You should only use a little bit, like 1tbsp per pound or so. Don't use too much. The peanut butter is like butter in a cookie: you add it to hold the mess together until it's natural structure takes hold (as well as for flavor). In the long run, yes, it will lose binding power, but by that point, the meat should hold itself together.
In addition, tofu and applesauce make decent (vegan!) binding agents. In particular, if you have powdered lecithin, it could be beneficial but since I'm not sure what the moisture level is its effectiveness would vary.
FWIW, I don't approve of the "bacteria nazis" comment as refreezing partially-cooked ground meat is very dangerous - but on the flip side, we've never actually established how long it was in the danger zone, so we can't state with authority that it is unsafe either. I wouldn't chance it, myself, but given that the OP referred to it as "shenanigans", it would seem that he's already aware of the risks.
@Aaronut- it seems he was aware that there are risks but not of the risks. For example he doesn't seem to know that reasonable cooking isn't going to make the meat safe if it was allowed to incubate for too long.
Satanicpuppy: Please refrain from both direct and indirect personal attacks against users of this site. Use your answer to answer the question, and not allude that we have "nazis" of any type here.
@hobodave good edit +1, flame wars are the death of any group. Anyway the usual rule of a debate is the first one to use the word 'Hitler' or 'Nazi' loses anyway
Instead of, or in addition to egg, try a panade of bread soaked in milk. I believe Cook's Illustrated uses this technique in one of their burger recipes to enhance flavor or texture. It will act as a binder as well.
Is there any chance you can expound on this or provide a link of some sort? Would this work for "regular hamburgers" as well? I'm curious now. :D
It absolutely would work for regular burgers. The technique is more common in meatloaf or meatballs, but Cook's Illustrated uses the technique to keep well-done burgers moist. They call for one slice of white bread, crusts removed, with 2T of milk for 1.5 pounds of beef. Recipe is behind a pay wall here: http://www.cooksillustrated.com/recipes/detail.asp?docid=8016
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.990982 | 2011-05-18T01:09:08 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14882",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Jon Purdy",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Sobachatina",
"TFD",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31396",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3325",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6193",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/770",
"jcolebrand",
"mfg",
"mjobrien",
"user100487",
"user31396"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
14912 | New takes on recipe format
I'm working on a cookbook that is designed to make it easier to master the steps that go into a recipe, and understand the timing, especially when trying to get multiple items to 'line up' so they all complete around the same time to serve a meal.
I've seen a number of interesting takes on recipe format that take it beyond the typical list of ingredients--list of steps format. These include the cooking for engineers format, and a wide range of illustrated recipes that are cute but actually make it more difficult to understand for a novice.
I have 'invented' something new unlike anything I've seen anywhere else, but I want to look around and make sure I'm not accidentally stepping on an existing idea; I don't want to be accused of having stolen someone else's concept. So I'm am curious if anyone has seen any interesting formats for recipes around.
I once modelled a baking recipe as a Petri net. But that was meant as a tutorial in modelling languages, not for real baking. Could be useful though, if you add quantities (we didn't, because we didn't want to scare the students with actual complexity).
I'm of the opinion that there's no way to actually make them all 'line up' correctly in a book. Maybe on a website, where you could customize the presentation for each person (as we each chop things at different speeds, some ovens take longer to pre-heat, etc.). What it sounds to me like you're doing would be presenting a recipe in a format similar to a gantt chart. You might also want to look at (or not, if you're thinking of trying for a patent) recipe software to see how they present things.
Take a trip to Borders, Bares & Nobles, etc?
@Joe - Perceptive of you. The format I've been using does resemble a gantt chart, though I hadn't explicitly thought of it that way. Should have since I've produced and used enough. I'm also doing it for ebooks, which have the advantage of an arbitrary amount of horizontal space and the potential to link up multiple recipes together.
@zanlok - There doesn't seem to be much innovation going on in print right now. There were some small steps forward with things like Alton Browns master recipe approach to baking. Haven't seen much else of note, though I will need to check out Modernist Cuisine as Michael mentioned.
I once came home from work to find my husband in the middle of making spaghetti bolognese, in a flapping panic and crying out "pipelining fail! pipelining fail!" This joke probably only makes sense to you if you are a software engineer and a fairly embedded one at that :-)
See if this link is useful http://breadtechnique.com/Forum/index.php?topic=223.0
Carl
Did you finish your cookbook? I would love to see it
The cookingforengineers site has a nice ingredient plus method layout. I use a similar format for my personal recipes
+1 for unique presentation. Their presentation is interesting, and useful for picturing timing of stages.
notice though that that format works only for recipes where, in the end, you have only one thing - basically trees. If you have two outputs, for example stock and boiled meat, it does not work so well any more.
cooking for engineers hits the spot with (possibly) one of the best representation (read: simple, light, instant) of a recipe I've ever seen. That should be combined with Matt's http://www.clearhonestdata.com/2010/01/rethinking-recipes and modernized a bit. Genius!
Modernist Cuisine has an interesting recipe format. You can see a sample recipe here. The thing I like about the format is that it takes for granted you know how to do basic things like saute, reduce, blend and so forth, so it strips the recipe down to the essential directions. This actually makes it much easier to follow for reasonably skilled cooks.
I'm not able to access the sample; perhaps that forum requires registration?
Nope, I just tried it from a browser where I've never logged into egullet and it works fine. Can anyone else confirm or deny being able to follow that link?
The sample recipe gives me: "Page not found! We're sorry, but the page cannot be accessed."
I could view it just fine. Try it in another browser if it's not working for you.
Working in Safari but not Chrome for me.
@Michael - That looks like a professional view on my cooking hobby. I like that a lot, will have to look into getting that book. Thanks once again for another cool tip.
Here is another sample from Modernist Cuisine http://jetcitygastrophysics.com/2010/10/18/modernist-cuisine-at-home-sous-vide-instant-hollandaise/
Image works in FF4 not in Chrome
I would love to get that book. And it's down to only $477 on Amazon! Still out of my range but better than $625.
The RecipeDesignWizard uses the format below:
Joy The Baker and Salt and Fat do a pictorial style presentation that I find inspirational. It's a story-woven-with-ideas format, with a fairly standard (simple) recipe listing at the tail of the picture essay.
I also have bread baking cookbook (Bread Made Easy) that boiled dozens of breads down to 6 basic recipes: a generic way of presenting recipes that would make for a great cookbook on soups, sauces, stews, etc.
I'd be very curious to see that bread book. I agree that a lot of recipes can be simplified down to a shared backbone, and once someone grasps the prototypical version of it they can more easily branch out and event invent.
It was Bread Made Easy (a baker's first bread book). The overall style was aimed to teach you how to make bread based on basic recipes, and then alter it to make other similar things. This would work brilliantly for many other foods.
I developed a new methodology for a recipe back in 2010 that you can find here. I'm currently exploring how to improve the methodology and plan to develop a cookbook using the technique in the next year.
EDIT
The linked website is no longer available, here is the direct link to a wayback machine snapshot.
your representation is absolutely great!!!
The two main formats I've seen for recipes are:
Ingredients list followed by instructions, which may be numbered, in several paragraphs, or in one paragraph. Sometimes the ingredients are listed to the side of the recipe instead of above.
Ingredients listed immediately above the preparation step in which they are used, or next to it (in a column by themselves: the recipe as a whole is a table with rows corresponding to the steps and two columns - left column ingredients, right column preparation). The former option makes shopping a bit harder but makes the actual preparation easier; the latter option could be considered best of both worlds (easy shopping and easy preparation).
This answer is community wiki so that other people can add formats they've seen.
rouxbe.com uses a format similar to @MarthaF.'s #2 option above. 3 columns:
1. photo of step
2. ingredients
3. instructions
See sample here: http://rouxbe.com/recipes/2313
They also do video recipes, but I find the text instructions more useful. The video snippets for individual techniques are pretty handy though.
That's a clean format (especially for the web). Great use of horizontal space.
a few links for your delight:
on the usability of recipes
http://www.usercentric.com/about/news_item.php?m_id=4&s_id=4&id=186
a page of recipe formats http://microformats.org/wiki/index.php?title=recipe-formats&oldid=37058
Simply Recipes http://www.simplyrecipes.com/recipes/buttermilk_pudding/
a pretty comprehensive format http://microformats.org/wiki/hrecipe
being a computer scientist, I would suggest that you use some sort of XML, SGML or at least formal format and the transform it into typographycally correct output with a style sheet. But you need to be a nerd deep inside to do this :)
I know this is a really old answer, but it really strikes me as an important factor. I am working (like many others) on mapping the entire process of ingredients, preparation methodology and nutrition information. Some kind of json-ld seems appropriate.
@Nothingismagick : json-ld? See https://developers.google.com/search/docs/data-types/recipes
The iPad app "Baking with Dorie" features a gantt chart style view that is a bit different from other presentations I've seen.
The book "Citizen Cake" features a wide margin and lists the ingredients in the margin next to the instructions. Most of the dishes are multi-component, so each sub-recipe has its own ingredients list adjacent to the instructions.
I've also seen presentations where the ingredients are only listed in the instructions, but set bold, italics, or color to make it easy to scan for the list of ingredients.
What you want is to arrange labor, resources, and time, in order to determine critical path and synchronize completion time (as well as possible). This sounds like a job for a GANNT chart to me. After decades of being completely useless in software projects, but I think we may have found a real use for one of these.
The components of the chart would be:
Time
The cook
Equipment (oven, stovetop, etc.)
Tasks would be bars that go across the timeline. There would be two types of tasks: tasks completed by a person, and tasks that are completed by a piece of equipment. You'll want to make sure that the "person" tasks never overlap on the schedule (you can't do two things at once).
Dependencies should be joined, and non-dependencies should be scheduled in parallel where possible. For example, cooking a roast would be broken into several tasks (time, task owner in parenthesis).
Season roast (10min, cook)
Place roast in oven (1min, cook)
Cook roast (120min, oven)
Remove roast from oven (1min, cook)
Rest (30min, no owner)
2 would be dependent on 1. 4 on 3, and 5 on 4. During the periods of #2 and #5, you could schedule other, parallel tasks (make salad, boil potatoes, etc.). This may be a little unwieldy to conceive and put together at first, but I do think it's doable, with the disclaimer that no system is going to be perfect, of course. I actually think this may be more useful for full menu planning, rather than single-dish planning. That would be a pretty compelling book for a cooking novice -- how to create a full meal and time the dishes correctly.
I don't know if this really counts as a 'format for a recipe' ... but I really appreciate tht in Alton Brown's cookbooks, he lists the "hardware" that you need for the recipe. (things like pans, appliances, utensils, etc.), which makes it much easier to tell if you're going to have trouble half-way through because you're missing something essential.
And I hate recipies that list all of the ingredients without mentioning 'divided' ... or better yet, list it twice, I'd rather the extra wasted space than accidentially dumping all of the salt in when I wasn't supposed to.
...
and, not specifically asked for, but too much to put into comments:
I'd recommend avoiding terms like 'large' to apply to things like onions ... I mean, I can get onions bigger than a softball, but most recipes mean something smaller than that. Even my mom's recipes which call for 'rolling into balls the size of a walnut' ... but I have no idea if she means shelled or unshelled. (she insists it means unshelled, but I've seen her make it, and it's closer to shelled walnuts; but it could also be confusion on terminology as to if 'shelled' means 'having a shell' or 'after being shelled' (ie, without shell). Even 'large eggs', which are 'standardized', are different between the US and UK)
For some introductory books, I think pictures at each step help ... trying to explain what color you're looking for when you say 'cook to golden brown', or 'finely diced' is easier in a picture than words. (you could always have a section that's just to explain specific techniques, if you don't want to have 12-20 images for each recipe ... unfortunately, it's harder to pull off in book form, rather than something like Deep Fried Live!
I edited a cookbook for the Kingston Yacht Club published in 1996 using Word Perfect and Page Maker as the composing programs. The format was that followed by "Mastering the Art of French Cooking" with Title and yield on the top line, Introduction in a short paragraph across the entire page followed by 2 columns (1/3 ingredients, 2/3 instructions) which alined the ingredients with the preparation directions. A final margin to margin paragraph might follow.
You've posted this as an answer, but the second half of it is a question about using word processing software. This is a cooking Q&A site; if you want to ask a specific question about food and cooking you're welcome to ask it using the link at the top, but if you want to ask something about using your computer, you might have better luck on http://superuser.com. I'm going to edit out the off-topic/not an answer part of your answer.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.991328 | 2011-05-19T14:39:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14912",
"authors": [
"Ashley",
"Brad",
"Bruce Alderson",
"Cascabel",
"CutNGlass",
"DreiZweiEins",
"Goods",
"Joe",
"KimbaF",
"Logan M",
"Martín-Blas Pérez Pinilla",
"Michael Natkin",
"Nothingismagick",
"Optionparty",
"Ray Mitchell",
"Sobachatina",
"Suzy lambert",
"TFD",
"THE DOCTOR",
"Vicky",
"Walter A. Aprile",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1687",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31437",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31440",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31459",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31470",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31500",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99027",
"jeremyjjbrown",
"jjk_charles",
"mekdigital",
"overslacked",
"renegade",
"rumtscho",
"user31440",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
16487 | Muffin sticks to paper cases
Today I tried to cook my favourite Raspberry and White Chocolate muffins using a recipe I found on BBC Good Food.
However after cooking them for the set amount of time and removing them from the muffin tray I found that when I tried to peel away the paper cases (from the muffin) the muffin stuck to the case.
The mixture itself was cooked but for some reason it stuck to the paper cases, this is also odd because I've done this recipe before and it worked fine. I've tried to think of any factors that may have changed when cooking for a second time and all I can think of are:
The raspberries were cut slightly larger (in half rather than in quarters/thirds)
Slightly less egg whites were used (because of a slight spill)
Could these factors have caused the muffin to stick to it's paper case?
were very ripe raspberries?? you always used the same oven?
Raspberries we equally ripe. Although the oven I used was different , the first time I used a gas oven and the second time I used a electric fan oven.
Turns out I hadn't left them to cool long enough. After I left them for about 2-3 hours and tried again to peel the case off, it came off perfectly and nothing stuck to it.
Sorry about the false alarm but I never thought that not leaving them to cool long enough would have caused this kind of problem.
Thanks for all your answers!
Try coating the raspberries in cornstarch prior to baking the mixture and the slight egg spill may have a little to do with it. Baking is a precise practice and even the smallest miscalculation can change the end product you are hoping for.
or spray the case with a non stick spray.
I'd guess its the fact that the two batches were in different ovens.
Convection (the one with the fan blowing air) and non-convection ovens can cook fairly differently (especially if you had convection turned on). You will probably need a lower temperature in a convection oven (with convection on).
Also, ovens often aren't temperature-calibrated very well, and two different ovens may be 50°F/25°C different when set to the same temperature. Gas ovens are also often subject to greater temperature swings as the gas burner's heat is instant.
I think your problem was you added too much raspberry into your muffin and not enough egg white which neutralizes that effect.
Hmm. When you say 'neutralizes that effect', what is 'that effect'?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.992446 | 2011-07-29T11:04:00 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16487",
"authors": [
"Bastien Vandamme",
"ChefLadyBugg",
"Joshua",
"Kenshin",
"Leônidas Nunes Reis",
"Lukas Biewald",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35137",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35157",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6877"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
13570 | What is the secret of making a really juicy burger?
As the title says; What is the secret of making a really juicy burger?
While I can't claim that this is an exact duplicate, it really is just generalizing issues already covered by many other burger questions here, in a form that encourages opinion-based answers. A quick browse through the hamburgers tag would have answered this question handily, and in much better detail.
Use only good beef, salt and pepper. The beef should be a good fatty cut, with a ratio of 80% meat, 20% fat. Chuck is ideal. Any good butcher should grind it to order for you.
You need to keep the ground meat as cold as possible, to prevent the fat melting out of it before you cook it. Do not salt the beef prior to shaping, just use pepper. Shape your burgers, then put them in the fridge for a couple of hours.
Generously salt the outside of the burgers about 1 hour before cooking.
Get a good pan (preferably a cast iron griddle) really, really, really hot. Brush one side of the burger with vegetable oil, then slap it on the grill. DO NOT PRESS IT WITH THE SPATULA, EVER. You squeeze out all the juice.
Turn the burger and cook the other side. Timing will depend on how you like your burger. A good way of testing doneness is to insert a thin metal skewer into the centre of the burger from one side (not the top), leave it for a few seconds, then take it out and touch it carefully to your lip. If it's hot, it's just about done. Or if you have a good digital thermometer, use that.
I could not disagree more with two of these points. First, brisket is really an awful meat for burgers; it is all sour and no umami ("beefy"). Alton Brown has lots of good advice about cuts of meat. Second, the advice on salting is seriously dangerous; instead of a beautiful melt-in-your-mouth mound o' meat you're going to end up with a tough outer crust. Don't dessicate your burgers - wait until the last possible moment to salt them.
It's never dessicated for me. The moisture drawn out by the salt is reabsorbed. Try it! Brisket is a mistype, I meant chuck! Edited...
Moisture is not reabsorbed. This simply does not happen. This is the same type of myth as that which says resting meat will make it reabsorb moisture. Salt without additional moisture (i.e. brine) dessicates or even cures meat. Try leaving it that way for 6 hours and see what happens. The salt may improve the flavour and sometimes an alteration in flavour may alter some people's perception of mouthfeel, but rest assured that salt-curing a hamburger does not make it juicier.
Well, it's good grounds for an experiment - next time I make burgers, I'll salt one an hour before, one just before I cook it. I suspect the difference is minimal anyway to be honest, but still.
This article http://www.seriouseats.com/2011/03/the-food-lab-more-tips-for-perfect-steaks.html has a detailed explanation in favor of salting with koshering salt, drawing the moisture out, then letting the meat re-absorb the brine which distributes the salt to the interior of the meat. Also for information about the effects of different combinations of salting and grinding methods, see http://aht.seriouseats.com/archives/2009/12/the-burger-lab-salting-ground-beef.html.
It is imperative to cook precisely. Overcooking is a recipe for a dry burger. I would recommend using an instant thermometer if possible and removing the beef at 155. If you grind your own beef then you can go much lower for a juicy burger. I'd even suggest 30% fat for a really juicy burger. Depending on how thick the burger is cooking it on high heat for long will also dry it out out the outer edges, so I would reduce the heat after seared.
When I'm planning on cooking a ton of burgers for large family gatherings (and I have the time to make the patties myself) I've had good luck with the following.
For every lb of ground beef I soak 1/2 piece of bread (without crust) in milk until it's saturated (I think this is called a panade). I then take the bread out of the milk and incorporate it with the ground beef. (I think I got this from an Alton Brown episode for something unrelated). It doesn't really alter the flavor, and can keep even slightly overcooked burgers nice and moist.
I know it's filler, not totally necessary etc. but it does seem to work as a bit of insurance.
The addition of bread (or breadcrumbs) is fine but then you really have more of a meatloaf than a burger.
I pretty strongly disagree. A meatloaf has a much larger proportion of bread. A panade is a very good method of retaining moisture in burgers, and is suggested quite frequently by ATK/Cook's Illustrated. I use the method myself. It's also the only decent way I've found to make a passable turkey burger. Do this with ground chuck and you can have a nice moist burger up to and including well done.
Is that complete or regular pancake mix?
Is the point here the addition of a starch to hold onto extra liquid? And so I could use any liquid (I’m thinking various flavored liquids)?
If you're adding white bread, you're dramatically degrading the healthiness of that burger.
Most important thing, I've found -- Shape and form your raw chopped meat with very, very gentle hands. By this, I mean do NOT pack the patty like it's a snowball. By doing this, you'll keep more space between the pieces of chopped meat and during the cooking the juices will nestle into these spaces and get reabsorbed into the meat. If you pack the chopped meat too tightly, the juices will have nowhere to go and will simply drip out of the patty, leaving you with a dry, sad burger.
Most people use anecdotal evidence, but here's a little tool based on the physics of heat diffusion to differentiate some of the false methods:
https://groups.csail.mit.edu/uid/science-of-cooking/
Flipping often have its benefit compared to fewer flipping if the heat stays the same.
I learn this from my dad, who was a Chinese chef. You have to trap the moisture inside by coating the outer layer with flour. Fry the burger in plenty of oil until a crust on the outside forms. Then turn the heat low and cook slow until the inside is done.
Wok burgers cooked in oil at low heat I think come out oily. Could be the wives fault there.
Alton Brown puts on a good show and has a great sense of humor, but pointing to his caveats as outright truths is a bit misguided. Most of his experiments on the show usually make assumptions that are often arbitrary or unfounded. First off, there are two main sources of moisture in a burger: the fat that melts as it cooks and the water that is stored in the muscle tissues. You could also point to the possible source of gelatinous connective tissue, but usually the meat used for burgers does not contain much of this.
Worrying about when to salt your meat is probably wasted energy. The fat won't be affected by the salt. If you think about it, some steaks are dry aged to purposely drive the moisture out so the flavors can be intensified. If you have a 20% fat mix, it will be difficult to dry out even if you salt it an hour before hand. Of course, if you know some old school 'pink is poison' people, you know that sometimes you're just gonna be stuck eating a hockey puck regardless.
The number of times you flip the burger is usually a silly rule too. If you take it to the extreme and try flipping a burger ever 10-30 seconds, you'll most likely waste a bunch or time and probably miss out on a nice dark sear outside/med rare inside combo. But if you accidentally have to flip the burger one or two extra times, you'll still be fine. Alton's suggestion that flipping a burger often is better than not sounds meaningless without indicating the thickness of the burger, temperature of and distance from the heat source. Also, it depends on how you like your burger. Some people like an even cook throughout while others like a spice rub that sears to a near crunch around a moist, tender red interior. Alton Brown should stick to his entertaining sock puppets and oversized food props and stop indoctrinating people with fake science.
Squishing the burger down can lead to a good burger too. Have you ever been to Smashburger? It's a relatively new burger chain originating from Colorado (i think). Apparently, they start with a sphere of beef on a hot griddle, and they literally smash the thing into the hot metal with a weighted iron. This cooks the meat quick and ensures efficient heat transfer from the surface to the meat fibers. As long as you cook it at the right temp and get it off the heat right when it is finished cooking, it comes out an amazingly juicy and flavorful burger.
Basically, there are no magic rules for burgers. All that matters is your idea of the ideal meat texture, temp, and thickness and that whatever method you use, you avoid driving out all the water by evaporation and burning away all of the fat while you cook it.
Salt at the beginning makes a difference. Amateur response. There are magic rules for burgers, although it's not "magic", it's science and chemistry. Some people lack such refinement.
I make what I call "Juice Burgers" When you make them right, the juice inside will literally squirt out upon taking a bite, sometimes, if your not careful the juice will hit someone in the face that is sitting next to you. My method goes against almost anything I have ever read or heard anyone speak of concerning the method of making patties. Here you go, first of all, I have never mixed sirloin and chuck burger together, although it sounds logical and I will probably try it myself sometime. I usually use straight sirloin burger for my burgers, with very little fat, mainly because I love the distinctive flavor of sirloin. When I make juice burgers I cook them in a cast iron pan, only. On my electric stove, I get the pan hot first on about 4 or 5 heat setting, depending on the stove I'm using. I wipe a very thin layer of olive oil in the pan before cooking. I read somewhere that handling the patties too much will make them dry and melt the fat, I have never had that problem with my method, in fact, I handle my meat for quite some time. It takes several minutes to make a patty correctly. Here's what I do. I simply work the burgers into a perfectly round shape, making sure there are no cracks on the edges or on either side. Keep slapping and flipping the patty in your hands over and over until you have a very smooth burger with no cracks, making it perfectly round with your index finger while rotating it. Make your patties about 3/4 to an inch thick. Make sure there are no cracks in the meat on the sides or top and bottom, as these cracks will let the juices escape. You will find yourself spending quite awhile forming the patties to make them perfectly round and the same thickness throughout. Also use a lid on your pan, they will cook more evenly and faster. I use a pizza pan for my lid. The real trick is cooking them without cracking the patty open. You may see them start to crack open if you cook them too long, or else there cracking because your patties were not compressed properly. If they are cracking there probably done. On the cooking time, probably 7 to 12 minutes total. And don't forget to put the cheese on them after the first flip, then through on the lid and melt the cheese. Hopefully you will have good luck with my method. Also have some paper towels on hand. Happy Juices!
I love the different opinions as to the "best" way to prepare burgers. My contribution to this discussion is to add ketchup to the mix. This will help with moisture and flavor.
I recommend using the higher fat content hamburger meat, 25-30% fat is best in my opinion. As for the cooking method, hot coals under the grill and keeping the cooking time to approximately 3 minutes per side gives me the best results.
My way of making them. I go with 80/20 on fat. I use 90% lean, 10% ground pork fat. I think they taste better that way. {Beef were I live is imported. Our water Buffalo at 90% lean are the fat ones.} But you could give it a try with 90% lean beef & 10% pork fat. Adding up to 10% bread crumbs does help hold moisture a little. It is a meat stretcher if feeding a large group. You might want to add a little at a cookout were there are many to feed. Salt before cooking or while cooking is personal taste. Ground hot dry peppers I add to the uncooked side. Then cook them. Takes some of the heat out of them. [ I mean hot peppers. Asians love hot peppers added] Again taste. Mix your burgers & make patties with a soft hand. Handle the burger as little as possible. Sear one side flip sear the other side to seal the burger. Move to a hot skillet or flat plate. Or side of grill were heat is lower to cook threw. Do not mash the burger or force moisture out of it. Flip one more time or flip over once while cooking the burger after searing. Burger takes a lot of salt for best taste. Adjust salt to your taste that is used.
The only thing I would add to the above, is that despite what many people say, only flip meat once.
If you flip it over a second time, the first side you cooked will be back on the heat. Problem is, that side started to cool as soon as you flipped it. So it will take a bit of time to get to the point that the heat is penetrating far enough to cook more of the meat. It only serves to dry the meat out if it is cooked numerous times over.
I personally salt meat right before I put it on the grill, as salt (by its very nature) will tend to draw moisture out of the meat.
Experiments (really important ones!) seem to show that salting immediately before cooking results in a drier burger. Salting about an hour before draws the moisture out of the outer layers but, crucially, gives it time to reabsorb. The result: a seasoned burger that remains juicy. Try it!
@Elendil: I'm sorry but that explanation sounds like complete nonsense. What is the scientific basis for this claim? It certainly doesn't square up with statements from McGee or other experts. Alton Brown's experiment, while it doesn't test your claim specifically, presents other data strongly suggesting that this would lead to a tough and rubbery exterior, which is also confirmed by my own experiences with both burgers and steaks. Meat does not "reabsorb" moisture - once it's gone, it's gone.
Also mrwienerdog, Alton Brown (again) proved experimentally that flipping often actually gets a better result, so sadly I must give a downvote to this answer as well.
Well, I'll have to check that out, because it just doesn't make sense how that would get a better result. I guess the culinary schools better change their teaching methodology then.
It actually makes perfect sense if you think about it. The (incorrect) assumption is that the flipped side loses all its heat, but that's not the case; the net result is more like cooking both sides simultaneously but over a low heat, which leads to (a) lower total cooking times and (b) more even cooking. Keep in mind that the heat doesn't just escape outward, it also redistributes itself inside the burger through conduction, so more of the heat from the grill is reaching the inside in a shorter amount of time, while the amount hitting the outside is exactly the same.
@Aaronut: Alton Brown used a teaspoon of fine salt for each 5oz burger in his experiment - far more than I'd use, considering I'm whacking salty cheese and barbecue sauce and what not on my burger. Also, as you say, he doesn't use the exact technique I'm suggesting. I agree with him when he says you shouldn't mix in the salt when forming the patty, but in my experience the technique I describe gives a good result (obviously this is subjective - whatever floats your boat).
@mrwienerdog: culinary schools do teach flipping often for burgers, as well as steaks. Maybe this is a recent change.
Well, I went to school in `1995, and we were told to NEVER do that. Go figure. I stand corrected. Appreciate the heads up.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.992950 | 2011-03-29T20:31:44 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13570",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Behacad",
"ElendilTheTall",
"J Bergen",
"Katiria Colon",
"Keith Payne",
"Matthew",
"Paul Raymond",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"Tetraodon",
"fletchelg",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24298",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91733",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91780",
"michael",
"mroll",
"mrwienerdog",
"seasoned"
],
"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
} |
5995 | De-humidify a fridge
I live in an apartment that was furnished with a fridge, but I find that it tends to be rather humid, causing condensation on my veg and consequently spoiling my veg more quickly. There isn't a humidity control, nor are there humidity-controlled drawers for use. Any suggestions on maintaining a lower level of humidity in the fridge?
I'm considering playing with quantities of desiccant to see if that helps.
Check the temperature: it should be around 37°F (3°C). If the temperature checks, look around the door for an air leak. Sometimes the door seal gets loose or dries out, letting the outside humidity in, which then condense on the food making it easier for bacteria to grow and spoil the food.
If you still find it too humid you could try a box of Polar King
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.994323 | 2010-08-25T22:55:16 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5995",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
11193 | What does the Cinnamon in my coffee turn into?
I few years ago I put Cinnamon in my coffee. After a few hours (I'm a slow coffee drinker) I started to take my last sip and a big clump of mucus hit my tongue and I almost puked. After recovering, and almost getting into fist fights with several co-workers (They loved pulling pranks) a few of them said cinnamon always does that. I'm still not so sure? What is up with Cinnamon and coffee and are there any other spices that does that? Or should I have continue to punch my co-workers?
Cinnamaldehyde, the compound that gives cinnamon its flavor, is known to cause inflammation in mucous membranes (http://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/chemical/20036).
It's also mildly water soluble. So, when you made your coffee it was probably diluted enough that it didn't cause a problem. As it sat out, it probably fell out of the solution and settled in the bottom of your cup in a more concentrated form.
What does the fact that a chemical stimulates mucus production in humans have to do with how it behaves when wet?
"Falling out of the solution" doesn't happen. If some substance is dissolved in some liquid, then the substance will never settle to the bottom.
Cinnamon is made from the ground bark of a variety of trees in the Cinnamomum genus. All of these barks contain starches, soluble fibers, and insoluble fibers to some degree.
Lower grade cinnamons such as Cinnamomum cassia contain higher amounts of lignins, bassorins, pectins, and mucilages; accounting for almost 80% of the mass of the powdered cinnamon. These compounds form gummy, mucus-like masses when hydrated or dissolved in water. The mucilages in cinnamon can be dissolved in cold water, but it takes heat and time to fully hydrate the bassorins and other compounds which creates a gummy mass. Higher quality cinnamon from different species may contain less mucilages or other compounds, but all powdered cinnamon will form a mass to some extent. Herbs and spices such as cardamom, chicory, nutmeg and many others contain many similar compounds in various proportions that could also form gummy masses, but it would take research and/or experimentation to figure out the amounts needed.
Cinnamon flavors can be added to coffee without ending up with sludge in your cup by adding the cinnamon to the brewing chamber or by adding cinnamon extract or cinnamon essential oil to the brewed coffee.
+1 This is the only answer that actually answers the question.
This is the real and correct answer to the original question
If I could upvote twice...
I know people who like cinnamon in their coffee, but the trick is to put the cinnamon in with the grounds before you brew it. I am not sure if there are other spices that do that. However, if you are looking to get back at your co-workers, just get some fine garlic powder, and sprinkle it on the base of their windshield. The air intake will suck it in, and blow it throughout their car, and the inside of their car will be smelling like garlic for a long time. The finer the powder, the better.
Can you put the cinnamon in the grounds if you use a French press?
I've never done it, but I don't see why not...... Just don't put in the garlic powder.
Can I add in the basket for a drip coffee maker? If I added it afterwards, it tastes bad.
Absolutely. That's exactly where you should put it. Start with a little, too much could be overpowering.
I'll try this. The cinnamon, not the garlic.
I always wondered what the liquid left from soaking dried thai or chinese chile peppers in hot water, which smells and looks all like black tea, does when you serve it as black tea....
Try using cinnamon sticks in place of powders. I have better results, also you can refill your cup of coffee and reuse the cinnamon sticks from your last cup.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.994438 | 2011-01-18T18:25:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11193",
"authors": [
"Bob",
"Bogdan",
"ChefAndy",
"Didgeridrew",
"Gary Scott",
"Goodbye Stack Exchange",
"Hilda Mendez",
"Margaret",
"Paulb",
"Ray Mitchell",
"Sobachatina",
"Sophie Swett",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126032",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143308",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22944",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22964",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60392",
"mrwienerdog",
"rackandboneman",
"user17347",
"user22945"
],
"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
} |
7880 | Why does roasting vegetables before pureeing into soup affect the flavour?
Last night I made a butternut squash soup. The recipe said to roast some squash and onion for 45 mins before boiling with stock for 15 and then pureeing. Is anyone able to explain (in moderate depth) what the roasting stage does? For example, how would it taste different if I were to merely boil for an hour then puree? Just curious...
Thanks,
Alex
Cooking causes certain chemical reactions within the food being cooked, many of which produce (and consume) compounds which have various flavours.
I don't know the real specifics, but I can outline why your two cases are different, and you can verify it visually. If you take a potato, cut it up and boil it, it stays pale. The texture changes to become much nicer to eat, and the flavour loses that raw starchiness that raw potato has (ever eaten raw potato? I don't recommend it...)
If you take that same potato (or, for realism's sake, a very similar potato) and cut it up and put it on a baking tray and put it in the oven to roast, what you get out has golden brown edges and a different texture, and a bit of a skin over the surface. Why? Ovens apply heat differently. Inside your oven is air at 200 degrees C or so. This is much hotter than the water in a saucepan (which caps out at 100C at sea level unless it's a pressure cooker). So the first potential difference is temperature - some reactions simply do not happen at the temperature you can achieve while boiling.
The second difference is the environment. If a reaction relies on one of the gases in the atmosphere to happen (chances are it's oxygen), this is not going to be the same when the food's submerged in water containing far less oxygen than the air does.
So when you roast your squash in the oven, you're allowing reactions to happen which cannot happen if you boil it, thus leading to different flavours. Particularly relevant is the Maillard reaction, which requires a kind of fat and sugar and lots and lots of heat, and happens when you brown meat in the frying pan, or in onions being roasted in a hot oven. It's a complicated business that has many different possible end products, some of which can then react further to make different ones again... read about it on Wikipedia if you're interested in the details. The point is that there is no way to get those flavour compounds at temperatures too low for the reaction to happen - Maillard requires about 155C, well over the boiling point of water at sea level. There's also caramelisation, which is a different flavour-producing reaction.
I guarantee that if you make two batches of soup, boiling one and roasting the other, you'll find that the roasted one tastes quite different. That doesn't mean you can't make nice soup by boiling raw vegetables (I've done it), but you can't make the same soup.
Good answer, Matthew. The only thing I would add is that caramelization requires just sugar and heat, while Maillard reactions require sugar and protein. I don't think they require fat.
I agree it is a very good answer, but I would add that cooking with dry heat also concentrates flavors because water is being evaporated away, while boiling can actually dilute flavors.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.994782 | 2010-10-06T13:25:34 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7880",
"authors": [
"Michael Natkin",
"ThinkingCook",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2643"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
121511 | Garlic with the olives... what happened?
Something strange (but nice) happened and I hope someone can explain.
Here is the story: I had a glass jar of olives (Kalamata Pitted). They come in a "brine" with the ingredients listed as Kalamata Olives, Water, Salt, Vinegar, Extra Virgin Olive Oil.
I had some extra garlic and on a lark I pealed some of the cloves and just tossed them in.
The next day I tried them and the results were amazing! A very spicy taste that was unlike fresh and cooked garlic. It has a super sharp taste -- almost like a hot sauce.
Does anyone know why this happened? Are there are techniques or recipes to make a consistent and flavorful addition to my cooking ingredients?
Normally, fresh garlic in itself is very "sharp".... have you tried eating some of the same garlic you did the experiment with raw?
@rackandboneman -- yes I did after reading the first version of the answer. Based on that I found if I sliced very thin about 10 mins before eating I got a similar effect (the brine addition enhanced it a little).
Garlic has an enzyme called alliinase that converts sulphur-containing compounds in the garlic into forms that your taste receptors recognise as hot or spicy (alliin > allicin & diallyl disulfide, other compounds).
The alliinase is released and becomes active when the cells in the bulb are disrupted by cutting, chopping, crushing, etc. Normally alliinase activity is reduced in an acidic environment like the kalamata olive brine - though since the cloves were left whole, the brine didn't fully penetrate and interact with the alliinase, allowing it to form its products inside the cloves.
The same principle is used for making aioli, where garlic is mashed with a mortar and pestle. Time affects how quickly it reacts - in dry garlic powder, you can get full alliin > allicin conversion in 30 seconds [i] after adding water.
You can easily replicate this by crushing and rolling the cloves to break up cells and let them sit in plain water in the fridge, or crush and paste them and add vinegar to stop the enzyme activity once the spice reaches your preference. Use fresher garlic for faster/more consistent activity, as the amount of time affects how much alliinase remains active; conversely, use older garlic for slower or reduced spice.
You can easily replicate this by doing exactly what you did the first time - put peeled garlic in the olive brine. If the olives were originally displayed at room temperature when you bought them, then the brine is formulated with enough added salt and vinegar for osmotic stress and acidity to inhibit C. botulinum, and little enough oil to not form a gas barrier at the top.
Add refrigeration temperatures and free oxygen exchange with the aqueous part of the brine after opening, and the risk profile for C. botulinum toxin formation is similar to jarred capers - negliglble.
In the comments below:
Hogan:
Wow thanks for the quick reply Borky. So what caused the allicin to form since I put the cloves in whole and didn't crush or slice? Was it the salt in the brine?
Answer:
That's a good question, and one that I don't know for sure, but can guess at:
Like you mentioned, the salt in the brine could be the cause - the osmotic stress could cause the cells themselves to leak while the cell wall structure remains intact due to the acidity strengthening the pectins present;
The olive oil could have interfered with the cell phospholipid layer, also causing leakage. This can be seen with some herb-in-oil mixes where internal components end up in the oil carrier solution.
Any slight bruising or damage to the garlic during peeling and handling could trigger alliin release - the allicin is part of garlic's natural defense response to pests.
The acidity from the vinegar affects the cell membranes, releasing the alliinase and precursor compounds. This mechanism is used in a northern Chinese pickled garlic food, "Laba" garlic [ii]. Laba has a milder spice due to the use of undiluted vinegar with a pH around 2 - a relatively small amount of allicin is immediately produced before enzymatic activity halts, then breaks down into diallyl disulfide and other less reactive compounds.
[...]As compared to the unprocessed garlic (0 day), most organosulfur compounds showed a significant change from day 3. This change could be
explained with the damage of garlic cell membrane by vinegar.
According to the report of Bing et al.,8,9 the permeability of both
plasma membrane and intracellular membrane of garlic are improved
after the garlic being soaked in vinegar. Thus, alliin and alliinase
in garlic react rapidly to form allicin. -Liu et al. [ii]
In contrast, the kalamata brine likely has vinegar at <4% formulation, yielding a brine pH roughly between 4-5. This is still a range where alliinase is active, though less optimally.
Fig 3. Effect of pH (A) on the alliinase activity at 25°C.[iii]
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248878.g003
Further reading and references:
Garlic and Organosulfur Compounds. Jane Higdon, Ph.D., Victoria J. Drake, Ph.D., Barbara Delage, Ph.D., Karin Ried, Ph.D., MSc. Linus Pauling Institute, Oregon State University. https://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/food-beverages/garlic
Pungent products from garlic activate the sensory ion channel TRPA1. Diana M. Bautista, Pouya Movahed, Andrew Hinman, Helena E. Axelsson, Olov Sterner, Edward D. Högestätt, David Julius, Sven-Eric Jordt, and Peter M. Zygmunt.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0505356102
[i] Allicin Bioavailability and Bioequivalence from Garlic Supplements and Garlic Foods.
Larry D. Lawson, Scott M. Hunsaker.
https://doi.org/10.3390%2Fnu10070812
Storage time and temperature affects volatile organic compound profile, alliinase activity and postharvest quality of garlic.
Richard A. Ludlow, Marianna Pacenza, Adriana Chiappetta, Sarah R. Christofides, GarethEvanscMichaelGrazcGraciaMarticHilary J.RogersaCarsten T.Müllera
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2021.111533
[ii] Investigation of the dynamic changes in the chemical constituents of Chinese “Laba” garlic during traditional processing.
Jian Liu, Wei Guo, Minli Yang, Lixia Liu, Shengxiong Huang, Liang Tao, Feng Zhang, and Yongsheng Liu.
https://doi.org/10.1039/C8RA09657K
[iii] Effect of physicochemical parameters on the stability and activity of garlic alliinase and its use for in-situ allicin synthesis.
Petra Janská, Zdeněk Knejzlík, Ayyappasamy Sudalaiyadum Perumal, Radek Jurok, Viola Tokárová, Dan V. Nicolau, František Štěpánek, Ondřej Kašpar.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248878
Wow thanks for the quick reply Borky. So what caused the allicin to form since I put the cloves in whole and didn't crush or slice? Was it the salt in the brine?
@Hogan updated with more researched info.
Thanks borky -- I'm going to try pickling in just vinegar and see how I like that.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.995055 | 2022-08-31T02:13:58 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121511",
"authors": [
"Hogan",
"borkymcfood",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99917",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
17752 | Which drinks fit to a Thai Dish?
I plan to cook a thai dish this weekend and I search for drinks to serve along to that. In particular it will be a chicken dish with lemon gras.
This is forked from another question of mine.
Welcome to the site moonglum. Open ended poll type questions are not a good fit for our site. Questions asked here must have reasonably objective answers.
I think a good Belgian Wit beer would go well with Thai food. The coriander and citrus in the beer would complement the dish, but a good one will not overpower the food. The light mouthfeel from a Wit would help cleanse your palate and refresh without filling you up.
I know you're looking for likely alcoholic drinks, but the ever popular Thai Iced Tea is great because the cream in the Thai iced tea cuts the heat from the Thai spices. So even in that vein, I would suggest creamy drinks. I know the cultures are not similar, but it seems like white russians would taste great with Thai food.
Here's a link of creamy drinks: http://www.cocktailsonline.tv/cream.html
Forget wine, forget tea, there is only one answer to this question. Well two really. Your choice of Chang beer or Singer beer in a glass with ice.
Some choice-- one results in a "Changover", the other has formaldehyde in it.
I recently came across an article that said sweet Sauternes wines were a great match for Thai food. A quick search on Google leads me to believe that this may not be as crazy as it sounds. Here is an example:
http://www.thewinecellarinsider.com/forums_new/showthread.php?46-Sauternes-and-food-pairing-question-from-Chateau-Coutet
In that thread a person says he has had great experiences of pairing Sauternes with Thai food, particularly a 1975 Chateau Rieussec that he had at Lotus of Siam in Vegas.
If you feel adventurous, maybe that is a way to go.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.995585 | 2011-09-15T09:34:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17752",
"authors": [
"Doug",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
18634 | To slow down the fermentation process of a food in a can
I am particularly interested in the histamine's creation in a can because I need to deal with allergies. Possible Factors to me which affects to histamine's creation that is the speed of the fermentation process in a can:
temperature
humidity
concentration of salt in the liquid
Histamine is created as a result of fermentation so can-food has significant amounts of histamine compared to non-can-food. Assume we have food in a can. It ferments all the time little although it is in a salt liquid. Consequently, little amounts of histamine is created to the food. However, I am not sure how significant is the given factor compared to iron oxides, for instance.
My intuition suggests that to decrease the amount of histamine in a can-food, slow down the fermentation process that is keep the can in cold temperature at dry-air and select cans that have high salt amounts.
Some people keep cans in the refrigerator, I do not. I have noted that the can gets roasted a lot faster in old refrigerators without any humidity control. What is the ideal humidity and temperature to store food in cans to minimize the amount of histamine's creation? How much should the fermentation process slowed down?
What kind of food are you talking about? Fermentation can also produce alcohol.
Masi,
Given that I'm a severe allergy and migraine sufferer, I was surprised by your assertion that canned foods in general contain large amounts of histamine. As far as I can find from internet search, they do not. The canned/jarred foods which specifically have been measured to contain histamine are:
canned fish, especially tuna
canned tomatoes
fermented vegetables, especially saurkraut
fermented soy products, especially soy sauce and tofu
red wine and red wine vinegar (and anything pickled in wine vinegar)
The answer is simply: don't eat the above if your sensitive to histamine. You can avoid them. Also, the histamine in the above foods already exists in the can or jar before you buy them, and will not be reduced using salt or chilling.
I am quite puzzled by the inclusion of canned tomatoes on that list, but several sites reference it.
Part of your confusion is clear with this statement:
Histamine is created as a result of fermentation so can-food has
significant amounts of histamine compared to non-can-food. Assume we
have food in a can. It ferments all the time little although it is in
a salt liquid.
Um, actually, no. If your can of corn is fermenting, it's bad. Throw it away before the can explodes. Canned and jarred fermented foods are fermented before they are put in the can or jar. Cans of non-fermented foods are not going to ferment on you; they are heat-treated to destroy all microorganisms which would cause fermenting.
Further, histamine is only created as the by-product of the fermentation of certain proteins or fibers, so not even all fermented foods have it. There is a larger list, though, of foods which stimulate histamine production than which contain histamines.
References on which I base the above statements:
http://www.reverta.com/blog/histamine/top-10-histamine-containing-foods/
http://www.cfs.gov.hk/english/programme/programme_rafs/programme_rafs_fc_01_04.html
http://www.allergyuk.org/fs_histamine.aspx
http://nchfp.uga.edu/how/can_home.html
One thing which is interesting and irritating is that while there have been numerous studies showing that canned fish can contain deadly levels of histamine (because of the decomposition of the fish before canning), several nutritional information sources have apparently taken to restricting all canned foods "to be safe", presumably since they don't think their readers can differentiate between tuna and green beans. This is presumably the source of Masi's confusion. I spent some time searching for any studies indicating the presence of histamines in canned vegetables or fruits, with no results.
If an actual nutritionist or biochemist is reading this question (I am neither), please add to what I have above or correct me. Thanks!
One physician told me that all canned foods contain histamine much more than not canned food. It is possible that he simplified the claim because he think that patients cannot differentiate between things which contain much-histamine and things which contain very-little-histamine. I am not sure whether there is any food in a can that contain no histamine. - Thank you for the links! Need to read them now.
"Aged and fermented foods are naturally high in histamine - -." Does it mean that any food that has been long time in a can contain histamine? It may be the case. Assume the zinc layer is little bit broken and there is the Daniel cell such that iron oxides get to the food. Does it increase the amount of histamine in the food?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.995769 | 2011-10-28T21:12:58 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18634",
"authors": [
"FrustratedWithFormsDesigner",
"Grace",
"Léo Léopold Hertz 준영",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40352",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6849",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7501"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
6098 | Best online source for spices
I'm looking or good online sources for spices. Good selection and good prices.
I came across an older meta question about the fate of this question. It didn't get that many votes, but the ones it did were in favor of closing (without deleting). http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1977/should-this-old-question-be-kept/1979#1979
Penzey's spices is one of the most well known places for spices:
http://www.penzeys.com/
They have an extensive selection and reasonable prices.
Penzey's for me too - recommended to me by my "food guru".
Friend recommended Penzeys a while back, I won't shop anywhere else online for spices since.
I buy pretty much all of my spices from The Spice House at http://www.thespicehouse.com/. I particularly like their salt-free blends since I have high blood pressure. They also have more varieties of paprika than most similar stores and they have a "vanilla paste" that gives vanilla bean like results, but much cheaper than whole beans.
I've been trying to find a source for cardamom in bulk and I stumbled on the SpiceJungle. I love their website! Their prices are even better. You might want to give then a try: https://www.spicejungle.com
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.996125 | 2010-08-27T00:20:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6098",
"authors": [
"Empire Home Health Care",
"Rick G",
"The Oxborrow",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115463",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115464",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho",
"stephennmcdonald"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
20200 | 3D meat cuts references?
I always have trouble reading the diagrams that indicate the cuts of meat. It's hard to tell how deep the cuts go, etc. Are there any 3D diagrams out there?
This blog entry has a cross section of the pig and shows you the real cuts which is pretty awesome!
Not sure if you noticed, but on the page you linked to, in the "More info" section, there's a link to this University of Nebraska Porcine Myology page which has some pretty cool visualizations - and there's also a beef one They're not labeled with cuts, but you can really see the structure.
If you watch Alton Brown's show Good Eats (Food Network) he frequently uses 3D models to show where various cuts come from. A good example is the episode "Tender is the Loin", where he uses a model of a steer to show where the loin primal is and then location of the tenderloins.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.996260 | 2012-01-05T18:05:36 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20200",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Jon Kiparsky",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53625",
"max ross",
"user44206"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
16437 | What does simmer slowly mean with white soybeans?
The instructions in the soybeans say that parboil first and then simmer slowly for two hours.
Let's consider this in the scale of my plate. The power-scale of my plate is from 1 to 6. I put it first to 2, then to 3 and then to 4. It started to boil little with 4. Therefore, I consider that simmer slowly means no bubbles in the water i.e. 3.
I assume that parboil means "put the power of the plate to 6 and wait that everything bubbles vigorously".
I explain what the technical definition between a simmer, boil and roiling boil is here. A slow simmer would be a very thin but continuous stream of bubbles rising from the bottom of the pot.
Parboiling does not mean maximum heat. Parboiling means that you're only boiling until it's part of the way cooked, not completely cooked; so, you're cooking mostly at a full boil, then reducing heat to a simmer to finish them. This ensures they don't overcook.
You'll have to figure what setting a boil and a simmer are on your plate, as it depends on the power and size of your pot. On a stove, I'd expect 2 to be a simmer, and about 3 as a full boil, but it varies from one model to another.
Simmer typically means that there are bubbles.
A slow simmer has a few bubbles occassionally appearing, while a fast simmer has more rapud bubbles, but it's not the violent movement you get with boiling.
The numbers on your dial aren't the only factor ... it's influenced by the amount of liquid, shape and size of the pot, if there is a lid on it, etc.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.996369 | 2011-07-27T04:30:52 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16437",
"authors": [
"Bryan Bryce",
"Olivia",
"Rolando Retana",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35014",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35015",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35022",
"user35017"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
16563 | How long can you store a mixture of old bread in a no-oxygen-container?
I watched a TV-program where they made a mixture of old breads. It has no water in it so it is mainly carbohydrates. They used it to fry up such as chicken and fish.
How long can you store such a mixture?
Bread has plenty of water. Do you mean bread crumbs, which are typically used in batters?
It sounds like you're talking about bread crumbs--you use these to bread the outside of anything you'd want to fry up (i.e. chicken breasts).
If you stored this in a sealed container and kept this in a cool place, I would say a few months, at least. It's possible that something like this would last for over a year or longer without going moldy.
After a few months, I would just give it a close visual inspection and taste a small amount. Are the bread crumbs moldy? Are they stale? Do they still have any flavor (if there was any to begin with)? If it passes all these tests, I'd use it. Even if it's stale, I may still try to make a small batch of food with it because baking and frying heats water out of foods anyways.
Side note: My parents have some ground spices in their kitchen from over a decade ago. The spices haven't gone moldy and I don't get sick eating food with these spices in it. However, the difference in flavor between these spices and new ones are like day and night. When I cook there, I don't bother using their spices, but I won't complain if they use it for food served to me.
So it does not seem to be dangerous to eat such spices which are over a decade old when no moldy. It is clear that it is not good to eat them a lot. There are apparently more bad bacterias in such spices. - How much? Probably, I can see it with a 100x microscope and estimate it.
There's an upper limit to how much bacteria can be in your ground spices and bread crumbs with limited moisture. With that said, you're never eating spices (or even bread crumbs) for nutritional content. They're there for some added texture or flavor. Ground spices will lose flavor over time--the aromatic oils will evaporate off or oxidize slowly. Bread crumbs just need to become crispy when fried and absorb moisture in ground meats (i.e. meatloaf), which they should be able to do for some time. If you're not comfortable eating old food, by all means, throw it out though.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.996623 | 2011-08-01T18:38:58 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16563",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Eric Hu",
"Léo Léopold Hertz 준영",
"Mary",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35323",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6849",
"tmn",
"user44949"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
43701 | To boil frozen food with chicken without microwave
Assume you have microwave food dishes with chicken and you have no microwave.
What is the recommended time to boil the food?
The temperature is less than microwave can reach.
I think the time should be longer, but how much?
Food is chicken with rice and vegetables.
There is no recommended time. You just cook it until it is done.
If the food is pre-cooked (which is common with microwave-ready food), you only have to bring it to the temperature you like to eat it at. Else, you cook it until whatever is inside is cooked through. You can use a thermometer to determine the exact moment, but I wouldn't bother for a microwave-ready dish, as it is unlikely to be sensitive to overcooking.
Microbiologicaly there would be a thread of contamination with certain bacteria (Salmonella Typhimurium, Campylobacter) if the chicken would be raw. This is unlikely for a microwave meal, I think. As long as the meal isn't spoiled, doesn't smell or look funny, you just need to cook (fry roast...) the food until it is hot. If the rice is too hard to eat afterwards you could add a few spoons of water after you roasted it a minute.
JMTC
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.996834 | 2014-04-26T07:41:45 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43701",
"authors": [
"Boutran",
"Karen",
"Laware Sujit",
"Léo Léopold Hertz 준영",
"Spammer",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102484",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6849"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
16428 | Traveling with chicken
In a few days I'll be cooking for my grand parents. Now I want to make it special so I decided to brine some pieces of chicken fillet before going there. But they live an hour traveling by bus from where I live, so I would have to carry the chicken in my bag. I was thinking of putting the pieces in a tupperware box along with some of the brine and wrap it in foil so that it won't spill in my bag. But I don't whether or not it will be still safe after I'll arrive. Any comments on this?
Thanks
If you cook it immediately on arriving, an hour is a safe period. Remember the chicken will take a little time to heat up. Usually 2 hours is the limit for meat at room temperature.
On the other hand, there's no harm in playing it safe, with both spillage and spoilage. I'd suggest you put the brine and chicken in a zip-seal bag, then put ANOTHER bag around that to protect against leaks, then throw the whole thing in a larger tupperware container with ice packed around it.
This way you're not going to worry about leaks, and if you get stuck in traffic for longer than expected, the chicken will still be fine to cook and eat.
Put the tupperware box in a cooler with some ice. Everything should arrive fine.
Just from a spilling point of view, not a refrigeration aspect ...
Put the bag of briny chicken in the tupperware, with the bag sealed. If you're really paranoid, wrap the whole thing in a second plastic bag, and tie that off, then put the whole thing in whatever container to carry it ... possbly yet another bag.
The idea is, the bag holds the brine in, and the tupperware protects the bag from punctures or abrasion. The bag should squish to fit the container, but you might need to let out enough liquid out so it fits. You want the bag to fill the container as well as you can, so it doesn't rattle around inside the tupperware.
I wouldn'tbother with foil ... it's only good for liquids if you fold over the edge multiple tmes, and then crush it down well ... and it tears and punctures easily, so I don't think it would give you real protection ... maybe slow a leak, but not stop it.
Theoretically it should go OK, but you are cutting it tight. As the others said, it is best to cool the chiccken while transporting.
The problem is that if you put it in tupperware and the whole tupperware in a bag with some ice, you are not doing much, especially if the chicken is still warm (got cooked just before traveling) and/or you are travelling in a hot climate. A big bag packed with ice will be OK coolingwise, but will be very heavy and it will melt enough to leak water. A small bag with a single tray worth of ice cubes won't cool the chicken enough because the tupperware itself and the air pockets in it are good insulators.
I think that your best option is to freeze your brine or stock into cubes. Then put these together with the cooled chicken into the tupperware. Pack that into a small ziploc bag to contain leaks, you can throw some normal ice cubes into it for good measure. Put this bag into one of these isolating bags supermarkets sell for the transport of frozen goods. It will both keep things cool and serve as an additional containment for leaks. Make sure to put the tupperware in the fridge as soon as you arrive.
You can prefreeze the chicken itself too, but then you'll need time to thaw it completely after arrival. And if you are talking raw marinated chicken to be cooked at your grandparents', the meat will also dry out when cooked. I wouldn't do that unless absolutely necessary.
If you don't mind if the chicken freezes, and you don't want to worry about spills, go ahead and pack in a double plastic bag like several people have mentioned. But, instead of using ice, use some dry ice. That will keep it MUCH colder, and dry ice evaporates instead of melting. Wrap all of that in paper (newspaper, brown paper bag), to protect yourself against the cold. (Wrap it really well -- dry ice freezes skin very quickly.) A chunck of dry ice the size of a fist or two should last for more than an hour, if it's wrapped up well. Plus, it's light, and it gets lighter (as it evaporates away).
The challange, of course, is finding dry ice. Our grocery stores have started carrying it, but only allow adults to buy it.
And bring gloves and a suitable container ... you don't want to be moving dry ice without them. (and unfortunately, my local grocery store stopped carrying it, as I think I was the only person buying it)
Oh, and be careful not to put the dry ice in a sealed container or it will blow the top off.
Talk about OVERKILL. OP needs to move the chicken for about one hour (+/-). No dry ice, no gloves, no frozen ice cubes of brine are needed.
Put the chicken in a sealable plastic bag (or double wrap it if you're really that worried about it), fill a small cooler with some ice, and put the bag into the cooler, burying it in the ice. That will keep the meat below 40f, which is all you need to do to keep it safe.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.996978 | 2011-07-27T00:28:18 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16428",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Cos Callis",
"El Rey",
"Futuregeek",
"JLandsberger",
"Joe",
"Ricky",
"Steven Spears",
"aledalgrande",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34994",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34995",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34997",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35032",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"pingin",
"sleblanc"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
125348 | Rise dough in loaf pan and bake without transferring to a different pan
I make simple artisan bread (1 cup water, 2 cups flour, 1.5 tsp yeast, salt). It rises overnight. I have always transferred it from the rising bowl to a loaf pan with light oil on the side. This works fine, but is the transfer necessary? Could I let the dough rise in the loaf pan and put it straight into the oven to bake?
Goals:
no need to wash rising bowl
don't get hands dirty from the transfer
think it loses some air bubbles from the transfer (I just tile the rising bowl sideways and it rolls into the loaf pan)
Probably -- sorry, it was too long to read for me though, more detail than I needed. I just wanted to hear this approach would be ok or if someone knew it would come out poorly. @Abion47 's response was perfect.
When I make gluten-free bread, this is my preferred approach. The reason is because the lack of gluten makes the dough very fragile and too much handling can knock the air out of it, resulting in a very dense bread. Letting the dough proof in the loaf pan ensures that I'm not losing any of the air that I had just spent hours (if not days) developing.
For glutenous breads, it depends on what I'm trying to make. If it's a sandwich bread, I will just let it proof in a greased loaf pan, alternating between proofing and folding, and then let it rest on the counter for 15-30 minutes before going in the oven. (I'm not that concerned with air loss, it's just more convenient.) If it's something a bit more fancy, though, I will use the mixing bowl or a separate proofing vessel since I will end up turning it out on a work surface for molding and shaping anyway before it goes into the cooking vessel (assuming I'm even using one and not just putting it on a sheet pan or pizza stone).
Thank you -- just wanted confirmation that it would not come out ruined.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.997387 | 2023-09-26T01:26:39 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125348",
"authors": [
"d l",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6868"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
21996 | Repairing the Seasoning on a Cast Iron Pan
I had some caked, hard burned substance (garlic, really, from steak) on my cast-iron pan. I tried cleaning it with a brush, and it didn't come off.
So unfortunately, I put a bit of muscle into it, and now the bottom of my cat-iron pan has bits that are positively shiny and silvery. I'm pretty sure the seasoning came off here and there.
Is there a way to fix it, other than completely re-stripping the seasoning and re-seasoning it from scratch?
possible duplicate of Stripping seasoning from cast iron
Too lazy to find the duplicate, but basically, first thing to try is to heat the pan to 500–600°F or so, under an exhaust or outdoors, wet a paper towel slightly with soy oil, and wipe it over the bare part. It should smoke instantly. Once its finished smoking, wipe a few more times.
I don't think this is a duplicate; the OP is explicitely asking for solutions other than stripping and reseasoning.
Yes, precisely. I know I can restrip and reseason from scratch, but that's a lot of energy usage, so if there's a way to just patch my seasoning, I would prefer that.
@rumtscho did you read answer in suggested duplicate? It addresses NOT doing it from scratch
So, just answering the new part of the question:
You can simply season "over the top" of the existing seasoning. To do this, you'd go through the normal seasoning process, wiping the pan with oil, heating in a 500F oven, wiping again, heating again. This will fill in the "holes" in your seasoning and you'll be able to use the pan again.
However, you will also end up with somewhat rough, uneven seasoning on the bottom. This will make things more likely to stick than if you completely reseasoned the pan. You can improve this by scrubbing the bottom of the pan with a mixture of course salt and oil. This will "sand down" the seasoning without completely removing it.
You should also ask yourself if maybe the original seasoning of the pan wasn't faulty, given that some of it already scrubbed off.
That's what I ended up doing. I did indeed get a lumpy/uneven season. I'll try sanding it down. The old seasoning was from the manufacturer, so, go figure :)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.997554 | 2012-03-05T02:51:44 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21996",
"authors": [
"TFD",
"ashes999",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5714",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
16360 | Difference between Pan-Frying and Searing
What exactly is the difference between pan-frying and searing? They both use the same principles -- high heat, oil, flip once or twice -- and they both create the same result, namely that wonderful golden crust.
Is there a difference?
Pan-Frying is a complete cooking technique. When something has been 'pan-fried' it is done and ready to serve.
Searing is an incomplete process, a step in a larger process. Searing can happen before roasting, braising or other finishing method. It is even good to sear before marinading.
If that's true, how are the techniques different? I cannot identify a clear difference between the two.
Also, searing does not have to be done in a pan. It can also be done on the grill, in a griddle pan or even over an open flame. To sear something just means to brown/caramelize its surface. Since a pan is the most convenient method, most searing is done in a pan.
@ashes: they're not. Simply you don't say I pan-fried the roast, but rather I seared the roast before putting it in the oven.
@ashes, the "clear difference" is time and motive. Because searing is "incomplete" it is merely a "surface treatment". Whether done in a pan or on grill. Searing is done 'quickly' and only affects the surface. (thanks to Henrik & nico for adding clarity to my answer)
I disagree with "Searing is an incomplete process". For some things (like Pittsburgh Rare steaks ), it is the only process.
@jwernerny, that would depend on your definition of "done". I am not sure I would agree that a steak which has only been seared is "done", ready to eat.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.997755 | 2011-07-24T03:19:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16360",
"authors": [
"Altay_H",
"Cos Callis",
"Henrik Söderlund",
"Jasmine Hegman",
"ashes999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34827",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"jwernerny",
"nico"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
18913 | Using Frozen Fries as a Component: How to Dress Them Up?
I often have to use frozen (potato) fries as a component in dishes. Usually, I douse them in garlic sauce and ketchup, but that doesn't really add much to them.
What can I do to dress them up and make them a stronger component in dishes?
They're also usually soggy and soft, and don't crisp well at all (they usually end up burned if I try to crisp them).
Having never seen FF as a component in a dish...whats an example of such a dish?
@rfusca my wife's family often use it in shawarma (mediterranian wraps) and in (chicken) sandwiches and the like.
Is it possible for you to clarify exactly what your goals are? The part about getting them crisp is a good question on its own, but "dressing them up" reads to me like What can I add to X. If you can give specific examples of how you're using these fries and what's wrong with the result then great, otherwise I think you should focus on the crispness.
I always find that frozen fries get much crisper if you heat the baking sheet before you put the fries on it.
Personally I just like to season my fries with salt (I try and use a decent sea or rock salt rather than the cheap table stuff as it does make a big difference), but you could also sprinkle other spices and seasonings onto the fries before you bake them to make them taste a bit more exciting. Paprika, cayenne or garlic salt would all work nicely.
+1 won't the spices burn if they bake, like paprica/garlic-salt?
I would avoid the frozen ones altogether and make my own 'oven fries'. Cut some potatoes into fries, part-boil them for 3 minutes, drain and let them steam dry. Meanwhile heat a tray with 5mm olive oil in the oven at about 180C. Once it's hot, add the fries and roast for 30-35 minutes, turning halfway through (you can throw in a couple of whole garlic cloves as well to add flavour). Easy, crispy, and much tastier than frozen.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.997929 | 2011-11-12T21:29:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18913",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"SPARKLE",
"SarahIsabel",
"ashes999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41007",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5714",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
21531 | Fixing a Brownie Brick
I have a fudge brownie recipe that I followed pretty much to the letter. I think when I baked it, it was too thin; it came out hard, like a brick, and it's pretty much inedible. I'm also afraid someone left it outside / in the fridge exposed, and it dried up more.
Is there anything I can do to soften it and make it edible?
I tried dunking it in my tea before eating it, but it didn't soften it up much.
You want to soften up an already cooked brownie or fix what you did so that it doesn't happen again?
Was there anything in the recipe about the size of the baking tin?
@rfusca I want to soften up an already existing brick. I would like to know what I did wrong so I don't do it again.
@Mien I don't believe the baking tin size was mentioned.
Following the same line of thought as @Mien, I think the reason why your brownie originally came out thin and hard is because the baking tin you used is too big for the recipe. next time look for a recipe that specify what size tin to use. Or if you want to continue the same recipe, use a smaller tin. Also, always error on the side of undercooked brownies. Those are the best kind anyway. Good luck!
Thanks @Jay, that's what I gathered from reading some related questions. Erring on the side of undercooked, plus a thick layer, seems to be the trick.
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/40669/67
I would crumble it up into a blender, add some vanilla ice cream and some milk. Blend it all together to make a Brownie Milkshake.
This is genius. I will try it, and return with my feedback.
Can also crumble it up and use it as a topping for ice cream or yogurt.
I've made great rum balls from overbaked brownies before. Crush it in a food processor (or just smash it by hand), toss it all into a big bowl, add just enough rum to make it pliable, roll in some cocoa powder and/or powdered sugar, and refrigerate.
I also don't consume alcohol but this approach would work great for coconut chocolate balls as well. Break them up, mix in some condensed milk and desiccated coconut, then roll in some more coconut. One family always make them for eid, a nice break from all the ma3moul and baklawa everyone else has.
You could also try breaking it into small chunks and soaking it with espresso or a liqueur like cointreau or amaretto. That should soften it up nicely and would taste great made into an ice cream sundae or trifle.
You could really do this with any liquid. Make sort of a biscotti out of it.
I'm afraid you can't do a lot about it now. The only thing that might work, is to put it in the microwave for a couple of seconds, right before you eat some. Perhaps putting some syrup on top could help too. But I guess this would be more helpful with the mouthfeel than with actually softening your 'brick'.
As for next time, if you did like the taste and want to use the same recipe, use a smaller baking tin. Also check for doneness 5 min before it should be done (by inserting a toothpick in the middle). That way you can have an estimate how much longer it should be in the oven. Or as Jay suggested, look for a recipe that tells you the size of the baking tin.
Here's a post where somebody crushed up their brownies and made truffles from them! http://runwithforest.tumblr.com/post/12744781116/how-to-save-burnt-brownies-by-turning-them-into
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! Can you tell us more about the process used in your link? We like to include information in the actual answers as links have a tendency to break over time.
This is actually a really decent answer. "Nuke it to soften it, blend it in a blender, and mix with cream-cheese to make truffles. Roll in powdered sugar."
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.998119 | 2012-02-20T16:06:44 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21531",
"authors": [
"Aetoro",
"Eric Hu",
"Jacksonkr",
"Jay",
"Joe",
"Lonnie Cook",
"Mien",
"NRaf",
"Paul",
"SilverRay",
"SourDoh",
"Sourav Paul Roman",
"Suman Arora",
"ashes999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135240",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47764",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47780",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96419",
"r_nab",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
24776 | Fixing Sticky Seasoning on Cast-Iron Pan
I screwed up the seasoning on my cast-iron pan. I forgot to flip it upside-down, so instead of that hard, smooth surface, it became sticky and gummy.
Is it possible to repair by reheating it again, upside-down, at the proper temperature?
Or do I need to strip it and reseason from scratch?
If you don't already use one, I highly recommend using a turner instead of a spatula. Using a rounded-edge spatula causes uneven pitting and wear on the skillet. These straight-edged turners smooth it out and will help preventing stick spots. For example: http://amzn.com/B002CJNBTE
You don't have to re-season from scratch, just get rid of the sticky residue and make sure that the next layer of seasoning is very fully cooked on. The easiest way to remove the sticky residue is to scrape off what you can with a spatula, scrub off the rest with kosher salt and baking soda, and clean that up. Then give it a couple more passes of seasoning to even out the layer, making sure to leave it in the oven extra-long for the next seasoning. The extra cook time helps avoid having a sticky spot reappear.
What causes this?
This happens when the oil pools in one spot, and doesn't get heated long/hot enough to form the seasoning layer. If you resume seasoning without removing the sticky residue, it will form a bubble of uneven seasoning that flakes off, exposing the less seasoned stuff below. I learned that the hard way.
Gah. The last time I tried salt, it completely decimated my seasoning. This is a new pan with a single layer. It already has bubbles from previous attempts. I have to start over ... thanks...
Sorry, @ashes999... if it's any consolation, you probably needed to season it again anyway, if you have lots of bubbles. Next time, what may help is using less oil and wiping it off until only a thin layer remains. It'll get a more even and less sticky layer. You'll still have to do several passes though
I have used cast iron for many years and done some research on the process of seasoning cast iron. Here is what I have learned. The brown sticky stuff is gross and is caused by one or more of 3 things:
The layer of oil applied is too thick.
The baking temperature is too low.
The baking time is too short.
If you want to love using cast iron you need to season it correctly. Here is a link to the best explanation I have found so far to explain what seasoning is, how it works, and what works best and why. http://sherylcanter.com/wordpress/2010/01/a-science-based-technique-for-seasoning-cast-iron/
Here is a simple step by step instruction of how to do it right: https://www.cooksillustrated.com/how_tos/5820-the-ultimate-way-to-season-cast-iron I recommend adding a step before step 1. Heat the raw cast iron in the oven at 450 degrees F for an hour and let cool. An explanation of why this is helpful can be read in Sheryls other blog entry.
If you have a brown sticky coating you have to get it off. When I recondition a dutch oven or a skillet I use a sandblaster with glass abbrasives in a blast cabinet, followed by a palm sander to flatten the metal, followed by and a 6" circular wire brush on a bench grinder, followed by a 3" wire brush in a die grinder. Now I understand not everyone can strip cast iron this way. Depending on how the condition of your iron you can try oven cleaner spray, heating in your ovens cleaning cycle, or you can strip it in a hot camping fire. Remember to let it cool slowly. The point is you have to get that crap off and get back to bare metal.
Don't use the wrong oil. Don't use vegetable oil, corn oil, safflower oil, canola oil, butter, bacon grease, Crisco, olive oil, etc. All of thes oils will turn black if aplied thin enough and heated to a high enough temperature for long enough and give you a cooking surfac. BUT you could have one of the following happen to you:
If you get it too hot, it will flake off.
If you scratch it, it will flake off.
Some oils like olive oil will give you a mottled surface.
To season it right you NEED TO USE one of the following and heat to a high enough temperature:
Flaxseed Oil (from the refrigerator section of the health food store)
Linseed Oil (Yep, from the hardware store)
Why do you have to use one of these oils: The short answer is because these have high amounts of omega-3 fatty acids needed to produce crosslinked polymerization. Before you get all over my case that lindseed oil is not a food product, note this, after heating to 500 degrees F, no oil is a food product any longer. All oils will undergo chemical changes and become something different. The difference is lindseed oil and flaxseed oil will become a hard, crosslinked, polymerized, durable layer bonded to your iron that won't flake off into your food even when used at high temperatures.
Happy Cooking!
D
Note: Linseed oil from the hardware store will not be food grade, and may contain some nasty chemicals -
I wouldn't risk the linseed oil, personally - flaxseed oil from the health food store is easy enough to come by and a little goes a long way.
Nasty chemicals in linseed oil typically include heavy metals. Stick to food grade sources...
I wonder if a food grade oil would also work: safflower, fish, poppyseed, walnut. I'm getting these from my time I spent learning about the different binding agents for classic oil painting, since these too are similar to linseed/flax, although some without as pronounced a yellowing as linseed.
Thermal polymerization of different oils:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/lipi.19670690611 AND
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00339-017-1454-8 AND
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0032386100000306 AND
https://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/24870/PDF AND
https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/files/final_submissions/4441 although i think it might take a bit more research, digging for research to prove the hardness of which polymerized oil, or combination of oils is best.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.998441 | 2012-07-01T14:04:43 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24776",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Chris Macksey",
"Debbie M.",
"Ecnerwal",
"ashes999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"jmunsch",
"paul"
],
"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
} |
122541 | Milk curdles while heating to make yogurt…is it safe to eat?
I had some old milk in the fridge that smells like it’s on the edge. I decided to make yogurt with it. While I was heating it, lots of curds started to form. Is it safe to eat the yogurt that I’m making with it?
Related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/115613/28879
I wouldn’t. If the milk curdled, it’s a sign of spoilage and the very last thing you want to do now is keep it in a warm environment for a prolonged time.
And while many yogurt recipes include a pasteurization step where you heat the milk to near boiling (not all do, btw.), this will not turn clearly unsafe milk (as indicated by the curdling) into a base for a new product. Especially if the process includes a fermentation at warm temperatures for many hours.
Milk curdling a sign of spoiling... source for that?. You can curdle fresh.milk by adding lemon juice to it.
@NeilMeyer exactly. For fresh milk to curdle you need an acidic component. If the user didn’t add anything like lemon juice, vinegar or similar, the acid is a byproduct of bacterial activity. It’s the same process as in yogurt making or other fermentations, but as we can not determine which bacteria caused the curdling we must err on the side of safety and assume unwanted bacteria and unsafe food. This has been discussed at length in other Q/As here. Or simplified: Controlled growth of known microorganisms = good, spontaneous growth of microorganisms = potentially very bad.
What you are describing here is known as простокваша; what's the worst that could happen
@OmarL In English, I believe you're referring to sour cream.
@OmarL Worst? Food poisoning. To make good soured milk / Dickmilch / … “spontaneously”, you need the right biome in the milk. Modern milking techniques and ironically the hygiene standards of milking equipment mean that even in raw milk today the natural bacteria profile is different than in the farms of our (great-great-…) grandparents. If you add processing steps like pasteurization (as minimum for store-bought milk), all bets are off. Think of it as the difference between freshly squeezed apple juice and pasteurized: one will ferment and give you hard cider, the other will just mold.
@MichaelMior soured milk. Most countries with a farming/milking tradition have it in one way or other
@Stephie thanks for the caution. I'll be posting a few questions (or at least, doing a little research!) about my cheese-making now before I make another batch.
A typical process of making tvorog (Russian cottage cheese) is letting the milk go slightly sour (producing soured milk, as mentioned in the comments), then heating up so that it curdles, finally pressing the remains of the liquid out.
Sounds like you accidentally followed these steps. It's unlikely that at this point you can make yogurt, because much of the lactose has already been used up by other bacteria (which may be unsafe anyway).
UPD: for safety reasons, if you do make your own soured milk, use a starter culture.
I must caution all readers here. Yes, this is the traditional method, but for a safe product when using pasteurized (or even worse, UHT) milk, there is a significant risk of undesired bacteria taking over instead of the desired naturally occurring lactic acid producing strains. In modern processes, the cultures are added back in and/or another acid or small amounts of rennet to start the curdling. So proceed at your own risk. For milk that started to go off in the fridge (so not the best environment for the desired kind of bacteria), I would very much discard it over trying to salvage it.
@Stephie thanks, I thought my remark in parentheses addressed this, but I added an explicit warning
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.999233 | 2022-12-05T05:37:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122541",
"authors": [
"IMil",
"Michael Mior",
"Neil Meyer",
"Omar and Lorraine",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98725"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
7004 | Is there a way to recover hardened Pecorino Romano?
I've had a wedge of Pecorino Romano wrapped in plastic wrap in the fridge for a while. There are many of you out there that probably have had the same problem. :)
I actually cut a small piece and it was quite crunchy! I tried to grate it and it's no longer crumbly. So it's quite hard to grate. The cheese still tastes good, though.
Is there a way to get it back to its slightly softer and crumbly consistency?
I don't think you can rescue it, but you can use it. Try putting it into a vegetable soup; you'll find that it adds a bit of body as well as flavour. You can also do this with the left-over rinds of any hard cheese.
We use a microplane grater for cheese. It works great for hard Parmesean or Pecarino. The volume increase is quite high, so it can take a while to grate the right amount. But it makes fast work of hard cheeses. It also melts very easily because the pieces are so small.
Obviously, this doesn't get you back to your consistency, which I think is unlikely. But the cheese is still very usable.
A word of advice from experience -- the original brand, narrow ones (where the metal is folded over the edge to stiffen it) are the ones that you want here. There are a number of different brands that now make similar products, and most have a really wide, curved surface -- for some the metal is so thin that they've added plastic at the top and bottom to stiffen it (I think it was Cuisinart; the xyliss ones look similar, but have a more rigid metal) -- plastic stiffening doesn't work, as I managed to crack it the first use (grating a hard cheese that had started to dry out).
You can wet a paper towel, squeeze it out, wrap the cheese in it, then wrap it in Saran Wrap. Put in refrig. By the next day the outside edges will be grateable. Keep it this way in the refrig. It will continue to solften. I do it all the time.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.999556 | 2010-09-09T01:13:59 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7004",
"authors": [
"Chris",
"Joe",
"Spammer",
"agweber",
"edwin",
"gilzero",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14265",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
125399 | Make artisan bread last longer than 3-4 days (besides freezing)
I make simple artisan bread (1 cup water, 2 cups flour, 1.5 tsp yeast, 1.5 tsp salt). It usually starts to look like mold spot start growing in about 4 - 5 days. Is there anything that could be added to the ingredients to make it last longer? Or any modifications to the recipe?
If possible, I'd prefer to add ingredients instead of extra steps like putting some in the freezer, or keep in air-tight container, etc.
I want to there was a question close to yours asked years ago … but all I’m finding is this somewhat related one: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/79026/67
I believe I was thinking about this question: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/7804/67
@Joe. I would call that a duplicate. I am deleting my answer and voting to close.
Yeah, feels like a duplicate.
I can't think in cups, because we bake by weight here, but I know my sourdough keeps less well in summer (warm humid kitchen) and less well since I reduced the salt in it. But I don't know how much salt you're using compared to me, and anyway the acidity and hydration both make a difference too
1/2 cup water, 1 cup flour, 0.75 tsp yeast & salt, bake twice as often...or Eat More Bread.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.999748 | 2023-09-29T00:16:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125399",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Ecnerwal",
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
105719 | How to clump store-bought granola?
I purchase granola from the store and like to snack on it as an alternative to chips. At the top of the bag, most of the granola are bite-size and easy to pick out. But towards the end of the bag, it is all very small rice-size pieces, and difficult to pick up. Is there a way to take the small pieces and clump them together to make them a bigger size?
this might just work:
let's say there's about a half-cup (or just over 100 ml) of crumbs
preheat your oven to 200F (about 90C) with the door closed
take a paper towel and tear it in half
get one half completely wet with water, but squeeze it out enough so it's not dripping
put it in the bag and shake-shake-shake. this gets a little water more-or-less evenly on the surfaces of the crumbs
remove the wet paper towel and shake the clinging crumbs back into the bag
dump it all on the dry half of the paper towel and roll it up into a sausage shape
set it in the oven on middle of a rack in about the middle of the oven
close the oven door and turn off the oven
wait at least 4 hours
voila, 1 granola roll, i hope
There probably aren't enough crumbs to be worth "clumping". But you could potentially make homemade granola with oats, nuts, dried fruit etc. baked together with some oil and honey or maple syrup. You could use up your crumbs by adding it to your homemade mixture. Personally, though, I wouldn't bother :)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:59.999871 | 2020-03-07T21:27:43 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105719",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
85024 | Should I lightly boil or steam meat (eg, beef) before searing?
The common technique I know of is braising, or, basically, sear the meat (eg beef, pork, chicken), 2 minutes per side, then add liquid, cover, and put in oven at low heat for 1 - 2 hours. This works great for flavorful, tender meat. However, it does not develop a crust or 'bark' on the surface, I think because the 2nd part of covered heating in the oven causes the surface of the meat to get lots of liquid. And any sauce or dry seasoning I put on the surface of the meat falls off. This leads to the meat having a single texture of tender and moist.
Is there a technique of slow, covered cooking first, followed by searing or heating to get the desired crust or bark on the surface? My goal is to have the tender, moist texture on the inside, complemented by a drier, crunchier surface with lots of dry seasoning.
BBQ and sous vide come to mind, but this depends on the type of meat and the cut of that animal. Perhaps a more specific question would yield some responses. What are you trying to make?
Fry it? Even better, soak the fried meat in the juice, like Korean wings.
Beware of a full boil -- it'll make the meat tough. You typically want a low simmer for these things. (I forget the exact temperature range ... hot enough to melt collagen, though)
Yes, but I don't know if there's an official name for it. We do this a lot in pressure cooking, to get the appealing mallard reactions (caramelization). Typically, after cooking you can put the meat under the broiler to crisp it up (common examples are a whole chicken or carnitas).
Example recipe for Carnitas: https://callhimyeschef.com/2013/02/19/carnitas-under-pressure/
I've also done it for ribs (following the recipe from Good Eats)
@Joe Me, too. That's an excellent example!
I have seen it on Master Chef with tougher cuts of meat.
I see -- the technique here is brown and slow cook (or speed up by using a pressure cooker), then broil for crispiness. Thank you @Ispare, this is the kind of answer I was looking for !!
This is a classic combination method, not unlike par cooking potatoes for french fries or homefries. You could even go all out and sear-simmer-sear to get browning at first for flavor in the simmering liquid, then final sear for texture and more Maillard.
@MarsJarsGuitars-n-Chars Yes, that would be a delicious idea! #BrownFoodTastesGood
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.000007 | 2017-10-15T23:05:43 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85024",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"MarsJarsGuitars-n-Chars",
"d l",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6868",
"lspare",
"moscafj",
"paparazzo",
"user3528438"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
81323 | Are there safety concerns with cooking something with beer or wine in the oven?
Probably a silly question, and I have never heard of an incident, but then again that does not rule out a safety issue. Basically, if I want to put a covered pot in the oven with beer or wine (or some other alcohol), is there a safety concern, or a pre-oven step that must be done? The reasoning is that if the alcohol cooks off as a gas, could it be trapped in the oven, and heat up until it explodes or starts a fire?
For now, I usually add the beer or wine to the pot on the stove, and let it heat up uncovered for a few minutes before the oven.
One other point: you don't really drive off much alcohol by bringing it up to boiling point on the stove. Previous answers here have linked to some real data on that. So it's not much less alcoholic when you put it in the oven for this step.
This is a little speculative but too much of an answer for a comment.
We've had a few discussions here about the relative rates of boiling off water and alcohol. The result is that the alcohol vapour (starting from even pure beer/wine) will be mixed with quite a lot of water vapour so will be dilute even before it mixes with air.
Apparently you need between 3.3% and 19% alcohol in air for it to be flammable. A source of ignition is also required (e.g. the flame in a gas oven). Gas ovens have to be fairly well ventilated for there to be enough oxygen to support a flame. So much of the alcohol would escape. Any that does reach the flame is likely to be consumed there unnoticed before much can build up.
An electric element (not the air in the oven) does get hot enough to ignite alcohol. It can ignite spitting fat and that doesn't cause a problem except a smoky kitchen. If you've boiled off enough to replace 3.3% of the air with alcohol you've also replaced quite a bit with water vapour too. An oven would have to be very well sealed to allow this buildup in the first place.
I have seen an old oven door fail when grilling. In that case the (forgotten) food itself ignited and was spitting flames at the glass, which burst. It didn't cause a fire outside the oven.
I haven't considered the case of strong spirits. There's probably a way to arrange pure/flambé alcohol to ignite in an interesting way.
Regardless of weak or strong spirits used, liquid concentration will not equate to vapor concentration for ethanol in water. Over a broad range of concentrations, ethanol vapors are enriched significantly. Convection and partial condensation could easily produce a flammable mixture and as the flame front travels, further leaning of the mixture could happen progressively to sustain the flame.
You wouldn't get partial condensation if ethanol or water in an oven. It's too hot. If the mixture is lean to start with making it leaner isn't going to make it more flammable. From liquids at or just below 100C water evaporates almost as fast as alcohol, and there's more water to start with(@user110084)
Agree on condensation inside a hot oven. Water will will not evaporate as fast as alcohol across a wide range of concentrations because at any given temperature, ethanol would have a higher vapor pressure than water. Only at the azeotrophic composition (just under 96% w/w or 80% v/v) would you get equal evaporation rates. A 14% v/v wine will boil at well below 100C at sea level. Obviously, this is a continuously changing system since the wine composition changes as it evaporates as does its boiling point. And vapor composition will also change.
@user110084 except between the boiling points the difference in value pressure is rather low, limiting the concentration of alcohol in the air/water vapour/ethanol vapour mix.
@Chris_H Yes. So the key issue about safety concern is quantity of alcohol used rather than high or low proof since small quantity of alcohol would not support combustion for long and the amount of energy released would be insignificant. I would hesitate to use whole bottles of wine.
I have never heard of any issues either, but let's do some math together:
Assuming you used a large bottle of wine, e.g. one liter of red wine for a bœuf bourguignon. And you picked a wine with 13.5 percent (by volume) alcohol, which is a rather high percentage. Then you end up with 13.5 ml of pure alcohol (or 10.6 g). That's a scant tablespoon.
Now while one can produce a neat flash using a comparable amount of alcohol for a flambé dish (e.g. using two tablespoons of rum), you will have problems to get the concentration of alcohol in your dish to create a similar effect. The following points are preventing it:
The alcohol in a dish won't boil off or evaporate completely (as discussed here before) and during the process it will be diluted by water, which does not need to boil to turn into gas. So you will have only part of the alcohol available to potentially catch fire and that part will be very diluted.
Only if the alcohol is concentrated enough will it be able to catch fire at all - that's why you need high-proof types for flambé.
The alcohol is much more volatile than the water/steam, so you won't be able to create a scenario where the water boils off or escapes the oven and the alcohol remains. You can safely assume that the alcohol "goes first ".
Conclusion:
Unless you decide to pour high-proof alcohol straight into your oven, there is no risk of a fire or explosion. I probably wouldn't use a bottle of whisky to deglaze the roasting pan, though.
You appear to by off by 10x on the amount of ethanol; it's 0.135 x 1000 ml = 135 ml! But alternate sanity check: can you ignite wine or its vapor, even heated in a pan on a burner (a la crepes Suzette sauce?) That doesn't work for me at all unless using spirits of ballpark 80 proof (40% ethanol.) I wouldn't worry about some beer or wine in cooking, myself.
With ethanol in particular, percentage ethanol in liquid can be very massively different from that when vaporized. It is unrealistic and unwise to assume that a 1% ethanol solution in water will produce a 1% ethanol vapor with 99% water vapor. Wine with say 14% v/v wwould vaporized into a roughly 70:30 mixture (70% v/v).
We do not have a simple 2-component system of just air and ethanol, but a 3-component one (treating air as a single component). The air-ethanol flammability limits do not apply. The crepes suzette example is useful, 40% v/v ethanol should not ignite, when vaporized it should produce a 73% vapor body which should not burn, but it does because of diffusion and vapor leaning as the flame front progresses.
There is a bit of a misconception that you can get vapor ignition only with high proof spirits. This is very different from reality because ethanol-water is a non-ideal mixture and vapor concentrations look nothing like liquid concentrations with rare exceptions. In fact, with high proof, the initial vapor is likely too rich to support combustion and ignition is typically delayed until there is enough diffusion.
It is true that with small quantities of low proof, you will not have enough alcohol to sustain a flame for very long and there would not be much energy released. If you make mulled wine and put a lit candle close to the pan, you can experience this. This is quite helpful: non-ideal mixtures
I've baked Rum cakes for over 35 years and last night, for the first time ever, I opened my (new) oven door to remove it when done and got blasted with a big blue fireball that whooshed out past my face and badly singed the tips of my hair. Thank God that was all it did. No actual fire, just the big exploding whoosh of blue flame then gone.
Now I will be terrified to bake rum cakes in the future.
Just had a prime rib roast sitting on a pan of red wine, perhaps 3 cups. Using convection bake and a sudden flame out happened. Blew the oven door open momentarily, singeing all the hair on my left arm. So it is possible!
Welcome to the site. Please take a [tour] and visit the [help] to see what we like to see in questions and answers. Are you sure that the flame wasn't a result of excess fat/smoke igniting on contact with air like a backdraft situation?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.000230 | 2017-05-01T01:09:14 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81323",
"authors": [
"Catalyst",
"Chris H",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"user110084"
],
"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
} |
9953 | How long to preheat oven?
This is a silly question, but my wife will turn on the oven to preheat while she prepares stuff, but sometimes it takes her 15 minutes to 45 minutes before she puts things into the oven.
Generally, how long does one need to preheat the oven before it's to the desired temp? I know that this can easily be solved with a thermometer, but we don't have one.
Is your oven electric, gas or solid fuel?
When I read "preheat the oven for 10 minutes at 180 degrees", I preheat it for 2-3 minutes at 360 degrees. It's not like I'm following the rest of the recipe anyway... :P
I just cleaned up the thread from answers saying "my oven takes X time to reach Y degrees". I would like to remind everybody that we don't take poll questions where each answer is a single data point on one's personal opinion/experience, so answers to this question are also expected to contain general (and substantiated) information, not a single data point.
This depends on a lot of things.
The idea of preheating is that you want to get all the surfaces inside your oven (walls, floor, door, racks) up to the desired cooking temperature. This makes for more even temperatures throughout the oven, and gives a little thermal mass so you don't lose ALL your heat when you open the door for a few seconds or put something cold in there.
Then there's the question of what you're putting in the oven. An aluminum sheet with a few room temperature cookies on it won't pull the temperature in the oven down like a 25 pound turkey that's 40F/5C inside. You want to be more careful to do a complete preheat if you're going to be soaking up a lot of your starting heat.
Our oven, which has a large baking stone in the bottom all the time, takes a while to get uniformly up to temperature, even after the oven says it's preheated, because the stone doesn't heat up as fast as the rest of the surfaces. It takes at least 20 minutes after the "I'm fully heated" beep before the stone is fully up to temp. We have problems with things baking poorly if we don't preheat for quite a while, but on the upside, if we put a cold roast in or open the door a lot, the temperature in the oven stays pretty high.
If your oven is lightweight, flimsy or drafty, it may be as hot as it's going to get the moment the preheat alert goes off.
45 minutes is probably a lot more preheat than you'll need in almost any case. In some cases even 15 minutes is more than you need. It really depends on your oven and what you're putting in.
Absolutely correct. The preheat beeper goes off when the air has reached temp, and opening the door of the oven will kill that right away. The more thermal mass (baking stone, bricks, I've even seen a full clay oven liner(found it http://www.hearthkitchen.com)) you have the longer it takes to heat up, BUT, the less fluctuation in temperature as you put food into it.
Add to that... consider the degree you need to maintain constant temperature. When baking bread, you don't want that initial drop in temp from improper preheating (so preheat longer). But if you're warming up yesterdays casserole, who cares?
Do you turn on the convection fan for preheating? Or do you turn it on when you put the food inside? Because my oven keeps turning off by itself when preheating, I think it might be the fan.
Most ovens I have used take from 15 to 20 minutes to get to 180C (350F). Many ovens have an indicator light that glows while it is below temperature (i.e. when the elements are on) so just watch for that to go out, and your are at your desired temperature
The key thing is that most modern ovens are well insulated and will not use much energy once at temperature and with nothing else to heat up, so going a bit longer isn't a big energy waster
If you want to save energy have a queue of things to bake one after the other, as a significant amount of energy if used just getting the oven up to temperature. Electric ovens are from 3000 to 5000 Watts, so each warm up cycle uses approximately one kWh (assuming 15-20 min)
You might not want to trust your on-board thermostat. I recently got a new oven thermometer and checked the temperature after the oven beeped saying it had reached 350 degrees but the thermometer only read 250.
You don't need to ask this question. Run the oven with a meat thermometer probe lying on a shelf, and watch how it heats (I use one which shows a graph of temperature history, but this isn't necessary). My result, for a small top oven in a non-fan gas cooker with two ovens, was that it took 15' to reach a reasonable cooking temperature (a little below the ultimate steady temperature) when set to a moderate Mark 6 (this probably depends upon the cooking temperature set, probably longer for higher temperature).
Another question is whether preheating is necessary. I always put food in immediately, from cold, and add 15' to the cooking time. It's not just me; the Web says others do the same. You may disagree.
OP said they didn't have a thermometer.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.000842 | 2010-12-10T03:33:44 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9953",
"authors": [
"Camilo Martin",
"Doug Johnson-Cookloose",
"Herb",
"Orbling",
"Recycled Steel",
"Robert Cartaino",
"Sandy Feucht",
"Shayan",
"Tara",
"doptimusprime",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20394",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20396",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20402",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8658",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87507",
"rumtscho",
"user2249626"
],
"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
} |
20479 | What makes vacuum fried food retain and concentrate the food's flavor?
I recently tried some vacuum fried banana chips and pineapple chips from Trade Joe's. They were delicious. Does anyone know why this process helps the food retain and even concentrate the flavors? According to the article, since the frying environment is under a vacuum, this allows food to reach a fried state at ~130 C (normal atmospheric frying is ~170 C).
Because you are frying at a lower temperature, the food is closer to it's natural state (no browning) and is less cooked. That coupled with the significant drop in moisture, you are concentrating the flavor of the food (just like syrup, only with solid food). It's also typically done with food that is more susceptable to burning, foods with higher sugar contents, so you are often left with a sweeter product.
Vacuum fried foods reduce the amount of oxidation (which causes browning in fruit and other foods). This process also reduces the amount of water in the food when frying which will concentrate the flavors.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.001358 | 2012-01-16T08:18:29 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20479",
"authors": [
"Faith",
"Giovanni Mascellani",
"Gustavo Rubio",
"Renee Blake",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44969",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45310"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
20353 | What to do with mochi...this version is white, hard and puck-like in shape?
My mother-in-law gave us some mochi that she received as a gift. It's actually the size of a small hockey puck, white and pretty hard. (I've only encountered soft mochi in this shape and generally they had some sort of filling). The only other time that I've seen hard mochi is once when I bought frozen mochi from the store (sold as one solid rectangular block, about 1/2" high). With this frozen mochi, they suggested baking it. When baked, it browned on the outside and puffed up a little bit.
Has anyone ever seen the white mochi pucks that I've described? How do you eat it? I'm going to attempt to steam one and try to bake another to test. Is this the proper way to cook this type of mochi?
I've actually found this post about mochi. They show the cakes that I've seen in the past and also the shape that I mentioned in my post.
It seems like you can:
grill them - they will brown a bit and rise.
boil them - they won't rise
microwave them
And the ways to serve it is with:
Butter+soy sauce (an interesting combo that I will try)
Rolled in ground sesame seeds + sugar or salt.
Rolled kinako (toasted soybean powder + sugar.)
UPDATE
Boiled
I cut them into about 1 inch x 1 inch pieces and threw them in boiling water. Boiled them for about a minute or so...then removed them to a bowl of cold water to stop the cooking process.
Dressings
I tried butter+soy sauce (1 TBSP melted : 1/4 tsp soy sauce) - It's actually pretty good!
I also ground up some black sesame seeds with sugar (1 TBSP : 1/2 tsp sugar)...this was actually my favorite of the two.
Try the kinaki(i didn't know thats what it was called in English), it is delicious and reminds me of my childhood. One of my favorite snacks that my grandma used to make for me is steamed/boiled rice doughballs covered in Kinako and the mochi fits the bill.
Heck now that I think about it, I am going to make some for myself! thanks for making me aware of the name. Now i can have something to actually look up when I need a recipe. :) Thanks!
There are different version of mochi that serves refrigerated, room temperature, steam, shabu-shabu (hot pot), grill etc. From the shape, size and hardness you describe, it seems to me the type you're having are good for grilling on charcoal with flavoring as simple as oil and soy sauce.
[EDIT]
Rice cake can be cooked and served differently across asian cuisine. There is Chinese version of "NianGao": can be plainly fried or steam (sweet or salty), stir cry (salty), or boil in soup or hotpot (salty).
The Koreans have "Dok". A popular way of cooking is with red spicy gravy or "DokBokGi". Korean also serve "Dok" in salty soup such as "Dok Goog" or "Dok Man Du Goog" etc, and sometimes serve as sweeten desert or appetizer that simply named "Dok" that comes in varieties of color and nuts filling.
The Japanese have the "MoChi": as desert the Japanese transform the MoChi to anything you can possibly imagine (with nuts, cracker, meat etc.), in cooking they grill, boil, hotpot etc, and even Mochi ice-cream.
My aunt is married to a Japanese person, and she eats mochi with seaweed, soy sauce, cheese and pork/chicken floss.
Here are the steps:
Bake the mochi until it puffs up, then dip both sides with soy sauce.
Put it on top of a piece of seaweed (for shushi/ onigiri). Then add cheese (I use sliced cheese but any preferable cheese can be used).
Put the chicken floss on top of cheese (any floss will do).
Wrap it up
What you are describing sounds like the very basic, traditional New Year's mochi—what you get when you hand-pound mochi and then hand-shape it. I've participated in making these a couple of times, and we used to get a batch every year from my auntie, when her JACL post pounded them for the holidays. I've also bought them frozen and made my own with a stand-mixer.
The way I learned to prepare them from my dad is to skillet-fry them in a little oil, covered and over fairly low heat. When you get the temperature just right, fresh mochi prepared this way will brown and puff up like a balloon. When you take it off the heat, it will deflate to a thin, crispy shell with a gooey, sticky center. Mochi that has dried out some will puff up less, but should still crisp. We serve with shoyu (soy sauce) or cinnamon and sugar, but the point of mochi is to be an excellent platform for other flavors, so feel free to experiment.
More recently, I've discovered the moffle, and it has become one of my favorite ways to prepare mochi. Thaw the "puck" if it is frozen, pop it in a hot, greased waffle iron, cook for a few minutes (I wait until the steam coming out slows down), and voila! perfect crispy/chewy mochi-waffles. Serve it with your favorite toppings, or try it with a frozen confection for a different version of mochi ice cream. As with the fried version, really fresh mochi will work better than old, dried-out mochi, but this is a great way to disguise the imperfections of my mixer-made mochi.
I realize this question is a few years old, but I just ran across it and figured with the holidays coming more folks might be getting gifts of this kind of mochi and wondering what to do with it.
When I was a child, I would eat this mochi baked, puffed up and dipped in a soy/sugar mix. Now all I can find are the blocks - I put them in water, microwave about a minute, then bake, dip in a soy/artificial sweetener mix and it's just like when I was a child.
Yes, baking them is a right way for this kind of mochi.
A lovely version I know for making mochi: lightly oil an oven-safe glass pan so mochi does not stick too much. If mochi is frozen, defrost it in the fridge for a few hours. Break the smaller squares apart, there are usually 6 or 8 of them. Place them in the oiled pan and place in oven about 300/350 degrees F and bake for a couple of minutes (6-10). Watch them. When the squares puff up, they are ready. Eat them by filling them with jelly, nut butters, savory mashes or even salad.
I'm Chinese and my mom's made something similar as well. I can't recall the name, but we've had it two ways:
Boiled in a soup, usually with a saltier broth, as the large 'mochi' block tends to be flavorless, it serves to balance what might otherwise be an overly salty dish.
Pan fried or deep fried, this method will make it puff up more like your link says. I've usually had it this way sweet. We only sprinkled on white sugar after frying, but now I realize there are several things you could do to add more complexity...sprinkle with sugar and brulee with a torch for extra texture, top with fruit and condensed milk, or serve it alongside ice cream instead of the traditional western pastry/pie.
see my edited answer. there are differences between asians rice cake (NianGao, Dok, and MoChi). Essentially are made out of rice, but due to difference in the physical properties between their rice, certain rice cake are meant to be served in a certain way.
@KMC That's not Nian Gao that I'm referring to. Nian gao is also a kind of rice cake, but it's made with glutinous rice, I believe.
I learned to eat it as a soup type dish. My grandma is Japanese and I learned from my dad... it’s a traditional dish and people usually eat it during New Years and for birthdays.
You use dashinomoto powder mix, soy sauce and some water, and that makes the base. Boil the mochi in water until they float. We then add boiled spinach, tofu and some komoboko (steamed fish cake) pieces and then prep a bowl of the base add all the ingredients and then add the boiled mochi and it’s amazing.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.001500 | 2012-01-11T04:55:14 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20353",
"authors": [
"Catt aka Playful",
"Denise Judge",
"Eric Hu",
"Felice",
"Jay",
"KMC",
"Marshmallow Guy",
"Pat",
"Shawn U",
"Thufir",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44637",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44746",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44751",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44803",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58284",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62086",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8434",
"luluhorn",
"user44638"
],
"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
} |
15130 | Looking for Chicken & Dumplings pointers
A young lady I know has informed me that "Chicken & Dumplings" is amongst her favorite dishes. I have only attempted this a few times with only marginal success. Mostly my dumplings end up too bland and too loose. I have tried both of Alton Brown's recipes and (sorry Alton, I'm sure it is my fault and not your mothers') I am still not happy with the results.
I would greatly appreciate any sage advise from the readers here.
Were both of Alton's recipes too bland and too loose? Can you provide links to them?
I want to be clear that I expect there was something I did that made the recipes fail....
Alton's Dropped Dumplings are here: http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/alton-brown/chicken-and-dropped-dumplings-recipe/index.html
And his rolled dumplings are http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/alton-brown/chicken-and-rolled-dumplings-recipe/index.html
America's Test Kitchen did a show on this. Their recipe is involved, but easy to follow and very tasty.
I'm not sure about the texture (looseness), especially since those are two different methods. My best guess would be that it's just a flour measurement thing - moisture content in flour can vary, so the best thing to do is look for hints in the recipe about the desired texture (like "It should tear slightly as it falls from the beater"), and increase or decrease the flour to match.
The primary flavors here are salt and chicken, so first just check the amount of salt in both dumplings and broth. For the chicken, you're getting all the flavor out of it by making broth. So make sure you used enough chicken (and not too much water), and that you cooked it long enough. Those recipes use a pressure cooker - if you don't have one, it takes way longer to cook, of course.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.002151 | 2011-05-30T01:21:49 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15130",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Cos Callis",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
8425 | Substitutions for 11x18 pan?
What's called for specifically is an "11- by 18-inch (rimmed) baking pan (hs note: or jellyroll pan)" in this recipe. I made this once before and it was a hit, but I forgot about not having the correct pan, and I apparently guessed right last time.
Rather than fudge it (couldn't resist) again, should I just tally up the pans I have and approximate 198 inches?
None of the standard pan conversion charts that I could find had that size, but it looks like your recipe will work with an 11 cup volume pan. If this means your brownies are thicker or thinner than the original recipe, then adjust the cooking time accordingly. For thicker brownies you may also want to lower the temperature to keep the top from burning while you do the extra cooking.
As long as you have the same depth of pans as the one the recipe calls for, then it's not a problem to divide it all up between several pans that have the same area.
According to this chart, you should be able to use 1 - 9"x13" and 1 - 9"x9" pan. I have used this chart all the time... especially when I only want to make 1/2 or 1/3 recipe, I can quickly look and see what pan I should use.
http://blog.kitchennut.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/picture-5.png
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.002312 | 2010-10-22T20:34:45 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8425",
"authors": [
"AKS",
"Beejan",
"CaseyJones",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17341",
"user17319",
"user17341"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
14390 | What to look for when buying muffin tins?
Because honestly, I wouldn't be nearly so in love with my dutch oven without the advice I got on this site. And I really believe in getting one good lifetime tool, rather than a bunch of cheap ones.
I'm kind of creeped out by Teflon, and will probably skip coatings. I've read here that baking with the silicone cup-type things isn't necessarily any better than a metal pan.
Are there any metal types or finishes that give better baking results?
Muffins are very forgiving to pan material, you don't have to select it by heating properties. Just go for whatever is easiest to handle. I love my silicone cups, they are low maintenance and function perfectly.
@rumtscho people cook more than just muffins in these pans. Egg-based dishes for brunch, mini-meat loaves, cup cakes, etc. I'm facing the same dilemma as the OP. What metal (aluminum, stainless, cast iron)? Dark or shiny? Thick/heavy or thin? Coating or no coating?
In general, the darker the color of the metal of the muffin tin the more it will brown its contents. You also want to look for a thick, durable metal as this will aid in even cooking. Finally, look for a tin with large, wide handles; the last thing you want to be doing is sticking your thumbs into a muffin when trying to insert/remove the tin from the oven! Most muffin tins these days are non-stick, so it may be hard to find one that is not. With that said, non-stick technology has advanced a bit since the Teflon-only days. For example, many modern non-stick pans/tins instead use other metals and ceramics that are not known to be harmful. Furthermore, some modern muffin tins are marketed as "metal-safe", meaning that one can use a metal utensil on them (e.g., to extract the muffins from the tin) without damaging the non-stick coating. Finally, muffin tins will likely never be heated to the temperatures at which the "dangerous" non-stick coatings release harmful gasses.
Ceramics? That perks my ears. I'll have to read into that and "metal safe" - thanks for the info, and useful terms to research.
Please explain science behind "the darker the color of the metal of the muffin tin the more it will brown its contents" in relation to being in a domestic oven?
@TFD: I'm not sure about the science, but that's what Cooks Illustrated concluded as a result of their "experiments".
@TFD darker materials absorb infrared light better than shiny. So a dark pan will be able to transfer more heat to muffins than a shiny pan, thus resulting in more browning. Many cookie recipes have 2 oven temperatures, for light vs dark cookie sheets.
@mpoisot infrared light in domestic oven? Mostly hot air
@TFD toasting and broiling (esp with the oven door open) cook almost exclusively via infrared. If the calrods are glowing red-hot, they are radiating infrared heat onto your food. When baking infrared is less prominent, but the walls of the oven and calrods still shine infrared light onto your food. A dark pan will absorb more of this heat and pump it into the food than a shiny pan.
I've had very good results with this pan:
http://www.centralrestaurant.com/Large-Crown-Muffin-Pan---12-Cup-Capacity-c78p14727.html
It's made from aluminized steel and in our experience has a few things going for it:
It's very heavy and holds its temperature well - haven't had uneven cooking that occurs in some older thin muffin pans we have.
It doesn't have the dark metallic finish that can sometimes cause things to brown faster than you might like.
It makes 20 nice sized muffins, so depending on your recipe, you may be able to get the full batch cooked in one shot and with one pan
It includes a recess at the top of each muffin so you get the nice looking muffin top that everyone loves - because awesome muffins are the whole point anyway, right?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.002460 | 2011-04-28T12:59:37 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14390",
"authors": [
"ESultanik",
"Kara Marfia",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24402",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"mpoisot",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
9098 | How do I ensure my cooked meat turns out moist?
I don't cook meat very often, however when I do it often turns out "dry" rather than moist and juicy.
How do I ensure my cooked meat turns out moist?
thermometer?
braise the meat?
cook less time?
high temp vs low temp?
The way to ensue moist meat is to make sure that you don't overcook it. It is really just that simple. Variations on cooking method are to achieve certain effects on the meat, i.e. searing to develop more flavor due to the maillard reaction, sous vide to allow you to cook to a specific temperature, ect. In the war against dry meat, a thermometer is your best foxhole buddy.
That said, some cooking methods allow you to hit that temp mark easier than others. Typically, the slower heat enters the food, the closer to the specific temperature you will be able to get. Thus things like a braise more often result in a meat that is moist as the window between cooked and over-cooked is much larger than on something like a grill.
Many factors influence how juicy prepared meat ends up being. Just on the ingredient side, the type of animal, when and how it is butchered, how fatty the meat is, and any other pre-processing that might take place (e.g. dried, smoked, salted) prior to it landing on a store shelf may vary considerably, and affect juicyness as well as every other parameter you may care about.
If it ends up drier for you than in the same dishes at restaurants, chances are that you are simply overcooking it.
If you just want to follow a recipe and get a good result, a thermometer and a little practice is probably all you need.
In general, here are a few pointers:
It is important to get your meat out of the fridge, unpack it and let it sit for at least half an hour in room temperature. Starting with fridge-cold meat means you must raise the core temperature nearly 50%(!) more to reach optimum, and there is a much greater chance that the outer parts of the meat will be badly overcooked by the time the core is perfect.
The leaner the meat is, the easier it dries out. Marbled fat (fat that is distributed in the meat, as opposed to fat just sitting next to a big block of meat) such as in entrecôte/sirloin helps protect agains the meat drying out.
The higher the temperature, the more the meat contracts, and the more of its juices are squeezed out. Consider that when you start to heat a piece of meat, it does not evenly heat up everywhere at the same time. When frying, the bit that is in direct contact with the pan is obviously a lot hotter than the side that isn't. You can heat up more evenly by using low heat and by flipping frequently. (The latter is often more useful, because browning the meat is essential to developing flavor and requires that you use a fairly hot pan.)
Salt the meat only just before or during frying, as salt binds water and tends to draw juices out of the meat.
When cooking large pieces of meat, start by browning it well on all sides in a very hot frying pan, then transfer it to a low-temperature oven. Using an oven temperature not very much above the desired core temperature, and a thermometer, this is a slow but fool-proof way to get perfectly cooked meat. Try it with tough meats, which are often the most flavorful, and delight in how simple it is to turn it into something magical. The long, slow heating in the oven will tenderize the meat by breaking down the collagen.
Lastly, be aware that although meat cooked all the way through is probably safer, whole meat is normally free of pathogens except for the surface. The surface becomes contaminated when the animal is butchered, and therefore it is important to heat the surface sufficiently to kill off any buggars. There is no reason to heat the core any more than to where it tastes best though.
If you're a bit nerdy and you want to learn about what actually happens when you cook, so you can more easily figure out what to do to modify recipes than just random experimentation, take a look at "Cooking for geeks". If that isn't hard-core enough for you, turn to "On food and cooking" by Harold McGee - a book that is considered almost a founding document for a new, scientific approach to cooking. I found it a heavy read, and think the former is a better fit for most people who aren't chemists! :)
+1 ... but you don't necessarily want to get the meat up to room temp when cooking it, if you're going for rare or medium rare. (so you can cook at extreme heat to sear the outside without it cooking the middle significantly) See http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/46564/67 .
I am not sure how you cook your meat. You may need to be more specific how you cook you meat like stir-fry, deep fry or roast.
A lot of people think "dry" meat is mainly related to cooking technique, but I think it's more to do with the ingredients. We can still look at this from both directions
1/ Cooking Technique
The main reason why meat are dry because the juice & fat in the meat get lost during the cooking process and usually it's related to the temperature & cooking time. It means our cooking technique should focus on how to persevere juice and fat. You mention Braise which is pretty safe technique to make sure that, however, it depends on the ingredients as well.
2/ Ingredient
Try to pick meat that has higher fat content that usually will keep the juice and fat when the meat is cooked. Let's let about beef. Rid-Eye is usually better steak because they are tender. The reason they are tender is because the fat and juice are still kept in the meat. If you use beef that has low fat content, you will more likely to have a dry cooked meat. Another example, chicken breasts are always drier regardless how you cook. Chicken thighs are usually better and you can't really make dry chicken thighs.
Let's try to answer your question
thermometer?
Not sure how it will help as you can still dry your meat with cooking at any particular temperature
braise the meat?
Braise is usually pretty safe as mentioned above. Ask your butcher which are the better cuts.
cook less time?
This is interesting question. Cook less time may not mean anything as Braised beef takes hours to cook and the meat turn out tender.
high temp vs low temp?
My vote goes to low temp as low temp usually can give you better control of the meat and also low temp mean you are less likely to cook out the juice and fat of the meant
I haven't cooked meat in quite a long time, but doesn't overcooked meat (as in too-high internal temperature) tend to seem dry and tough? Seems like a thermometer could be very helpful. And of course, you're losing water and raising the internal temperature as you cook, so surely cooking for less time can help too (with braising being an exception, not the rule).
The water content of meat is purely a function of temperature. The higher the temp the more juice that is squeezed out of the meat and the drier it is. check out the food lab for some more info if you're curious.
There are many ways to keep meat moist, and they pretty much fall in to one of two categories. Keep moisture in the meat, and replace the moisture with something that feels moist.
In the first category we have various techniques, including but not limited to:
Brining (technically not keeping moisture in the meat, but rather adding more of it)
Cooking the meat sous vide
Short cooking times
In the second category, you mainly replace the moisture with fat, which although it isn't moist, feels like it, or break down collagen into gelatin. Techniques include:
Confit
Buying marbled meat
Cooking the meat with fattier meats (fatback, bacon, etc.)
Stewing
Braising
There is also a third category, which isn't really a category at all, trying to hide that your meat is dry. This include sauces and soups. However, in these cases, you will still be able to detect that the meat is dry.
Along with FoodRules comment, I would also say brining or marinating helps too. The exchange of a slightly salty liquid with the internal water not only brings quite a lot of flavor to the party, but also helps the meat retain moisture. I've only ever done this with Chicken, but it stands to reason, where it works with one protein, so too would it work on another. Can't say I'd feel too comfortable brining a burger, but that's hopefully not the kind of meat you are talking about.
One of the reasons slow cooked meats do not typically turn out dry if you cook them slow enough is the conversion of collagen to gelatin. It’s that lip smacking unctuousness of pulled pork sandwiches and pot roast. Though the meat may technically be barren wastelands at this point, the gelatin coats all the fibers giving them the perception of very moist and tender.
Brining pork is great as well, however, I wouldn't brine beef or lamb.
Beef: You are probably overcooking your meat and/or you are using very low-fat cuts.
Don't cook beyond medium (Europe) / raw (Australia).
Cuts with high amounts of fat in the meat (e.g. Scotch Fillet) are much harder to dry out than cuts with little fat (e.g. Rump Steak).
Marinating low fat beef, e.g. Rump Steak in olive oil, helps a lot against drying out.
Chicken breast: I found this method to work very well: After turning the chicken breast over after about half the cooking time, place a lid on the frying pan for the second half.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.002796 | 2010-11-14T01:36:18 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9098",
"authors": [
"Alazar Zewdu",
"Cascabel",
"E.P.",
"Joe",
"Jonathan",
"KRA2008",
"Magnus Nordlander",
"The CameraMan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125664",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18612",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18622",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18637",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"hunter2",
"jossetter",
"sarge_smith",
"user18622"
],
"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
} |
36310 | Is it possible to make a beverage that evaporates on contact with the consumer's tongue?
In one episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation Guinan makes a Tzartak Aperitif, which is described as:
When made properly, the evaporation point of the drink's main ingredient was one-half degree lower than the body temperature of the consumer. Thus, the liquid evaporated immediately after it touched the tongue, and the flavor was carried entirely by the vapors.
Now I know that this drink is completely fictional, but it got me wondering if a similar effect has ever been achieved in the real world?
Are there any (edible) substances, which can be used to create a beverage that evaporates on contact with the consumer's tongue?
And for bonus points, are there any such substances which make a beverage that actually tastes good?
Keep in mind that the volume of a gas tends to be much bigger than the the volume of the same substance as liquid (e.g. for water the ratio is 1:1673), meaning the immediate evaporation would result in a steam explosion in the mouth of the consuming person. Probably a rather unpleasant experience.
In the Star Trek world you have plenty of beings with body temperatures higher or lower than humans, so if you had a being with a body temp of 79C then ethanol would work out perfectly! However, with humans the liquid which would fit the bill of vaporizing just below body temperature would be Pentane, which not only smells bad but is also toxic. The science behind it is wrong anyway, you'd want a liquid with a much lower vaporization point than body temperature so it would boil off quickly. If you pick a liquid that boils just below body temperature it would take some time to vaporize and you wouldn't have the same effect.
All is not completely lost, you can still have some cool effects with liquids that are safe for consumption. What you have to remember is that the closer a liquid gets to its boiling point the more it evaporates, and any volatiles in it will tend to remain suspended in the vapor and be detectable by the nose. This is the effect you get when you sniff brandy or cognac that has been brought up to body temperature. You can savor it by holding it on the tongue for a few seconds and letting the vapors fill your nasal cavity. So all you need is some strong (at least 80 proof) and flavored (or more accurately scented) alcohol, and the right glasses. Brandy snifters would work best as they are designed to capture the vapors so they can be inhaled. You could then heat the liquid to just above human body temperature and then serve.
Keep the quantities served down unless you want some very drunk guests!
I like all of the answers, and have voted accordingly. But I have to give this one the acceptance, as it makes an effort to provide real-world achievable approximation. Thanks!
Diethyl ether has a boiling point just under human body temperature, so theoretically it'd work. However, judging from the smell, the stuff would taste horrible, if you did manage to swallow any, you'd belch uncontrollably, and it'd knock you out quite quickly.
The other option would be to lower the ambient air pressure to something where alcohol boils at around body temperature. With a boiling point of 78.1 °C, perhaps one quarter atmosphere might do it, and might be survivable with enhanced oxygen content. Still, 95% ethanol burns going down as a liquid, and I doubt the gas'd be much better.
+1 for changing ambient air pressure... never thought I'd see that in a recipe!
It should be quite possible to survive at in a pure oxygen atmosphere at as low as 0.2atm or so, I think. But wouldn't ethanol vapor in a pure oxygen atmosphere be rather explosive? That might not end well.
It looks like about 1/8 normal atmosphere (sea level) would be necessary to lower the ethanol boiling point to human body body temperature. http://tables4ethanol.webs.com/boilingpoint.htm
@Flimzy, Thanks. That's slightly below (12.7 vs 16 kPA) the oxygen pressure that's acceptable as a breathing mix http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breathing_gas#Partial_pressure_of_oxygen so you'd probably have to duck into your low pressure chamber, have a 'drink' then pop back out.
There are three main liquids humans can consume without harm: water, ethanol, and certain lipids which are liquid at room temperature, such as olive oil or vegetable oil. Any beverage would have to have at least one of those as its bulk ingredient.
None of these evaporate instantly upon contact with the tongue, or at anything like body temperature.
So, no, this is not reasonably possible; it was just fiction.
The solution lies in superheating the tongue...
There are a bunch of lipids too. Or do you consider olive oil more harmful than ethanol?
Ah, quite true. But none of them are even close to evaporating at body temperature. Will update. I guess I don't think of lipids as "wet".
@SAJ14SAJ There are LOTS of human consumable liquids that are neither water nor ethanol. Sugars (Corn Syrup), acids, esters, glycerol, and it goes on.
@mandomando Corn syrup is liquid due to water. No sugar is liquid that I am aware of without water. Acids are dissolved in water, or are so strong they are not consumable--even acetic is very dangerous at full strength. If you have an example of a liquid that actually meets the OPs critera, please do provide it.
Possibly more to the point, the gas has to be safe to breathe!
I was actually watching an episode of 'Brew Dogs' last year that dealt with something similar. The show is based on a couple of Scottish guys who own Brew Dogs brewery and they went all over the USA, making beers that had elements of the places they created them. They'd create all kinds of weird concoctions, but people usually like them.
When they went to San Francisco, CA, they made a beer where they collected condensed fog that rolled in off the bay to make their beer from. Where your idea came in was when they created a vaporized portion of the beer with the help of a device that created flavored vapors. Its been a while and I can't really look it up do to the firewall I'm behind right now, but I did find that the company was called 'Le Whaf'. If you search that combination, I'm sure you'll find a video where they use it. So it's not exactly a liquid that evaporates on your tongue, but a flavored fog. I think it's pretty cool and it's something available now.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.003579 | 2013-08-26T05:07:43 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36310",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Flimzy",
"J. Mueller",
"Jolene ",
"Jule",
"MandoMando",
"Mihai Chelaru",
"Peter Taylor",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"T. Brendan McCarthy",
"Tom Luepkes",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"ZektorH",
"deroby",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85239",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85345",
"nil singh",
"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
} |
19173 | Why do many recipes instruct you to oil or grease the pan at the start of the recipe?
I've noticed that most recipes that end up in a pan in the oven will have me grease or oil the pan at the start of the recipe. This is long before I have anything else to put into it. The pan just sits waiting for me to do the rest of the recipe. Here's just one example: http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/recipes/3073
Why is this? I'm partly just curious and partly interested if I can leverage this some more.
Does the grease (or oil) work better if it ages in the air? If so, what is the ideal time for aging?
Does the recipe author just want to be sure that I have a pan and some grease that I can use before I prepare the rest of the recipe? If so, then I think I'll just wait to do it.
Is it to make sure the pan is cooled to room temperature by the time I get to it, in case it came from the dishwasher?
Perhaps a historical reason?
I think it's generally your second reason: when you get ready to pour batter in a pan, it's annoying if it's not ready yet.
There are three good reasons to oil your pan beforehand:
Your pan needs to be ready as soon as your batter is. For cakes, the batter can fall apart while you are greasing the pan. This is especially true for cakes that have air whipped in, such as genoise, which can fall apart in a few minutes. Recipes containing baking soda can lose their fizz in this time too.
You can't forget to oil up the pan. In the heat of the moment, it's very easy to forget to apply lubrication before transferring the batter/dough; inevitably this wrecks the recipe.
Greasing the pan is part of baking mise en place and should be done before main cooking. Mise en place is a key principle of professional cooking, and means "everything in place." The idea is that ingredients should be prepped and ovens preheated, so you can do the actual cooking efficiently.
All your points are good, especially Mise en place. I suspect that is probably the true answer.
"Mise en place" means "putting in place". "Everything in place" would be something like "tous en place".
I see this most often in cake recipes. If you do whatever it is to make your cake rise (beat a batter containing whole egg; fold in egg whites; add baking soda and or powder to a quick bread) etc, then stop to grease and possibly flour the pan or little tins, the batter will start to fall, or will be too bubbly while you put it in the pan. So have the pans ready before you start.
You may find this instruction in a recipe where the batter or dough could easily sit around for 5 or 10 minutes while you prep the pan; it that case it's probably just habit on the part of the recipe author. But don't make that your first assumption. There are definitely times when it matters.
I have nothing to back this up, but I always assumed that you should grease the pan at the start, not because something happens with the grease, but because some recipes want you to act rather quickly. If you correctly mix a batter and then you have to grease your pan, can result in a different batter (heavy pieces drop down, whipped egg whites won't be as elevating etc.).
Again, this is my own speculation. I think that the problem in modern times is partly solved, by having oil spray that is sprayed in 2 seconds.
Or another reason: simply that you don't forget to do it.
I think you got this wrong "Is it to make sure the pan is cooled to room temperature by the time I get to it, in case it came from the dishwasher?". This sounds like you preheat the oven but leave the oiled pan outside.
You are supposed to preheat the pan and oil and the oven. If you start with hot oil, your food gets done quicker and absorbs less grease. The correct time is to wait until your oven has reached the temperature specified in the recipe; modern ovens have a temperature dial and signal you when the temperature is OK. Waiting longer (because your other ingredients aren't ready) isn't especially problematic, but there is no need for it.
Oven dials are often not exact. So you may want try to calibrate your oven with water (boils at 100°C) and sugar (caramelizes at roughly 190°C) or a roast thermometer.
Interesting! I had never even considered that. Some recipes, including the one linked to, however, say "grease pan; set aside", which sounds to me like I set it aside on the counter, not in the preheated oven. Should I be setting it into the oven?
Are you sure about this? A metal pan plus a thin layer of oil is not enough thermal mass to really affect cooking time, and I'm not too sure about the reduced absorption either. If you're doing cornbread in a cast iron skillet with a bunch of fat in the bottom, that's different, but a normal lightly greased pan for a bread or cake? The example directions the OP gave explicitly say to set aside the pan. If they meant to put it in the oven, they'd say so.
@Jefromi I agree that I thought too generally about the fat absorption, it matters at stovetop frying temperatures, but not much for cakes. Still, a preheated thermoconductive pan sets the crust quicker. Also, I know from experience that starting with a heated pan is important, even though the thermal mass is low. First, it bakes more even, because heat is already coming from both above (heater element) and below (pan), else you have to give it extra time at the beginning or end with the upper element turned off. Second, some materials take ages to heat (mostly ceramics).
@markets and Jefromi, the point about the linked recipe is, of course, valid - obviously, it isn't the kind where preheating matters. (I have found it to be more important for things like pre-searing minced meat for moussaka than for cakes anyway). In this case, Mien's answer is right - it is just a "best practices" mise en place.
+1: Definitely true for ceramic/glass pans, especially things that don't bake too long.
@Jefromi and rumtscho: Dangerous advice, whether the pan should be preheated depends on what you're making. For most cakes, a crust is not desired, hence the popularity of things like Magi Cake strips that insulate the edge of the pan to slow down the heat transfer.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.004223 | 2011-11-27T16:34:30 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19173",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chetan Ameta",
"David Richerby",
"Gregor Thomas",
"MoonPoint",
"Paul Uszak",
"SvdSinner",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41687",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41711",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7893",
"markets",
"njzk2",
"rumtscho",
"user2338816"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
18520 | Is it safe to reheat old water in an electric kettle?
I usually throw away the remaining water in the electric kettle before refilling it if the water is more than about a day old. In theory wouldn't boiling kill any impurities the old water might have? How long would the water stay drinkable in the kettle (assuming you boil it again before drinking)?
http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5707/does-water-thats-been-left-to-sit-and-then-reboiled-taste-different-from-fresh
@rfusca, good call, this is probably a dupe.
The other question was about taste, but I'm more concerned about safety.
Maybe I'm wrong, but there is no safety risk at all when boiling old water. There is however something like taste. The reason the old water is discarded is because, after boiling, it lacks oxygen and will taste stale. This is also the reason why coffee is made with 95ºC hot water, or why Moroccan tea is poured from above (to oxygenate)...
So, as long as you boil it before drinking it should be safe.
There shouldn't be much microbial growth in clean water (as there is, after all, nothing for the microbes to eat). Eventually, you'll get some from e.g., dust falling in, but that'll take a while. And, as you say, boiling will kill them; that is after all one way to render untreated water is rendered safe.
The one thing that boiling won't remove—actually, it'll concentrate—is any impurities leaching from the kettle. How much of a risk this is depends on what the kettle is made of (and, I suppose, how acidic & corrosive your water is). Glass (non-crystal) and stainless are probably of no concern. Aluminum and copper might be. Some plastics are.
It won't just concentrate impurities from leaching, it will also concentrate anything in the tap water (assuming it's not filtered water). So any sediment or minerals will concentrate over time.
@Nick: The concentrating of impurities from the tap water will be limited, though, as you're using most of the water each time. It'll be a little higher than what was in the tap water, but not much. How much depends on what % of the water is re-used, and how much concentrating the boiling does. The impurities from the kettle itself, though, are coming mainly from the water sitting there.
I just re-read your answer ... and you had pointed out leaching from the vessel ... which I hadn't considered, only the water itself. You're right in that acidic water in aluminum or copper for a long period could have problems. Probably not on the time scale we're dealing with day to day, but you'd have to look at the effective time. (eg, if this were done over years ... but I don't know which metals collect in your body)
@Joe: Remember we're also taking about hot water, which will leach things faster (until it cools). Depending on how insulated the kettle is, that could take hours.
There are only three possible things that could affect the 'safety' of water -- contamination, removal of disinfectants, and removal of other compounds.
Now, if you're bringing it up to boiling each time, and you haven't put in water from a tainted source, and you're only putting in water (and not using it to heat other liquids, like soup), contamination isn't a big problem.
The other issue is the disinfectants used. It could be a chemical (iodine, bromine, chlorine, chloramine) but some places, mostly in Europe use ozone (ie, an alternate bonding of oxygen).
It's possible that some of them might come out over time ... unfortunately, when I took environmental engineering, I don't remember if they specified how it comes out, only that there's an assumed half-life. (chlorine is so common because it stays useful as a disinfectant for longer). If you keep refilling the pot, and refilling when it gets low without pouring out the stuff in the bottom, it might come out of solution and collect in the bottom of the pot. There are some concerns about stuff that can bond with chlorine, but you'd have to have those other things in the water to start with, and it's not going to be any worse than sitting in the pipes for long periods.
Ozone, however, might be a problem. Because it's a disolved gas, it'll come out when the water is boiled, so your water won't have a sterilization agent in it. If you then let it sit, it could possibly grow something ... but if you didn't have the pot contaminated in the first place, it's likely not a problem. And if you're bringing it to a full boil at least once a day, it's not going to have that long to develop problems.
But you're right in that longer times sitting without boiling is a problem ... I'd say the problem time is likely more than a day and under ideal situations could go for months, but I don't know how long, and that could depend on the other issues in the area. (eg, you find that loaf of bread that managed to go off, but you've opened it releasing spores into the air ... and then you go to work ... I'd change the water, even if it had been fresh and boiled that morning). I'd be even more concerned in areas that use ozone for sanitation, as it'll come out in a boil, and even if you're not bringing the water to a full boil, has a relatively short half-life as a sterilization additive.
As for the removal of other compounds ... just as BaffledCook suggested, yes, other stuff could come out of solution ... but the thing is, you'd have drank it anyway. As it's a fixed amount in over time, there'd be no net ingestion change for you, just that it might be slightly different compounds (eg, iron ions will react with oxygen to precipitate out). But assuming it did concentrate, you can just solve that problem by not using the last cup or so from the kettle. If you ever get down that far, dump it out, rinse it out, and refill.
Chlorine also evaporates out fairly quickly (a day or so), especially if exposed to sunlight. Chloramines do not. A lot of people learned this the hard way around here when our local water company switched, and they were used to letting water sit out to evaporate the disinfectant before adding it to an aquarium.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.004751 | 2011-10-22T20:41:59 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18520",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"JJJ",
"James G.",
"Joe",
"MacProGirl",
"Nick",
"cheryl",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40094",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40095",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7383",
"rfusca",
"user40096"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
36728 | Caramel Coating producing inconsistent results
I have been experimenting with a recipe for Caramel Coated Pecans.
The problem I have been experiencing is that (I believe) the instructions are too general.
The first time I used a 'larger' sauce pan and I ended up with something that was more like a 'pecan brittle' which tasted slightly burned.
In my second attempt I used a smaller sauce pan and I ended up with a very grainy result (much of the caramel coating turned to
I suspect that instructions of "four minutes at medium high heat" are not specific enough to achieve the desired result. What I need is to know what temperature to raise the sauce too in order to get a smooth coating. (or if I am wrong, any 'other advise' would be welcome.)
It is odd that the original recipe didn't include a temperature, as temperature is absolutely critical in candymaking. That is probably why your results were so inconsistent, as different pans would have heated the mixture at different rates. I would shoot for a temperature of 240-250F (Hard ball stage) as that should be thick enough to coat the nuts and allow them to finish caramelizing in the oven.
To avoid getting the pecan brittle again, avoid excess of the coating mixture on the pan and be sure to keep the nuts moving frequently during the bake.
Here are a couple of recipes that show a similar temperature range:
Candied Orange Walnuts
Brown Sugar Walnuts
Finally had a chance to test your answer and it worked PERFECTLY!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.005278 | 2013-09-11T21:19:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36728",
"authors": [
"Cos Callis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
18101 | Why should I rest gingerbread dough?
My gingerbread recipe says I should rest the dough for 20 minutes in the refrigerator before rolling out and cutting. What difference does it make?
Could you tell us more about the recipe - what kind of flour is used?
In most wheat-based recipes, gluten strands are formed while you work the dough. If you don't rest the dough, rolling can be more difficult and you may get a tougher texture in the final product.
Additionally, refrigerating the dough up to a certain point will firm up the fats in the recipe (butter, etc), which will make the dough less mushy and will making rolling out the dough evenly a bit easier. Unless the dough is so firm it becomes brittle, refrigeration will make the dough less fragile in most cases.
Perhaps less important, the moisture levels may become a bit more consistent throughout the dough as well.
It's not just gingerbread and other rolled cookies - chilling dough can make normal cookies easier to scoop, and definitely easier to round out by rolling between your hands.
Good answer. Also, chilling the dough will make it less likely to spread too much in the oven. This is especially important for something like gingerbread where you may be cutting it into shapes that you want to remain clear.
I think it really depends on your recipe. My favorite recipe http://oddsandhens.wordpress.com/2013/12/21/best-gingerbread-cookie-recipe works either way. I will say it is easier to roll out when chilled but not cold as this recipe is pretty thick due to flour etc. It also makes the dough less sticky.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.005425 | 2011-09-30T04:26:05 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18101",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Ehtesh Choudhury",
"João Paulo Cercal",
"KatieK",
"Michael Natkin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39072",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94291",
"jethro",
"marcotama"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
41480 | Sauteing onions to the point of transparency - what is ideal?
Observing other people cooking, I hear comments about sauteing onions until they turn transparent (or translucent), or just before they start to turn. Usually in books and shows about cooking, this isn't discussed much. When is the ideal time to stop sauteing onions? are just-before and well-after transparency good for different culinary purposes?
BTW, as a physicist with a love for molecules, transformations, and looking at cells through microscopes - what is going on when onion turn from dense white to semi-translucent?
Assuming that you want to end up with light onions and not caramelized onions:
You always want the onions to be cooked through enough to have lost the sharp flavor and hard texture, just as Michael mentioned.
In some recipes, you will prepare them to the desired stage, then finish the recipe with the other ingredients. This is frequently done in stir-frys.
But sometimes, you know that the onions are just the start of a complex recipe, and will continue to be cooked for a long time. This is especially a problem with stews and soups, where letting the onions simmer can render them too soft, somewhat jellyfish-like. Then it is better to fry enough to change the aroma through the dry heat and fat reactions (I don't know which ones they are, but they don't occur when you are boiling an onion in liquid), but stop a bit before it has lost its firmness. Then you continue cooking the soup, and your onions end up firmer than if you had cooked them through at the beginning.
And a pedantic notice: you are probably not sauteeing the onions, and if you are, you should stop doing it. Sauteeing means to use very high heat and keep the food in constant movement by shaking the pan. The proper way to turn onions translucent is to put an even layer of them above melted butter, and wait for them to get ready, on medium heat. If the layer is thick, wait until the bottom ones are quite close to being done before mixing thoroughly once and then waiting again for the bottom ones. Repeat until all onions in the pan are translucent. They benefit from slow and even heating, while sauteeing is a treatment intended for highly heated surfaces but keeping the core colder.
Yes, in further reading I find that "sauteeing" isn't the right word. One of these days I should crack open a good cookbook and actually read it!
In general, there are two main stopping points for sauteing onions: as you are describing, just cooking until translucent is enough to make sure that the raw onion flavor is gone and they have broken down enough for their flavor to permeate the dish without overpowering it.
The other option is cooking the onions until they are deep brown and caramelized. That produces a rich, sweet taste that is more pronounced and likely to be a major flavor component.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.005902 | 2014-01-27T01:26:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41480",
"authors": [
"Daniel",
"DarenW",
"Eve M",
"Lisa Saunders",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5982",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96689",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96698",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96730",
"iris thurman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
28339 | Exactly what is "low heat" for making cheese sauce?
Having a poor track record of making cheese sauces, I'm determined to do it right at least once in this decade. I read that one should use "low heat" only. Too much heat causes the cheese to go stringy or clumpy. Okay - but just what is "low heat"? Warm but not beyond what I can stick my finger in comfortably? Can someone put a number on it, degrees centigrade?
In a cooking instruction, "low heat" doesn't refer to the temperature the sauce reaches, but the speed at which you heat it up. Many stove rings (hobs) are marked min-2-3-4-med-6-7-8-max. On that scale, a low heat would be 2 or 3. Very low heat would be min or 2. Left on the stove long enough, even at min, your sauce will boil. The key about using low heat is that it probably won't boil in the amount of time you need to melt the cheese, and that's good.
I make cheese sauce regularly (did so tonight) and I start at med to melt the butter, turn it down while the roux cooks, add milk, once it's pretty thick I turn it down even further, or just turn it off since an electric element will hold heat for a while, then stir in the cheese. If it ever happened that my cheese wasn't melting I guess I would turn the heat back up a bit, but that hasn't happened to me.
Cheese have enzymes. Enzymes break quickly and easily at 150F/65 C. 50 Celsius for a short period of time should suffice to melt you cheese without breaking the protein structures.
I have committed the same mistake many times. Actually the fist day my in laws where over i tried to impress them with homemade pasta and cheese sauce. My Cheese sauce clumped. My back up plan is to add milk tomato sauce put it on the blender until it liquifies.
@Darenw Your question triggered my curiosity because different cheeses behave very differently. My question was mostly based in experience and my understanding of enzymes. And since you're asking for the temperature I thought to myself certain cheeses will have different temperatures depending on its water content. I found this forum thread where someone actually tested. http://cheeseforum.org/forum/index.php?topic=3128.0 and some tips http://www.finecooking.com/articles/how-to-melt-cheese.aspx
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.006193 | 2012-11-10T00:17:54 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28339",
"authors": [
"Anirudh Shajesh",
"Gaurang Tandon",
"JWhit",
"Melara",
"NCodeDev",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65292",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65317",
"shoex9"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
33015 | What's the size of the plastic cup that came with my rice cooker?
I have a cheap-o rice cooker that works fine for me. It came with a plastic cup to measure 1, 2 or 3 "plastic cup" units of rice. Water is added to match the '1', '2' or '3' mark in the cooker bowl. It was great until the cup vanished.
Now how to pour in the right amount of rice?
Do all rice cookers use the same standard "plastic cup" unit? By any luck, would it be exactly 1 cup, or 1/2 cup, according to a standard measuring cup? Maybe I could dump rice and water into the bowl in any amount as long as they're in the right proportion by volume. Meeting the '2' or '3' mark isn't important, actually, just getting great rice in the end.
The actual model I'm using is CKRVRCM061 and yes, of course I could google it, but it would be great to have a general answer which could apply to any cooker I or anyone will use in the future - for those of us with a talent for losing small important items!
It's always the ratio that matters, never the absolute amount. See Proper ratio of Water to Rice Also, your question title is definitely inviting "google it" answers/comments; if you want a general answer then you should make it clear that it's a general question, not specific to your model personally.
I think your title is a large part of the problem with your question. "How do I get the right amount of rice?" is the real question (you don't actually need to know how big the plastic cup was), and that's answered by the question Aaronut linked to, right?
The optimal ratio seems to be somewhat dependent on vessel geometry etc ... which means it doesnt scale 1:1 for the same vessel.
Assuming you bought a rice cooker designed by a Japanese company (and apparently even other brands tend to meet that market's expectations), the measurement is 1-gou, slightly more than 180ml, which, by no coincidence, is also the typical measure of a wooden sake, cup, and is closely associated with a historical sake bottle size (approximately 1.8l)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masu_(Japanese)
It turns out that this amount, 1 gou of dried rice, neatly corresponded to a typical serving of rice. In practice, most contemporary Japanese eat about 1.5-2 gou per day; 1 gou of dried rice cooks up enough for 2 Japanese adults for one meal if you have several side dishes. There are other measurements that derive from the gou (or perhaps the other way around), such as the koku, which was considered the amount of rice that a single person would consume over the course of a year.
This is one of the human-centric forms of measurement that has survived the metric push; you can find various examples of this in many otherwise metric-converted countries. It turns out some studies show that those metrics often make certain categories of estimation easier for people.
Edited to cover the concern about matching the right amount of water:
It's worth noting that you don't need perfect precision for the amount of water, as long as you cook with the full cycle and not one of the express cooking modes. I can't remember the exact scientific principle behind it, but perhaps something to do with osmotic pressure. Some people use the remarkably effective method of measuring a certain amount of space between the dried rice and the water based on the size of their forefinger segment or thumbnail. It apparently works well for almost any imaginable size of pan (though you can have other problems with a pan too wide to have the rice cover the bottom). (Some types of rice do prefer more water than others, but within a single type, you have a fairly flexible range for the water ratio)
The plastic cup that came with my rice maker was 180 ml (3/4 cup).
It's an odd size, but that's the standard.
Does a cup with three lines suggest 60, 120, 180 mL or 180, 360, 540 mL? (Also this is ridiculous.)
180mL for the full cup.
I have an Aroma brand cooker (Got Rice GRC-003) and also lost the measuring cup. Their site tells you if you ever lose the cup, use a standard 3/4 cup and observe the water marks in the pot.
http://www.aroma-housewares.com/kitchen/appliances/rice101/21/Rice%20Measuring%20Cup.html
Hope this helps.
and 3/4 of a U.S. measuring cup is 177.5 mL, so really close to the 180mL mentioned in the other answers.
I have an Aroma automatic rice cooker. Its directions says "The measuring cup provided adheres to rice industry standards (180ml) and is not equal to one U.S. cup (240ml)." 180ml is equal to 0.76 U.S. standard cup, so use 3/4 cup standard measure of rice to their water measure line in the steaming pot and it should cook correctly.
I'm struggling with this too, as I replaced my rice cooker cup. However, as someone else pointed out, ratio counts. It's one cup of white rice to one and a half cups of water. Doesn't matter if it's American standard cups or Japanese metric cups. The proportion is what counts. And it's one cup of brown rice to two cups of water. So, if you're using the 180 Gou as a measure for rice, then use 180 Gou plus 90 Gou for water (for white rice).
Use any size cup (coffee cup, juice glass, tea cup) for rice, then add water to a ratio depend on the type of rice:
1.5 of the same cup of water for white rice
2 of the same cups of water for brown rice
So, for instance: 2 coffee cups rice + 3 cups of water for white, or 2 cups rice + 4 cups of water for brown rice.
I find that 2x for white, 2.5x or even 3x for brown, works out pretty good. Maybe you like your rice somewhat firm or crunchy?
Your point that a given volumetric ratio can be achieved using any old cup is valuable. But it doesn't really answer the question: the asker wants to know the volume of a "rice cup" in order to utilize the markers on the inside of their rice pot.
My rice cooker is a small Cuizen 16 cups and came with this cup, which as you can see holds 2/3 cup, or 160 ml.
I know its been a while since this thread has been run, however, as a rule, most rice cookers also respond well to a 1 rice to 2 water ratio, however take care as some units require a minimum to successfully trigger at the end of the cooking process.
A short, clear, and correct answer :) That is what I have been doing, though more like 1 rice to 2.5 water, due to the type of rice and the way I like it to come out. I find the amount of rice doesn't matter, but at first, wondered if the cooker worked properly only if it had exactly 1, 2 or 3 of that cup's volume of rice.
Yes... I forgot about my experiences with brown (ugh ...) rice... Definitely needed more water (and a soaking period). The Chinaman in me abhors the texture of that brown stuff... It is NOT rice... :)
Ohhh... something I just found out ... The size of your original rice cooker cup corresponds to a masu - the wooden box that saki is served in.
I also lost my multicooker rice cup and stumbled onto this thread since I had the same problem as Daren.W.
I finally figured out that serving sizes are 3/4 cup of uncooked rice. So the manufacturers provide a 3/4 cup dry measure for our convenience since standard measuring cups are 1/4, 1/3, 1/2 and 1 cup.
Your rice cooker is probably metric, so I'd think in terms of milliliters rather than cups. Now if it were me, I'd use the link in @Aaronut's comment to make rice and forget about it, however if you want a pretty good estimate then simply measure out how much water it takes to fill to the 1 line, then divide it by 3. Again, use ml, it's much more precise.
Of course, you'd have more than 2x the water to rice if you used that method -- you have to account for the amount of water that'd fill the void space in the measurement of rice.
My wife and I love Japanese food, but often make American versions of it. Onigiri and Rice Bowls are a staple in our house. We don't have a lot of side dishes. We get a different bag of rice almost every time and have never used the plastic measuring cup. And the markings on the side of the pot don't actually go low enough for our usual rice usage. (They start at 2 cups, when we just want 1 cup)
1 cup (240mL) of dried rice makes enough onigiri that we are full at the end (roughly one large and one small for each of us, depending on fillings). Some rice requires a 1:1 ratio, and other rice requires a 1:2 ratio. Most of the time, it's a 2:3 ratio. (One and a half cups water to one cup rice) You have to determine the right ratio for your rice.
Sushi rice tends to respond well to more water. Jasmine rice tends to respond well to less water. Different brands will affect it, as will different tastes. We haven't tried brown rice. Broken Jasmine is simultaneously undercooked and mushy no matter what we do.
So whatever you go with, it's definitely a YMMV moment. I would start at 1 cup rice and 1.25 cup water, or if you prefer the smaller rice cups that come with the machines (gou), .75 cup rice and 1 cup water.
@Rumstcho, Your edit yesterday was pretty severe, and took out some very relevant information. The fact of the matter is that there's no one-size-fits-all, as much as everyone wants to pretend you can just substitute any rice in a recipe without adjusting the water. So the details about how we use our rice are important. If you want, I can slim it down a bit, but you changed what I was actually saying, by taking out parts of sentences and smushing things together. It was like taking the "not" out of "I do not recommend".
The reason for my edit is that the post was flag as "not an answer". The OP asked about a conversion between the rice measurement cup which came with the cooker, and more conventional measurement units. It is not a question about how much rice should be cooked at once, or how much water should be used.The usual action would have been to delete it completely, but since your last paragraph did mention the conversion, I left that part. Do you prefer to edit your answer yourself, removing the extra content? Or we can revert to my edit. The last option is to delete completely.
"Maybe I could dump rice and water into the bowl in any amount as long as they're in the right proportion by volume. Meeting the '2' or '3' mark isn't important, actually, just getting great rice in the end." <-- I was providing extra information for this portion of the question.
Your lost cup was, most assuredly, a guo (or "go"). I appreciate being able to put in my 3 go measures of short grain white rice and add water to the appropriate marked line, and not having to actually measure the water in a separate cup. A go is one-tenth of a "sho." A "to" is 10 sho; a "koku" is 100 sho.
This answer looks great, till you realize that there is no US or metric version of any of the sizes, and as such it is useless for people who do not use the 'go' or 'sho' or a 'koku' where they live. Can you edit in the US or metric equivalent?
If you measure the water before you put it in, you can use internet recipes or general ratios to calculate how much to put in. Once the little cup is lost, you may as well just forget about the lines and use standard cup measurements.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.006544 | 2013-03-26T01:00:13 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33015",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Adrian Hum",
"Barb Cohan-Saavedra",
"Benjamin Kuykendall",
"Cascabel",
"DarenW",
"Fay Renison",
"Gracy Marler",
"Haiqa Sajid",
"Jayy",
"Joe",
"John Flick",
"K. Kilonzus",
"Kelly Bang",
"Leif Metcalf",
"Maraquita Ashton",
"RoboticRenaissance",
"Vincent Wiles",
"Willeke",
"donna kelley",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161038",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5982",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76378",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76396",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76399",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76400",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76424",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76427",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95593",
"ihatecsv",
"needoriginalname",
"rackandboneman",
"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
} |
41481 | Shelf life and Validation of Coconut Milk?
I use coconut milk for a pasta dishes, then put the carton back in the fridge. I may use some of it for a coffee additive, the use plenty more for another pasta dish or recipe. Alas, I do not cook at home all that often, and sometimes the stored coconut milk tastes bad, so I toss it and go to the store for a fresh carton.
What is the shelf life, in a fridge, of coconut milk? Is it actually bad if it tastes bad, or could it still be used at least for some purposes? How to tell if it's about to go bad even if I can't smell anything out of line?
Refrigerated coconut-based milk substitutes like Silk Pure Coconut or So Delicious Coconut Milk have a stated lifespan of 7-10 days after opening. I've had cartons last longer than that without any change in taste or smell, but if it started tasting bad or smelling funky I would toss it. Unfortunately, this type of coconut milk product does not reconstitute well after freezing.
According to Still Tasty, the shelf life of coconut milk is about 4-6 days (it can also be frozen for longer periods; if you use it small quantities, freezing it in an ice cube tray for small portions may be helpful).
There is probably no simple test easily done at home to tell if it is about to go bad... your nose is always your best instrument for deciding if it has gone off.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.007447 | 2014-01-27T01:37:54 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41481",
"authors": [
"Harlequin",
"Spammer",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96692",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96693",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96703",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96774",
"smerg",
"user252449"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
15469 | Getting the lighter fluid taste out of burgers, after the fact
My burgers came off the grill tasting and smelling like lighter fluid. Are there any ways to reduce or remove the taste and smell from the leftovers? In the future I'm using one of those charcoal chimney starters, so I won't need any lighter fluid at all.
See, I told you not to feed lighter fluid to your cows!
Keep cooking them 'til they're so charred that the burnt taste overrides the lighter taste? :)
If they're really thick burgers, like my dad used to make, it's possible that the inside isn't as bad if you slice off the outside. (and then maybe warm up, and break it up into something strongly flavored, like a tomato sauce heavy on the garlic) ...
... but it's likely that it's just a loss. Just remember -- learn from your mistakes, and be thankful that at least you didn't burn down anything (the house, a stove, etc.)
technically on-topic, but a lolcat: cheezburger.com/View/804904192
Make sure you don't squirt the fluid all over the grill. Keep it on the charcoal.
If you have to apply more fluid after you've lit it, you're doing it wrong. Douse the charcoal then wait a few minutes for it to soak in. This is a common mistake. People often pour on the fluid and immediately light it. It then burns away before the charcoal can ignite and they have to try again. You end up putting more fluid into the grill than is necessary.
Let it burn long enough to burn away all the lighter fluid. It sounds like you aren't letting the charcoal burn long enough before putting the burgers on the grill.
1+ everything I would have said except to possibly use real hardwood charcoal and wait until the coals no longer have any black spots on them.
oh, except the real question what how to remove the flavor from already-cooked leftovers. I'd say just feed them to the dogs, myself.
@OpenID: I realized that after posting. I almost deleted it, but had a change of heart. Also, I agree with you. If you've tainted your food that badly, toss it and try again.
Don't use it! Just use some newspaper in a metal mesh tube (chimney starter), or newspaper and some kindling wood for hard charcoals
If you want a liquid starter use Meths (methylated spirits, denatured alcohol, industrial alcohol), it leaves no taste or smell after the flames have gone. Pour out 1/2 cup over the charcoal heap. Let it soak for 20 seconds, stand back and flick a match in. Never add Mmeths once the fire has started
Lighter fluid is for liquid cigarette lighters, not for starting BBQ's. I suspect some bad TV cook show host used it instead of Meths for an instant start or 'safety', and the rest is history...
For a nicer smoke use seasoned hard wood pieces, not charcoal. It takes another 15 minutes to get going and to be fully burnt to embers. You don't need starter fluid of any type, just old newspaper and some kindling sticks
It tastes much nicer and you known what you are cooking from. Not all charcoal is 100% wood, at various times they have contained borax, coal, and nitrates
Methylated spirits are very volatile. You'll get a fireball over the coals, so be very careful.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.007610 | 2011-06-14T22:54:35 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15469",
"authors": [
"Benjol",
"Chris Cudmore",
"Jack M",
"Jay Bazuzi",
"Melissa Thomas",
"Neil",
"OpenID-test2",
"Robert Anderson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2054",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32774",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32784",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32789",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6241",
"raven"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
14594 | How can I make coffee syrup with caramel taste?
I have seen several recipes for coffee syrup, but none of them with a simple caramel taste. Is getting the caramel taste as easy as using brown sugar instead of white sugar, or do I need to find some store selling caramel flavour (essence)?
Christian, could you please provide a reference for the recipes that you have seen / tried? What do you want to use the syrup for? Is this a syrup to sweeten your coffee or a coffee and caramel syrup for desserts?
Sorry, it's for coffee flavoring/sweetening. :)
I would actually just make caramel. Place about 1 1/4 cup sugar and 1/4 cup in a heavy bottom pan and dissolve over low-medium heat then crank up the heat and let cook, without stirring, until the mixture turns a golden amber colour and starts smoking. Then use the resulting caramel to sweeten your coffee :-)
1/4 cup water... I assume?
So, I actually tried this, and it worked so-so. It didn't get quite as much caramel flavor as the store-bought stuff, and I probably cooked it too long, I had to spoon it out and into my coffee ;)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.007891 | 2011-05-09T13:47:24 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14594",
"authors": [
"Christian Wattengård",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6048",
"talon8",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
52322 | How Long Can I Store Seasoned, Vacuum Sealed Chicken
I'm trying to optimize making food for the week and one of the things I want to do is season chicken breast with salt/pepper/herbs/etc in advance and vacuum seal them individually so I can just drop them into a sous vide water bath and cook them on demand.
So, my question: how long can I store chicken (or steak) vacuum sealed after seasoning it, but before cooking it? Or is it better to just cook the meat all at once and store it for the week in a cooked state and then reheat as needed.
you can store it as long as any other meat, vacuuming and seasoning doesn't change anything.
@rumtscho: Any links on this? I find contradictory information online... some say it helps, some say it doesn't change anything, some say it hurts...
I don't really have links - it is implicit in the FDA rules, which do not mention anything about vacuuming. And these rules are meant to be used literally: if your special case is not mentioned there, it doesn't apply. The background of how and why it is this way is explained in books, I don't know of online sources good enough to dispell all the wrong ideas about food safety which people tend to believe in. Basically, if you want to understand food safety, you have to start from the full background, not try to add details to what common sense tells you.
Since you're cooking by sous-vide anyway, why don't you put the vacuum sealed, seasoned chicken breasts in the freezer? You just put the still frozen packs into the circulator a half-hour or 45 minutes sooner. Then you will always have a no-muss no-fuss dinner at the ready.
Here's a YouTube video of exactly that.
Season differently and vacuum seal several family packs at once! Save money and hassle.
For frozen boneless chicken breasts, figure 141F to 148F (60.5C to 63.9) for 2+ hours, longer for bigger pieces. (I like 147F)
You can do the same thing with steak, don't raise the temperature, just add some time at your preferred temperature.
See also: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54365/how-can-i-vacuum-seal-acidic-ingredients-with-meat-or-poultry-for-freezing/54366#54366
The general consensus is that about a week should be safe for vacuum sealed chicken.
I would say though, that the sealing and preservation method is not the bottleneck here. Should the chicken be totally free of contaminants and packaged in a sterile environment you should be able to store the meat until it naturally decomposes. On the other hand, if you are packing the raw meat at home I would even be careful about going a whole week.
On a sidenote: why use fillets of breast when the thigh meat is much more tasty?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.008004 | 2015-01-06T03:02:33 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/52322",
"authors": [
"Amber S",
"Diana von der Borch-Garden",
"George Shepherd",
"Grant Cartwright",
"Jack Gagnon",
"Jenna Wilkinson",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kim Carter",
"Kris H",
"Matt Ellison",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124196",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127676",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127703",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127795",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7358",
"rumtscho",
"user124198",
"user541686"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
16657 | What can I do with Bhut Jolokia's?
I'm growing some Bhut Jolokia's (world hottest pepper aka ghost pepper) amongst other hot peppers. Anyone have any recommendations what I can do with them? I picked one off the plant last night. I'm looking for something other that hot sauce or chili.
Well, if you have some gullible friends... :P
Bhut Jolokiaa make for great Youtube videos
I've never used bhut jolokias but I love spicy vegetable oil. DO NOT just throw the peppers in a jar of oil. Apparently this is bad. Follow the much more helpful links in the comments that follow this and make the oil properly.
Once you do this you can cook pretty much anything that needs a little (or a lot) of extra heat. You said you have other peppers so it might be interesting to set up a few jars with different pepper combos.
Bonus: if what I've heard of these peppers is correct, you can probably make a low grade mace this way.
If you're looking for something to do right away, I'd mix a very small piece in some melty cheese and throw it on some chips, burritos, pizza, or anything really. Spicy cheese rocks.
Good luck and enjoy.
Don't do this... http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18292/why-did-my-hot-pepper-oil-get-moldy
This way of making flavored oil is highly unsafe; it carries a serious risk of botulism: http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/foodnut/09340.html
I once made habanero poppers for some friends. Sliced the habaneros in half length wise and seeded them. I stuffed them with a mix of cream cheese, monterey jack, sour cream, salt and pepper and then baked them in the oven until the cheese had turned GB&D.
They were very tasty, as the pepper itself was quite a bit sweeter and more flavorful than the normal jalapeno I would have used. I would expect that since the bhut jolokia is in the same general family as the habanero, the same would apply here. However, they were significantly hotter, almost to the point of unpleasant for the non-chiliheads.
As the bhut jolokias are even hotter, I would urge caution when handling them. I would also probably enjoy every moment of the pain of eating them.
maybe use it to infuse some vodka, and make a really spicy vodka for cocktails?
that would make a nice addition to Pasta Diablo
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.008267 | 2011-08-05T14:42:08 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16657",
"authors": [
"Anon",
"DHayes",
"FuzzyChef",
"George Shore",
"Mallard1",
"Pat Sommer",
"Ric Sabatini",
"fire.eagle",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6810",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"rfusca",
"user3382203",
"xaneon"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
17418 | What is the world's hottest pepper?
I'm growing some bhut jolokia peppers, and they are almost ready for harvesting.
However, I've since seen that the naga viper pepper has beaten the bhut jolokia as the hottest pepper. I've also seen that a variety of Trinidad Scorpion pepper has beaten out the naga viper.
The store I bought my bhut jolokia from now is selling "the world's hottest pepper" called naga jolokia.
Is the naga jolokia the same as the naga viper? Is it the same as the bhut jolokia?
I understand that the naga viper was an unstable hybrid. Presumably this means that it cannot be reliably sold for home gardeners. Is the Trinidad Scorpion variety stable? If not, how do the stable varieties compare with the naga viper and bhut jolokia?
To summarize the questions:
What is a naga jolokia, and where does it stand in comparison to
the other "contender" peppers?
What is the world's hottest pepper?
What is the hottest pepper that the average home gardener can purchase, and then grow
at home (local climate permitting)?
Keep those crazy things away from me please sir!
I recall vividly a claim made for the Dorset naga, mainly because it was made in a newpaper on April Fool's Day, and I was never entirely sure whether it was true or not.
@Peter: The business is real and makes the same claim on their site, so I suppose it could be misinformation but it's definitely not an April fool's prank. The pepper itself now seems to have its own dedicated site.
Ya could just go buy crystalline capsaicin, can't find a pepper hotter than that.
Just curious - what is your intended use? Do you want "the hottest" pretty much for bragging rights? I'm just curious - if you use the Scorpion pepper, and it's insanely hot, and then find out the Fukushima Daiichi Jalapeno is 2,000 Scoville units hotter, does that really impact what you've done or intend to do with the Scorpion peppers?
@PoloHoleSet I make hot sauces with them. After 6 years of eating them, they no longer seem unbearably spicy. The peppers actually do have different flavors, once you can get past the heat. Spicier peppers will help me make sauces that I both consider spicy, and have a good flavor, especially since many of the ingredients I use for good flavor signatures reduce the overall heat of the resulting sauce. I'm getting 5 new varieties of million+ scoville peppers this year, and it's far more for flavor than bragging rights.
So you've become acclimated, and need more. Sounds reasonable.
The world record holder is currently the Carolina Reaper according to Guinness (as of AUG 2013).
This pepper began its family tree as a crossbreed between a Ghost Chili pepper and a Red Habanero.
The LA Times reports that the hottest Reaper has been clocked at 2.2 Million Scoville units. That's higher than some commercial pepper spray products. They go on to cite a study conducted by Winthrop University (South Carolina, US) that claims the average is closer to 1.5 M.
There is a hotter pepper contending for the throne. "Pepper X" (a codename pending a permanent name) is now supposedly clocking in over 3M but is pending Guinness verification.
What a time to be alive.
What is the world's hottest pepper?
According to the Scovile Scale the hottest pepper is Bhut Jolokia. The one you are currently growing
Scovile Scale Visualized
What is a naga jolokia, and where does it stand in comparison to the
other "contender" peppers?
Bhut Jolokia or Naga Jologia
According to some sources, they indicate that Bhut and Naga are the same pepper. Naga means Ghost.
MSNBC has a great article covering this world record chili:
The pepper is known by any number of names across India’s northeast.
It’s the “poison chili” in some areas, the “king of the chilis” in
others. Just to the south of Assam is Nagaland, it’s eaten in nearly
every meal. As a result, it is often called the Naga mircha — the
“Naga chili.”
Nice touch on the charts
so according to this answer, if I want to get a hot meal, I should just get a little bit of pepper spray ;)
@Lie Ryan Yes you should. It's easier to make as well. Spray it on everything; or just cut to the chase; spray it in your mouth!
Pablano should be spelled Poblano. And there are only two peppers: chilaca and poblano (pasilla ancho), not three. (Pasilla sometimes refers to dried poblano or chilaca, and incorrectly refers to the poblano in North America; unfortunately this is common.)
Bhut means "ghost". Naga means "cobra". They are the same pepper, just different regional names. Jolokia means "pepper".
According the Scoville Scale the peppers you mention (the Bhut Jolokia chili pepper) are ranked with the hottest of the peppers, albeit in a 'wide range' (855,000–1,463,700 Scoville heat units).
The Scoville explanation on Wikipedia (linked above) does not include "naga jolokia" but does include "Naga Viper" and "Bhut Jolokia". It is likely that "Naga Jolokia" is a hybrid of the two, which may or may not be stable and reproducible. These are all in the that same "hottest of the hot" range and "which is the hottest?" is likely a moving target. Frankly,
I would put all of these in the "too hot to matter" category. There is no reason that I am aware of that the average home gardener could not purchase any or all of these varieties and even produce your own hybrids using relatively simple cross pollination techniques.
This answer should not be confused as volunteering to taste or sample anything prepared with any of these peppers.
Let me just clarify why some places will say the Bhut is the hottest and some will say the Viper is the hottest. It's because there are two different notions of "hottest".
One notion is this: If I were to grow some peppers, what variety would get me the hottest peppers on average? The answer to this is the Bhut. They consistently produce peppers over 1,000,000 SHU when grown casually by amateurs.
The other notion is this: What variety is the world record, hottest pepper ever? The answer to this is the Viper. But if you were to grow a Viper casually, you would not get a heat level anywhere near the world's record.
The reason for the discrepancy is not very well known. Most likely, the Viper is just more responsive to the techniques used by expert growers to produce record-breaking peppers. (Controlled light patterns, intentional drought stress, and so on.)
Updated list of hottest pepper of 2016 year is show on this site
http://browse-read.com/the-15-hottest-pepper-in-the-world-other/
Carolina Reaper takes 1st place on 2013 year and are there until now.
but 2nd and 3rd place are Trinidad Moruga Scorpion and 7 Pod Douglah Pepper :)
The hottest pepper is pepper x even though it does not say that in the book of Guinness(1). The hottest pepper you can grow is the “ghost pepper”. Sadly I don’t know the answer to your first question.
Sorry that I don’t know how to make one word a link.
it's pretty simple to make the link - there should be a menu above your text. One of the symbols looks like a chain or two intertwined circles. Highlight the word you want to make into a link, click on that symbol, paste link into the pop-up box, hit enter.
@bob1 thanks for the description. I will do what you said.
Until Ed Currie releases test results confirming Pepper X's SHU measurements, it is not the hottest pepper. Likely he is waiting until it is stabilized after 8 or more generations before moving forward, assuming it isn't overly hyped (there's a lot of concern in the pepper communities about the validity of his claim). Additionally, there are plenty of other contenders for "hottest pepper" that have not yet gone through formal testing (and may never do so). Ed Currie is a remarkable promoter, but the loudest voice does not automatically make it the hottest pepper.
Example: the owner of the Redwood City Seed company claims that his new Chocolate Champion is hotter than the Carolina Reaper, as well. Plus there are countless other varieties that are still unstable, but which many people feel are much hotter than the Reaper.
A good crop of red thin Thai peppers. They vary,but when they are strong they are untouchable with a distint aftertaste
From a quick Google search, Thai peppers range from about 50,000 to 100,000 on the Scoville scale, which isn't anywhere near the other contenders mentioned here.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.008513 | 2011-09-02T17:01:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17418",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Anubian Noob",
"Beofett",
"Brian",
"Carlos Gomez",
"Dana Mills",
"Jared Updike",
"John Montgomery",
"Joshua",
"Lie Ryan",
"Mikhail Edoshin",
"Niall",
"Peter Taylor",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Rob K",
"Zvi Gilbert",
"bob1",
"canadiancreed",
"chrisjlee",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129094",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2654",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37427",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37437",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50899",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7019",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79366",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/866",
"illy",
"user37432"
],
"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
} |
102798 | Is it safe to refrigerate a 3-2-1 ratio pickle I mistakenly processed for canning?
I followed a recipe based on 3-2-1 ratio of water-vinegar-sugar. I boiled the water, added the vinegar and sugar, whisked until the sugar dissolved, let it cool a bit, and added seasonings.
I then poured the liquid over fresh vegetables (cucumbers, peppers, carrots, beets, radishes) in jars, sealed the jars, and processed them for 25 minutes in boiling water.
However, while they were in the bath, I did further research, and found that the 3-2-1 ratio was not considered safe (with some exceptions). A minimum of 1:1 ratio of water to vinegar is now the recommendation.
I realize that I cannot treat these as canned. Can I immediately put them in the refrigerator, and eat them out of the jar? That was the intent of the original recipe: instead of processing the jars in boiling water, just put them in the refrigerator. And it does seem that the ratio I used is okay so long as you put it in the refrigerator, instead of storing it at room temperature.
Did boiling the jars create any health risks?
No, boiling should not have created health risks. If anything, you are likely to have killed off some microorganisms that could have led to gradual spoilage (over weeks or longer) in the refrigerator. So, the only likely effect on safety is that you may have extended the expected shelf life of the pickles in the fridge.
Of course, boiling the vegetables will also have softened them and given them a more "cooked" texture/flavor, which may not have been intended in the original recipe. But as long as they are kept refrigerated, they should be safe to eat.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.009295 | 2019-10-09T18:51:05 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/102798",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
17230 | How much of the oil will stay in french fries?
Is there a fixed percentage of how much of the oil used to frying french fries will stay in the served french fries?
I guess that it depends on things like dimension of the french fries, frying temperature, oil type.
There's too many factors to have a set percentage of oil that will stay, but lets cover a few common things that determine the oil in your final product.
Heat of the oil:
Your oil needs to be plenty hot enough to actually fry in. For fries, you'll typically want to shoot for between 350-375 F. If you don't have a thermometer, then get one! If you really don't want to get one, a white bread cube will fry brown in about 60 seconds at the right temp - but a thermometer is best. If the oil isn't hot enough to fry in, it will start to absorb the oil. So before you ever fry anything, get that oil up to temp (and make sure its that way between batches!).
Coating of the fry (or other fried food):
A batter coating is just going to hold more oil than a plain french fry. If you're trying to be health conscious about french fries (but then again, why are you eating french fries!?!), avoid batter coating them and go with a 'plain' fry.
Post frying treatment:
Shake, shake, shake! Give the basket a good vigorous shake. Don't have a basket? Use a strainer or at least a cooling rack with a mesh-type grate. You're trying to physically shake as much oil off the fry as you can. Additionally, I like to lay them on paper towels and then fold the paper towels on top. See all that oil? Simple math, if its on the paper towel, its not in the fry anymore.
Crowding the pan:
If you crowd the pan you fry in, you'll lower the temperature of the oil and give the oil not enough circulation. This means longer to fry and more time not at the right temperature. This means more oil in the final product. Its better to do some smaller batches than to try to cram it all in one batch.
The right oil:
The main thing here is that you need an oil that can fry hot enough without smoking. This goes back to the right temperature. (In case it hadn't sunk in yet, temperature is important!) If you can't get it hot enough, then you're going to absorb a lot of oil. Olive oil is a bad choice. I usually use peanut or canola oil.
I like your answer much better than mine (deleted). +1
350-375 F I guess. 180-190°C
extending @rfusca:
The Variety of Potato:
Potatoes come in a plethora of varieties but they are usually in two groups:
Starchy: Russets, Idaho and Goldrush. These are your better friers, bakers and mashers...
Waxy: Red, Yellow, New, etc.. These are NOT good friers because they absorb less of the oil. These are better for casseroles and potato salads where a potato needs to hold its form after boiling.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.009452 | 2011-08-28T20:01:14 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17230",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Nathian",
"Sue Poindexter Altop",
"Werner",
"adelisa",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36989",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36990",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36997",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37016",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"user unknown"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
19880 | For a baking beginner, what cake icing you recommend?
I am a beginner in cooking/baking.
I have tried a couple of cake and muffin recipes, the simple ones turn into a hard crust after a while.
There are good ones that need temperature measurements and are complicated for me to make like "Cake Decorating: How to Make Buttercream Icing" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9xIxBbocYI
Is there a simpler one that a novice can make, for general cake or muffin icing?
Buttercream is pretty simple, start with room temperature butter, beat it until it's white, slowly add icing sugar, add small amounts of milk as needed to keep the consistency right.
For each 1/4 cup (1/2 stick) of butter, use about 1 1/2 cups of icing sugar (sifted) and 3 Tbsp of milk. You can do it in a mixer, a food processor, or just use a bowl and a whisk. I used a whisk a few days ago when I realized my large stand mixer is overkill for the small amount of icing I wanted and I found that microwaving the icing for about 10 seconds helped me stir in the sugar when it was getting too thick.
There are different types of buttercream, but the one most commonly used by new bakers is American buttercream. It is made by mixing butter and powdered/confectioners sugar. Sounds like that's what you've made and what the other posters are recommending. American buttercream is a crusting buttercream. So the crust you mentioned is normal. If you prefer that it doesn't crust, you may want to try a different type of frosting or buttercream. Chocolate ganache is a great frosting and very easy. Use 1:1 heavy cream to chocolate that is chopped or chocolate chips. Heat the cream to almost boiling. Pour the hot cream over the chocolate. Let it sit for a few minutes. Then stir until smooth. Let it cool until you like the consistency. If you want, you can cool it all the way then whip it up for a lighter texture. It will not crust.
Half the time when I'm making buttercream type frosting, I go with melted butter, and just mix icing sugar in to taste - forming a kind of paste or glaze consistency. It has a flatter, less fluffy consistency this way, instead of doing it the "right" way with whipped butter - but I am usually more concerned about the flavor profile, especially if its for casual eating rather than for guests. Its quick and easy and foolproof, this way, and easy to add make just a little or add more if running low, since you don't have to fluff ingredients separately.
Other than that, you can make a glaze quickly by making a thick liquid or paste of the powdered sugar with any reasonable liquid (or, yanno, unreasonable ones if that floats your boat). Water is easy, as ann mentioned, but you can use milk, or juice if you want a quickly flavored glaze, melted chocolate, any syrup that strikes your fancy, whatever.
The most basic recipe is to mix icing sugar with a very small amount of water to make a paste. Drizzle it over the muffins. But if you want something that you can pipe then I agree buttercream is the way to go, I use this one... https://www.howtocookthat.net/public_html/buttercream-cupcake-frosting-recipes/
A little salt can be tasty in the basic powdered sugar frosting.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.009700 | 2011-12-22T00:50:08 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19880",
"authors": [
"Adam Batkin",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44014",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
15790 | How can I make home-made veggie burgers stay together so I can grill them?
I tried this weekend to make veggie burgers to cook on the grill, with fake ground beef (maybe Gimme Lean or something like that), egg, breadcrumbs, spices, and they totally fell apart.
Is there a secret to home-made veggie burgers that can be cooked on the grill? All grilled veggies instead of fake meat? Just a proportion issue? Can't be solved?
Thanks!
depending on how vegetarian one is, seems like some egg could help
I second the recommendation for Lukas Volger's Veggie Burgers Every Which Way. I've been working my way through it and have made several of the recipes so far, all of which have been good. However, I would say that not all of the recipes in the book work well for the grill.
I've been doing everything vegan from the Volger book with mixed results. Many of the recipes use eggs, but you can do them with just breadcrumbs and water as the binder. They come out pretty delicate that way and are better in a skillet and then baked, as Volger recommends. His tofu and chard burgers use some tofu that has been browned then pureed as binder. This works ok, but the burgers came out quite delicate (but still delicious).
Silken tofu pureed in the food processor gets a thick, creamy texture that could also be used as a binder.
Eggs are by far the most common binder as they may be the best edible binder there is, since they are basically liquid protein, but obviously not vegan.
For delicate burgers, I use this cooking grid on the grill, which works great. You can find something similar at most kitchen stores.
Another binder option is steamed rice, prepared like you would for sushi. It gets sticky and makes a great binder, though they'll still be a bit delicate. I've been making the beet, brown rice and black bean burger recipe from Volger's book. I add bbq sauce and a paste of pureed rehydrated prunes, similar to the veggie burger at Hillstone/Houston's restaurant and they come out really great. They work fine right on the grill, though refrigerating them overnight makes them a little sturdier.
Another option is adding vital wheat gluten and water, aka raw seitan dough. This is what is done in the Veganomicon black bean burger recipe. I tried these straight on the grill also and they stayed together perfectly, as well as any commercial veggie burger. However, they were a little bland and could use some more seasoning.
I haven't tried any of these in burgers, but some common binders in vegan baking are peanut butter, apple sauce and Ener-g egg replacer. I bet peanut butter would work well in a burger with flavors that work with peanut, like Thai flavors or chipotle.
Falafel-style burgers also don't need any binders, they stick together pretty well and can be grilled, though you may want to use a grill grid or something similar.
Lastly, you can put a cast iron skillet or pizza stone on the grill - it's common now for grilled pizza and will work for delicate burgers.
Good post. But peanut butter and applesauce are not binder replacers. In baking, the gluten in the flour is enough to bind. Peanut butter and applesauce are used as egg replacers because they are somewhat useful as emulgators (the yolk's main task) and provide a better viscosity than just leaving the egg out. I don't doubt that peanut butter will taste well, but if anything, it will inhibit binding slightly.
Thanks, yea, I know peanut butter is basically oil, but it is sticky. In a follow-up, I made lentil burgers using Ener-G (equivalent of 2 eggs worth) pureed with lentils in the food processor, and then added some whole lentils, as per Volger's recipe. They stayed bound together very well.
How were the burgers shaped? If formed firmly in a press rather than just scooped out and hand patted, air pockets would be reduced and a nicer edge created.
In a skillet, I pack heavy wet burger mix directly into rings and let the bottom crust form before lifting out ring. No breaking apart upon flipping. For grill...trickier: maybe cheat badly and first give a quick zap in the microwave just to set. Alternatively, freeze and pop onto grill.
Could you clarify what type of "rings" you refer to?
metal rings used on griddle for fried eggs etc.
There's a lot less fat in most veggie patties compared to most meat patties, so add extra oil to the grill (using an oiled cloth). You can also freeze vegetable protein based patties first (they stay together longer), and let them cook for long enough before trying to move them.
It may just be your recipe too, it may be too wet (or too dry). Try a recipe book like Veggie Burgers Every Which Way for inspiration, which has a huge selection of tasty veggy treats.
I'm sure I already mentioned that in a related question, but this is needed for completeness here:
Chickpea or lentil flours work well for binding - they bind like billy-o and are also very rich in protein (nutrition OT or not, using something nutritionally similar as a substitute is always a bonus) - make sure they patty is cooked long enough for these to properly set, they taste bitter when raw and yolk-y when undercooked...
If the patties are still too soft, grilling/pan frying them then finishing them in the oven can improve them a lot.
Make sure all patties have gotten to room temperature on the surface, apply oil to surface of patties and grill's grate, have at 'em. This technique worked for my vegan naked fatties, and I'm sure it will work for burgers. That said too much bread/starch will cause sticking. Add corn or (black) beans to tinker with that if the oil trick doesn't work.
Some creative answers were given. I have had some good success with adding some cooked oatmeal to mine (I don't use instant oats, but that might mask the presence of the oats).
If they are still crumbly, you may also want to line your grill with aluminum foil to create the effect of a skillet and allow them to hold in place while cooking.
Flax eggs are the answer you are looking for.
Welcome to the site! Perhaps a bit more elaboration on why you think this would be in order?
If you use the "fake ground beef" then they will always fall apart!! Try using tofu instead! Just buzz it up with your other ingredients (like sweet potato!) and they will make perfect burgers which stay together! The ground beef will never stay together!
Use corn starch to mix them. Corn starch stick the ingredients.
You can use arrow root as a binder
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.009994 | 2011-06-27T01:57:06 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15790",
"authors": [
"Candy Ayer",
"Christos Akkelides",
"Elke Bahle",
"Ena",
"Jenna",
"Kira contant",
"Ohnana",
"Pat Sommer",
"Richard ten Brink",
"amcnabb",
"fionbio",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33560",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33754",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33755",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36762",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9482",
"paul",
"rumtscho",
"sapna",
"savta",
"tcb",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
86030 | How can I tell if my kefir is healthy?
I have been given some kefir grains but, no having tasted kefir before, I can't tell if there's something wrong with it.
Is there some way to tell?
For the record, the taste is like a mix between yoghourt, cheese and sour milk.
If the taste is similar to yogurt, cheese, or sour milk as you describe then your kefir is likely good.
On the other hand, if it seems moldy or rancid, it is bad.
This site describes proper storage, shelf life and how to tell if it is bad.
And this site describes kefir gone bad if "f there is noticeable fuzzy mold growing on it, if there are pink or orange spots on it, or if it has turned pink or orange. Your body knows when it is bad, it should literally be revolting to you if you attempt to ingest it."
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.010523 | 2017-11-30T19:04:57 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86030",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
10713 | How can I use white pepper without having the odor dominate the food flavour?
I received several different pepper (spice) for christmas. One of them is a white pepper. Whenever I use (very) little of this white pepper in my dishes, the odor/flavor is very dominant cutting out all other flavors. How can I use this pepper without losing the other flavors?
Is this the whole peppercorns that you are cracking fresh? or is it a prepared mix?
Similar perhaps duplicate question: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6113/white-pepper-vs-black-pepper
@talon8 : I'd say related, but not duplicate, as this one's asking how to actually deal with the difference
@Zombies: its whole peppercorns. And yes, I do crack them fresh.
@talon8: thank you for the link. White pepper indeed has a "barnyard" odor.
It's interesting that this is your experience, since "common knowledge" is the white pepper is milder than black. White pepper is the dried ripe fruit of the pepper Piper Nigrum, and the black is the unripe, cured and dried fruit. Black is usually hotter than white, but generally they are considered to be interchangeable, with the white being used in sauces and in cream dishes for a better look (no black specks).
Since this pepper is so strong for some reason, I would advise that you only use it in dishes that rely on the pepper flavor to the exclusion of others, say steak au poivre, or pepper pot, or salt and pepper scallops.
Other than that you can cut back on the amount or grind it now and let it sit around for a while...pepper has its strongest, best flavor when freshly ground; it kills me to suggest that, but I'm trying to answer your question.
If it were mine, I would try to figure out a dish that this pepper would truly enhance, as I suggested.
Thank you for the advice on not using fresh ground pepper. Even it will hurt you to read this, iI will give it a try. Any idea how long to wait before use? Hours? Days?
Some people are sensitive to white pepper, which might smell as horse urine or swine manure to them. This is because the fermentation process produces of white pepper produces some of the same chemical compounds. The older the pepper gets the more concentrated the odor will be.
There is no way around this if you are one of those who does smell this as it is generally conditioned.
You can read this article for more information.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16028994/
I have loved white pepper on Japanese chicken wings & Thai curry for many years. It is a wonderful spice. BUT, I started tasting it in Thai curry from a particular restaurant a few years ago & was disgusted by the manure flavor. I couldn't make out what part of the dish was tainting my beloved Thai green curry, if my tastes were changing or what. Other Thai restaurants still made it great! Then, I cooked some chicken adding some old white pepper & found that same manure flavor there. Horrified, I smelled the white pepper container, & sure enough it smelled like manure too. So, I purchased a new bottle of white pepper, opened it & took a whiff. The new bottle of white pepper smelled fine (like white pepper is supposed to smell & taste).
So, if you are noticing a manure smell coming from your white pepper, it is not the way it is supposed to smell or taste & it has gone bad or was poorly processed. I've read that if the water is not fresh that bathes the pepper corns before shucking in the making of white pepper, it will have this flavor (Gross!). It may mix ok with a stronger spiced dish, but can taint a dish that relies on the true essence of white pepper (which is definitely NOT the taste/smell of manure). So don't knock white pepper. Knock the guy using old or bad white pepper. Test whiff before use.
I'll give you the upvote, because you gave me an answer to my problem. I cannot give you the accepted answer, as my question was, how to use this pepper without it dominating the flavour. You're basically telling me: throw it out, buy a new on.
I promise you I am not being snarky here: if an ingredient is overpowering the dish, use less of the ingredient.
One cooking site, writes about substitutes for it: "Black pepper is the best substitute, but the differences between the two in both smell and taste are quite distinctive."
Yes, it is certainly distinctive! Using black instead of white pepper may not be bad, but it will simply make a different dish. For instance in mashed potatoes - should I not have white pepper in my house, I'd simply eat something else and not cook mashed potatoes until I have the proper ingredients for it. My mashed potatoes is spotted anyway, from some nutmeg in it. (But those who are only interested in the color and not in the taste can try maize flour instead of pepper, because it will not color it at all.)
Also most types of fish dishes benefit from using white rather than black pepper.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.010634 | 2011-01-03T21:28:06 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10713",
"authors": [
"Brian",
"Joe",
"Lance",
"MSWood",
"Saurav",
"Zombies",
"froeschli",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21943",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21952",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4086",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"still fascinated at 62",
"talon8"
],
"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
} |
39525 | My chicken stock is a gelatinous mess. Is this normal? Can it be saved?
I've been looking for a chicken soup with matzo balls recipe that would duplicate my grandma's (she died without passing on the recipe.) This one sounded like it would be close. I followed it to the letter, and let it cool in the fridge overnight so it would be easier to remove the fat.
When I took it out of the fridge, I was able to pull a solid layer of fat off the top, but the "soup" underneath is not liquid - it's gelatinous. Is this normal? If not, what did I do wrong? And is there any way to fix it? I had planned on giving jars of it to friends, but it looks pretty disgusting when cool, even if it does heat up correctly (which I'm not sure it does; it's reheating on the stove now.)
See also: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/37355/14401 -- Yes, it is perfectly normal, and considered desirable.
If you've never seen that before, you're about to taste the best chicken soup you've ever had :)
Thanks, everyone. I panicked and posted without even searching. Bad. I'll put together my jars, and just tell everyone that's what it's supposed to look like when cool!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.011149 | 2013-11-17T23:27:09 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39525",
"authors": [
"Donald pieper",
"EmmyS",
"Jolenealaska",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"Tim Dorothy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91749",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91750",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91751",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91779",
"jstub"
],
"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.