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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
19603 | Help me duplicate Potbelly's fat-free vinaigrette
Can anyone help me duplicate Potbelly Sandwich Works' fat-free vinaigrette dressing? I'm NOT a cook, so I have no idea where to start. It's fairly clear, somewhat sweet, and based on the lack of "globules", it appears to have little to no oil in it.
Is it possible to make a vinaigrette with no oil?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emulsion#Emulsifier
My understanding is that most of those (aside from mustard, perhaps) will add some kind of fat. This is a fat-free dressing. And since it's clear, I know they didn't use mustard. Maybe it's just plain rice vinegar with some sugar. Guess I'll have to play with different combos.
Can you give us a frame of reference, i.e. another more common dressing or recipe which tastes similar? I realize that they have stores all across the U.S., but for those of us who haven't eaten there, "clear and somewhat sweet" doesn't narrow it down very much.
@EmmyS: I know you said fat-free, but since the US actually allows things with less than half a gram of fat per serving to be labeled as fat-free, I figure the dressing might well have a little bit of oil in it, and so it may indeed have an emulsifier to prevent you from seeing the oil. (And plenty of emulsifiers don't add fat - honey and mustard are notable ones in everyday kitchens, and soy lecithin is common in many prepared foods and can be bought for home use too.)
Emmy,
I don't have Potbelly's specific recipe, but most "fat-free" vinagrette dressings rely heavily on corn syrup as a thickener and to dilute the vinegar. Given the sweetness you noticed with the Potbelly dressing, I would guess this to be the case with theirs as well. For example, these are the ingredients in WishBone's Fat Free Red Wine Vinagrette:
Water, High Fructose Corn Syrup, Red Wine Vinegar, Cabernet Sauvignon
Wine, Sugar, Salt, Soybean Oil (Adds An Insignificant Amout of Fat),
Garlic, Onion, Lemon Juice Concentrate, Xanthan Gum, Tocopheryl
Acetate (Vitamin E), Calcium Disodium Edta (Used to Protect Quality),
Natural Flavor, Sulfiting Agents.
Even "homemade" recipes involve large amounts of sugar: http://vegetarian.about.com/od/saladdressings/r/fatfreesalad1.htm
So in general you're looking for a recipe which involves corn syrup + vinegar + spices. Beyond that, online recipes abound.
Also, if you're looking for fat-free dressings for health reasons, you need to ask yourself if eating several ounces of corn syrup is really an improvement over a little olive oil.
Potbelly's Non-Fat Vinaigrette has 12 g of sugar per 2.5 oz portion, by far more than any of their other dressings. http://www.potbelly.com/pdf/Potbelly_Nutritional_Information.pdf
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.011288 | 2011-12-12T21:24:24 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19603",
"authors": [
"AGE",
"Aaronut",
"Cascabel",
"Edith D Thurman",
"EmmyS",
"Ginsi",
"Michael Hoffman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42700",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42701",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42721",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7603",
"nomad00"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
25848 | Low-sodium alternatives for Asian cooking sauces?
I love Asian cooking, but my doctor wants me on a low-sodium diet. Unfortunately, even the "lower-sodium" or "reduced sodium" versions of sauces (soy, tamari, etc.) are extremely high in sodium. Is there any alternative that can replicate the flavor of these sauces without the heavy dose of sodium?
@EmmyS I've deleted the comments, as we do try to stay away from health topics. I will however note that we do generally think it's fine to comment and point out possible misconceptions, because we do get a lot of people asking questions with a nutritional basis so wildly misguided we feel it will mislead future readers.
Use less salt in other parts of the dish? Salty flavor is salty flavor, and the salt balance of a dish is hard to mess with, unless you go the potassium chloride route.
Several posts recommend Chinatown brand soy sauce. Unfortunately, the brand was sold to another company and the formula was changed so it isn't the wonderful substitute it once was.
Unfortunately, the sodium chloride salt is a requirement for the fungus and brewing process which goes into making soy sauce. You are extremely unlikely to find a much lower-salt soy sauce; however, experiment with vietnamese cuisine which uses more chili and less soy.
If you can tolerate some sodium, this is the lowest sodium soy sauce I can find: Kikkoman less salt soy sauce. It has 3.4g sodium per 100ml, which gives 170mg per 5ml tsp, around 6% per tsp or 18% per 15ml tablespoon. (These percentages are based on the US and UK sodium recommendation of 2400mg per day, or 6000mg of salt.)
I would recommend trying Bragg's Liquid Aminos. The sodium content is 6% daily allowance for a 1/2 tsp amount. It won't work if used measure measure, though, compared with San-J's reduced sodium tamari at 29% for 1 TBS or Kikkoman's Less Sodium Soy Sauce at 24% for 1 TBS. (Bragg's Liquid Aminos would top them at 36%.) If it can be used successfully in smaller increments (a possibility given its concentrated nature), it would be a useful replacement.
I recommend the Bragg's brand because I have used it and find it satisfactory, though for its own merit, not as a soy sauce substitute. I haven't used any other liquid amino acid product to compare it with. It won't give you exactly soy sauce flavor, but it has sufficient body to be a useful substitute particularly in cooking.
Please forgive me if my math is wrong, but wouldn't 6% for 1/2 tsp work out to 36% for 1 TSP? (3 tea spoons per table spoon, 6% in 1/2 tea spoon * 2 * 3 teaspoons / table spoon = 36%/tablespoon)
Oh, you're right! Rushed my math on that one. Tsk. Thanks!
Short answer, no. But you can look at other ingredients in a stir-fry and ramp up the flavor there:
for the sour ingredients (vinegar lemon juice) try Shaanxi black vinegar which has a robust dark flavor
Few drops more toasted sesame oil to replace other mild frying oil
broth made with shitake instead of milder chicken/veg stock
dash of aged Shaoxing wine (drinkable rather than cooking variety best) adds a brewed dimension
Just some of the ways to add that savory brown something missing without soy
"Tangle extract" from kombu (tangle) seaweed, is used in Japanese cuisine to potentiate the effect of monosodium glutamate - that can make a big reduction in the sodium intake. Whatever a recipe calls for in the way of MSG, use a tiny pinch and a good dose of kombu to get the same effect.
More info here.
I'm not using MSG, so I'm not sure this replacement will really have the effect I'm looking for, but I'll consider it.
Kombu extract contains naturally occurring glutamates which function similarly to MSG in food. You don't need to add MSG separately to get the effect.
Yes you can look into using molasses as a substitute combined with rice-wine vinegar, apple cider vinegar and even balsamic vinegar.
Recipe
2 tablespoons reduced sodium beef broth
1 tablespoon red wine vinegar
1 teaspoon balsamic vinegar
2 teaspoons molasses
1 teaspoon sesame oil
1/8 teaspoon garlic powder
black pepper to taste
1/4 cup boiling water
Directions
Combine all the ingredients. At this point, you can either a) use the sauce as is, leaving for an hour to give the flavors a chance to blend, or b) for a thicker, richer sauce, boil the liquid until it is reduced by half, about 3 tablespoons.
Store in a sealed container in the refrigerator. Use the sauce within 3 - 4 days.
I buy the lowest sodium content soya sauce I can find. I then mix the sauce 50 50 with distilled water.
The distilled water has no flavours to compete with the diluted soya sauce.
For fish and oyster sauces I buy the vegetarian types which are lower in sodium. For the fish sauce I dilute it about 25% with distilled water.
"Chinatown" brand dark soy sauce, a product made in Jamaica, has only 145 mg of sodium per 15 mL. So it's lower in sodium than any other soy sauce anyone has mentioned so far.
You can order some from <http://healthyheartmarket.com/chinatownsoysauce.aspx>.
Chowhound poster "bailey2012" likes it.
You can order other reduced-sodium soy sauces from <http://healthyheartmarket.com/lowsodiumsoysauce.aspx>.
I have never tasted any of the products mentioned in this post. If you try one, please click "improve this answer" or "add comment", then add your review.
Try Dr Greger How Not to Die Cookbook. He has a recipe for Umami sauce which is made from molasses, vinegar, garlic, ginger, date syrup, tomato purée, lemon and miso paste. I make a big batch and freeze it. It’s good! Miso is salty but the fermentation process gives us good things that cancel out the bad. Read How not to die to find out more, its life changing!
Coconut Secret Organic Raw Coconut Aminos is a pretty well rated soy sauce alternative. Note that the Amazon reviews say this is sweeter than soy sauce, as you can see from the nutrition facts(about 10 times the sugar of soy sauce), but, people seem pretty happy with adding this sauce into stews and soups.
It's even cheaper at Trader Joe's near me, so you might have a grocery store nearby that sells Coconut Aminos. I tried this one and it tastes like a combination of soy sauce, teriyaki, and vinegar. It has much lower sodium, so I'm happy with it so far.
Sorry, but sodium is high in most East Asian sauces. Most Asian cooking sauces (e.g. soy sauce, fish sauce, dashi) are treasured for their savoriness, which comes from (sodium salts of) amino acids; that's why lots of Asian people have high blood pressure.
There is low sodium soy sauce (as mentioned above), but even that is still quite high in sodium content. You can find low-salt dashi for Japanese cuisine, however, and that should have less sodium than soy sauce. You could also make your own low-sodium dashi, by soaking your kombu in water for a night and also by not using too much Bonito flakes (which are high in sodium). Finally, try not adding any additional salt any of your dishes, and you should be fine.
"Chinatown" soy sauce from healthyheartmarket is 145 mg. sodium per Tbs. The lowest I could find. I use it a LOT! Try it.
This was already covered in a previous answer.
There are vegetarian alternatives coming in at 360-380 mg of sodium per serving available on Amazon but I use them in 1/2 potions as adding a fish and oyster sauce together still come to 1/2 0f daily allowance for heart patients.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.011548 | 2012-08-25T04:52:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25848",
"authors": [
"Adam Wheeler",
"Cascabel",
"EmmyS",
"Fisher",
"H Vi",
"Judy Ponto",
"Kevin Kostlan",
"KiwiPhil",
"River Oaks Construction",
"Robert Roth",
"Sneftel",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"Tony",
"anna",
"deckeresq",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96139",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97618",
"rackandboneman",
"shufler",
"stemie",
"terith"
],
"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
} |
98685 | How to fry ground beef so it is well-browned
I have been using a propane torch to brown up the ground beef at the end of frying it on the pan, but there must be better way that does not involve the torch; can it be done? Here's what I currently do (before utilizing the torch):
Heat pan on high, until sizzling hot.
Lower heat to medium-high and add fat (duck fat)
Lay down the ground beef
Begin breaking it down to small pieces
Stir constantly as I break it down
Stop when no pink pieces remains
Note that I stir constantly, and leave no large pieces on the pan.
At the end the beef is still gray, and not the dark brown color I desire; which is why I use the torch to finish it up.
Is this the end of the cooking process, or just the beginning - are you going on to cook it into a sauce? If so, this may be of interest - https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/96655/42066
Having browned ground beef many times, I'm convinced that stopping when there is no pink is literally stopping before it's brown. You just have to keep going until grey turns to brown. That's all there is to it.
Beef is already so fatty - not sure why you would add duck fat.
@ToddWilcox has it spot-on. You're overthinking this. Once all the pink is gone, you have to keep going (about 3 more minutes). Just keep cooking it until it's brown, and don't stir as much. Stir maybe once or twice a minute.
the thing is, you can only do a small amount of ground beef at once - you have to do it in batches
@JPhi1618 so that it does not stick to the pan (besides extra fat is good on the carnivore diet)
Here's my method. First, rub a well-seasoned cast iron pan with a light coat of oil and heat until the oil is just starting to smoke (400+ºF/204+ºC). Outside of the pan, break the ground beef up into large meatball size pieces, around 2 inches (5 cm) in diameter. Cook only a couple of these meatballs in the pan at a time. For instance, in my 10 inch cast iron pan, I cooked 2 at a time as shown in the image below.
When you place them in the pan, use your spatula to smash the meat down so that it's about 3/8 inch (1 cm) thick. Let it cook for about 1 minute, then scrape your spatula underneath it, being sure to capture all the browned bits, and flip it over to an adjacent spot on the pan that is still hot. Press down and cook for another minute. The end result should be a patty that is well-browned on the outside while still pink on the inside.
You can then break these patties up into a normal ground beef consistency.
What you absolutely do not want to do is throw all of the ground beef into the pan and break it up. Using too much meat and breaking it up greatly increases the surface area of the meat that comes into contact with the pan, resulting in a massive drop in the temperature of your pan. Constantly stirring the broken up meat would make things even worse. By stirring it up, you're constantly bringing colder parts of the meat into contact with the pan, which will rob even more heat. It's also less likely you'd be able to ever recover the amount of heat necessary to brown the meat without also driving out all the moisture in the meat at the same time, making it overly dry (especially ground round).
The "mini-smash-burger" method outlined above because it minimizes the amount of meat that comes into contact with the pan at one time, and the cast iron pan is always able to recover the minimal heat loss that occurs while cooking each meatball/patty.
I tried this and it worked out quite well (I used a 12" All Clad steel pan, and made 2 patties from 1 lb of meat; waited until two sides were browned well; and then crushed them on pan at the very end). More oil splatter than usual, though.
Thank you for your answer. Just finished eating my fried ground beef; it was delicious!
Use a bigger pan...or much less beef in the pan. Stop stirring. If you over crowd the pan, nothing will brown. It will steam, then braise because the water can't evaporate fast enough. Secondly, browning happens when an item remains in contact with the pan. So, stirring (unless you are using very high, wok-type temperature) will only defeat the browning process. Allow it to brown, perhaps longer than you think is necessary, then stir, and repeat.
If it's high fat, it might be sitting in a pan of fat, too.
I've found sometimes all I need is a good brown on one side to get the flavor into a dish.
It also helps if the meat has less water in it to begin with---in that case you can handle a bit more quantity relative to your heat source.
If you get a lot of liquid from the meat, whether water or fat, removing some of it helps (spoon or pour). You don't need to add much fat to start with, just enough to stop it sticking.
Cooking it in two batches can help (as can a bigger pan but only if you've got one and can deliver enough heat to it). I found that quickly breaking it up as soon as it was in the pan was a good idea (in my case using a wooden spatula in one hand and something else in the other). After that it was possible to be more patient and let it brown, just breaking up the few residual big lumps.
On my stove with my pans I'd also leave the heat on full at least until the initial breaking up was complete. Adding chilled meat takes a lot of heat out of the pan, and you can't really get it up to room temperature before cooking (the surface maybe, but the middle will be cold when the surface has been too warm for too long and it's mostly middle). Even room temperature isn't much warmer than chilled, when compared to frying temperatures.
So if you aren't concerned with cooking the meat until it's well done, you can continue with your current approach and evaporate all the water off, and then at that point turn the heat down to low or med-low and then let the beef sit in contact with the pan for a while to brown, then stir/flip it over. You can do this for as long as you want, eventually the meat will dry out but then if you stir in a sauce it will reabsorb and have nice flavors from the browning.
If you want it crispy and not too well done, then pat out out the ground beef into thin patties (put a hole/depression in the middle to help keep them thin if you don't have a grill press) and dry them with a towel or paper towel. Then toss in hot pan with heated oil and let brown away if you use nonstick pan you can check the browning as it progresses. If you use steel/aluminum the meat will stick as it browns but will eventually release. The trick with that is to have the heat low enough to still brown but not too high where it will burn before the internal meat is cooked. Flip over and repeat, then if you want to chunk it up do that last with heat on med/high.
When I do ground beef I usually add the ground beef in the shape it arrives where I am (slightly prismatic block). If I got it at the butcher's as a "pile" - I'll manipulate it slightly into something prismatic-like. I make sure to - on an experience basis - not add too much at once - I'll cut it in half and do it twice if I consider the total amount of beef to be too much. The reason is skillet temperature and water content of the beef - don't overcrowd the pan. The pan needs to be hot and the water needs to boil off faster than it can accumulate.
Now, I let the beef sit there and braise on the bottom side and not touch it for at least a minute. I flip it over, repeat. Now, I start chopping the beef up into smaller pieces, then put their red sides down, and do another wait. I chop those pieces into even smaller pieces and by now I usually shake the pan and stir around to just check that there are no pink/red surfaces left.
If at any point there is too much water in the pan, or the pan seems too cold to get the good result I note that down and add it for future reference; it is better to do it correctly twice than end up with boiled ground beef.
To sum up:
Don't cook it all at once, do batches
Don't cut it all up at once, cut it up when you need fresh surfaces to fry
Let the beef fry, don't stir for no reason at all.
In addition it is easier to get a good result in a good pan, the heavier the less susceptible you are. It is easier with a good oil with a high temperature - but don't overdo it, there is no reason to go all in - it is actually perfectly doable with butter alone, believe it or not. Some rapeseed oil or similar mixed with butter is what I do.
I actually saw a video on this recently. The reason that a lot of times ground beef doesn't get that browned look is because people take it out too early. You're supposed to let it cook until all the water has evaporated, then keep frying.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.012366 | 2019-04-25T23:50:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/98685",
"authors": [
"Fattie",
"GdD",
"JPhi1618",
"Rob",
"Sridhar Ratnakumar",
"Tetsujin",
"Todd Wilcox",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69371",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7202",
"mmw",
"user91988"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
17431 | Is my food spoiled after a power outage?
My power went out for about 20 hours today, from 1am to 9pm. I'm wondering if the food in my refrigerator and freezer are spoiled.
Here's some info:
High temperature was about 100F outside, but only reached 90F inside. Fridge and freezer had no power the whole time, but I didn't open them at all while the power was out.
The items I'd be concerned about:
Fridge: Milk (opened), eggs, cheese (pre-packaged, but opened), bacon (opened)
Freezer: sausage, ground beef
Actually, the ground beef stayed frozen, but the sausages are now soft.
Left to my own accord, I'm inclined not to throw anything out, but I figure I should check with the experts on this site first...
I had a similar issue just recently, where my apartment lost power for twelve hours before being restored. With the doors closed for the entire time, the temperature raised only a few degrees, even the milk had no difference in taste, with it only being cool as opposed to cold like usual. Like yourself, it was also at the peak of summer.
Fridges are usually pretty well insulated (as they'd have to be, or else the motors would never stop running to keep cool during the peak of summer), so outside of the eggs, if it was never opened, I wouldn't be too concerned. I only put a caveat on eggs because as someone that cant' stand eggs, I never buy them, and hence have no knowledge of how susceptible to temperature changes they are.
EDIT: Personal opinion. Do not take this as a green light to start making bacon omelettes with a big heaping glass of milk today.
Thanks! Although, most of my food was open. Do you think that makes a difference?
Probably not enough to notice. I'd give the milk and eggs a smell test to be certain though. The bacon, well that'd be cooked, and if the ground beef is frozen, your freezer contents would be fine I'd say.
This answer sounds about right. If you have an instant-read thermometer handy, I'd temp-test some things (beverage, and any meats you think are questionable) to make sure they're not too warm. But, the safe bet is that most of the fridge contents didn't get out of the safe temperature range of 40-140F... or didn't get out for long.
Simple test: if the frozen stuff is still frozen solid (hard on the outside), it's still good
It's freezer life may have been shortened slightly, but it won't have spoiled
Sounds to me like an excuse to make a big breakfast casserole today. Then you won't have to worry about the life of your stuff, because it will be gone.
I approve of this message, and wish to subscribe to your newsletter
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.013032 | 2011-09-03T03:53:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17431",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Jeff",
"Tina",
"canadiancreed",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7217",
"jrrk",
"nitzanms",
"sheila"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
17248 | Are smoked pork chops from the butcher safe to eat without any further cooking?
I bought a smoked pork chop from the butcher yesterday, and assumed I would cook it like any other pork chop, but after looking at it, it seems like it may be edible as is. The appearance is close to that of a cooked ham.
I saw some suggestions online about using it in soups or as breakfast meat, but nothing mentioned just eating it fresh from butcher.
Ask the butcher.
OK - for my bona fides, I'm a microbiologist and have made a career of quality control in food processing including meat processing so I know what I am talking about.
There are two kinds of smoked pork chops, cold smoked and hot smoked. Cold smoked pork chops aren't heat processed, so they aren't cooked. They have the redder color and the more resilient, moister feel of raw meat. You are only apt to run into them in specialty meat markets or at small local butchers. These need to be cooked to 145F to be safe and palatable to eat. What you find in the grocery store and most meat markets is almost always hot smoked. It is heated during the smoking process and is fully cooked, just like a smoked ham. It looks and feels to the touch liked cooked meat. That sounds like what you have. If you aren't sure ask the butcher or meat department manager. They should know. If they don't, buy your meat elsewhere.
Having said all that, it is common to find the smoked pork chops in the meat case right alongside the raw pork. Being exposed to raw meat undoes the kill step the heat of cooking does to foodbourne microorganisms. Salmonella, e.coli and other organisms are easily transferred from utensils, trays and workers hands back onto the cooked meat. This could be done in the meat case, or in wrapped product it could happen in the back room where the chops are cut up and wrapped. Organisms that find their way onto the meat quickly grow and spread over the meat's surface and may find their way into the interior of the cut through any break in its surface. Unless you are certain it has been factory wrapped, sealed and labelled rather than in the store you should treat it as raw meat and heat it to 145F before serving. At the least be sure the surface of the meat has been seared before serving. I just don't trust the expertise and commitment to providing safe foods you are apt to find in a grocery store or butcher shop. On the other hand, if it looks like it came from a factory already sealed in plastic wrap I would feel certain it was processed on a line that only processes cooked meat and is promptly sealed. I would have no qualms about eating it cold right out of the package.
It is "probably safe" but (IMHO) not worth the risk.
The chief "scare" for pork is a condition called trichinosis (or trichinellosis). There has not been a case of this disease reported to the Center for Disease Control from commercial pork since 2001. Assuming your butcher received the chops from a reputable commercial source then you it should be 'ok'. If the source was wild hog then there is some risk.
Personally I would just as soon grill it up than take the chance, but you should know that smoking is not considered an adequate safeguard.
(your profile does not say where you are, so if you are outside the US, your mileage may vary)
I'm in Michigan. As for cooking them, grilling them to the standard safe temperature the way to go (i.e. 145 F)? I sent the store an email too, so I'll post back with what they say.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.013263 | 2011-08-29T03:05:09 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17248",
"authors": [
"Dev",
"Dolan Antenucci",
"Eos Pengwern",
"Patt",
"Sunit Gautam",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37027",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95674",
"rfusca",
"user47759"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
37282 | Any suggestions on caps for Bakers and Chefs plastic squeeze bottles?
I purchased some Bakers and Chefs clear plastic squeeze bottles, which do not come with caps; however, there is a ridge about 1/3" down on the bottle, suggesting that they're intended to work with a cap.
Some of the reviewers on Amazon mentioned using foil, as well as some plastic cap they found in hardware store. I'm hoping to find something that fits well and ideally can be ordered online.
Anyone have any suggestions?
Here's what I ended up using, which I picked up from Home Depot in the Hardware aisle. It fits quite snug, and cost about $0.60 for pack of 2.
WARNING: no guarantees this cap is safe for food. Use at your own risk (even though it is molded plastic, the dyes and treatment process may make the plastic prone to leaking chemicals)
While it is probably extra paranoid to bring up, for the benefit of others who read this, are those made of food-safe plastic?
@SAJ14SAJ What mold-able plastics aren't food safe??
@TFD I think the assumption has to go the other way; and even if the plastic components themselves are food safe, are the die treatments and everything else used in its production?
There's probably no chance the manufacturer will make any safety guarantees. Great point to bring up, and definitely one people should consider! I'll add a disclaimer to my answer
I've been searching for a while. I use my squeeze bottles for various things, and the tip caps are helpful. It keeps royal icing from drying out, and prevents leaks when shaking up a bottle of vinaigrette. Here's what I found:
http://www.usplastic.com/catalog/item.aspx?itemid=91498&catid=536
http://www.dharmatrading.com/tools/squeeze-bottles-yorker-spouts-and-caps.html
Also worth mentioning (in case of link rot) -- both of the sites you linked to call that style of squeeze bottles 'yorker spouts'.
The product you link has the cap in the picture.
The idea is that you cut off the tip on the apex of the cap to the point where it is the width of your desired opening.
You could use an uncut cap, or just cover the tip with foil if you need to refrigerate for some time. The kind of things put into a squeeze bottles are rarely highly perishable, so simply placing them in refrigerator (for a reasonable period of time) is a normal practice.
Squeeze bottles are not meant for long term storage. I certainly would not go to the trouble of special ordering caps.
Similar bottles will sometimes come with a little red or black plastic cap that covers the tip of the bottle after it has been cut. If the bottles you bought didn't come with these caps, I don't know that there's a way to get them separately. Occasionally a restaurant supply store will let you switch out bottle tops when buying the bottles, but other than that, I think you may be out of luck.
Frequently to close up the bottles overnight or between uses, you take off the screw top with the spout, place plastic wrap over the top of the bottle, and then screw the top back on. As SAJ14SAJ points out, bottles like this aren't really intended for long term storage and caps generally aren't a priority.
Edited to add: The restaurant supply store nearest my house now sells the caps separately. They are in a package of about a dozen, but very cheap.
Indeed on the not for storage. When I've left homemade hot sauce in those (refrigerated), it doesn't last very long, cap or no.
It seems like it would be good for items like soy sauce, oil, and vinegars. Thoughts?
They are good for sauces and condiments, but I usually only keep what I can use in a day in them and refill them from another container. I think they plastic they're made from is perhaps a bit more porous than a lot of other containers, they seem to pick up odors & such easily.
Crayola's Model Magic is non-toxic (with a lot of sites claiming it's food safe).
If you have access to that or similar clay, you could make your own cover, no matter the size.
(but I don't suggest raiding your kids' supply ... get a fresh container, use what you need, then let the kids get their hands in there)
You might find something useful at US Plastics, for example at:
http://www.usplastic.com/catalog/item.aspx?itemid=91498&catid=536
These are the whole twist-on cap, not just the snap-on tip but they are inexpensive.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.013688 | 2013-10-02T15:00:59 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37282",
"authors": [
"Dolan Antenucci",
"Dr. Zook",
"Holly",
"Joe",
"Liz",
"Mqjelsofjgnsm",
"Mr Mike",
"My Car",
"OllieB",
"Riley Chambliss",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SourDoh",
"SublimePrince32",
"TFD",
"forgivenson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87634",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87635",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87637",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89084",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98500",
"machinebaker",
"shawnz",
"thvs86",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
65723 | Shelf life of open jarred anchovies and anchovy paste in the fridge?
I like having anchovies in some form or another around, and whenever I buy them (in paste or jarred form), I end up with extras and store them in the fridge. Searching around on the Web has a mix of opinions on their shelf life, with some saying days or weeks, and other saying months or years. The longer recommendations attribute the jarred anchovies lasting longer because of the oil ("as long as they're completely covered") and the paste being safe because of the salt, along with metal tubing not allowing air to ruin it.
These seem like reasonable claims, but I'd prefer a bit more information on this. Thanks!
I would assume there is enough salt content to render these fairly stable in the fridge. I would just avoid fingers in the jar to avoid any potential surface contamination. In the long run, I would go with whole, salted anchovy, which have an indefinite shelf life. I keep an 800 gram can (opened, but covered with foil) in the fridge, using one or two anchovies at a time. It lasts me 8 - 12 months easily.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.014075 | 2016-01-22T22:19:02 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65723",
"authors": [
"Alma Lowry",
"Andy S.",
"Brenda Reinhardt",
"Jaswinder Virdee",
"Val De Leon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157187"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
24714 | What is the 'best' flour to use for brownies?
Cake, Bread or AP? My goal is a 'chewy', 'moist' brownie. I have always used AP in the past, but am wondering if an alternative flour might improve the final result.
Short and sweet... Use cake / pastry flour. At 5-7 % protein vs. 11% for AP vs. 13% + for bread flour, that means a lot less gluten formation. This protein, when mixed with water and subjected to mechanical working is what produces gluten. The higher the protein percentage, the 'tougher' (due to the gluten) the final product. Always use cake or pastry flour when making any type of cake, even brownies. And a little extra egg won't hurt, either.
DO NOT use cake flour--use all purpose. The lower percentage of protein in cake flour makes a "chalkier/crumbly" texture. If you're going for chewy/fudgy brownies, all purpose is the way to go! I actually made a batch today using cake flour, and was so angry at the result. I made a new batch using AP flour (to redeem myself), and it turned out wonderful!
I think the type flour used will have less of an effect than the amount, especially if your recipe uses lots of chocolate, butter, and eggs. My go-to Brownie recipe uses all-purpose flour (relatively little compared to the rest of the ingredients), and the brownies come out chewy and moist every time.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.014211 | 2012-06-27T17:44:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24714",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58396",
"oyilmaztekin"
],
"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
} |
34945 | Raw Eggs, Chocolate Chip Cookie Dough...And Freezing
I have often heard the warning that one should not eat raw chocolate chip cookie dough which contains raw eggs, due to the risk (however slight) of salmonella. (I should also say I have not always headed that warning...)
Recently I had made a batch of dough and didn't bake off all of it, but rather froze some of the dough for later use. When I pulled it of the freezer (and, of course, ate some of the yummy dough) I occurred to me that such freezing might kill any potential salmonella. I was able to find a couple of reference that suggest this may be the case, but nothing I would call 'authoritative'.
Will freezing chocolate chip cookie dough (made with raw eggs) reduce or eliminate the risk of salmonella from eating the raw, mixed, frozen, then thawed eggs?
As quoted in the New York Times:
Freezing does not kill the bacteria in food, as can be seen from the
recent outbreak of salmonella poisoning involving an ice cream
product, said Dr. Robert Gravani, professor of food science at Cornell
University in Ithaca, N.Y., and a food safety expert.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.014351 | 2013-06-26T04:26:39 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34945",
"authors": [
"Bernie Meszaros",
"Giovanni",
"Haniya Ahmed",
"Matthew Erwin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81518",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81519",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81520",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81521"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
8094 | Substituting table salt for kosher salt when brining chicken
How much regular table salt should I use when brining chicken pieces?
I don't have kosher salt, just regular iodised table salt. Does this really make a difference? I thought salt was salt.
Additionally, I have never found non-iodised salt for sale in South Africa. There is, however, a big fad in "Himalayan Crystal Salt" at the moment in South Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himalayan_salt). Would this be better to use?
If you can find canning or pickling salt, it's not iodized (and has no other additives, unlike some kosher salts), so won't contribute any off flavors that roux mentioned.
However, the different grain sizes will be a problem as they pack denser, so based on a chart from Marton's salt that ManiaxZX linked to in discussing differences in salts, they'd recommend cutting the salt by 20% when changing from kosher salt to table salt to canning/pickling salt.
In the U. S. it is also possible to find non-iodized table salt. My favorite grocery store brand's table salt doesn't contain iodine. This may be possible elsewhere.
As roux suggests in his comment, all that really matters is the weight. You want about 30 grams of salt per liter (or quart) of brining liquid for a weak brine, which is what you should do if you're starting out with brining. For table salt, that's about two table spoons; for kosher salt, it's about four.
Table salt weighs about twice as much per unit volume as kosher salt. So if you only have access to table salt and a recipe calls for kosher use half as much (unless it is asking by weight) then it should be the same but make a much smaller pile.
Iodized salt does taste a tiny bit funny it's true, but many people can't taste the difference. For brining a chicken iodized table salt will work just fine. If you've never encountered un-iodized salt you are extremely unlikely to notice the "off flavors" others have mentioned.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.014482 | 2010-10-14T07:51:49 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8094",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"justkt"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
22626 | Are there different styles of tahini?
I've recently started frequenting a Middle Eastern restaurant. They provide a sauce with their shawarma that they swear is tahini, but I've never tasted any like this.
Most tahinis I've had are about the texture of natural peanut butter, are some shade of brown, and contain nothing but ground sesame seeds.
The tahini at this restaurant is a thin white sauce seasoned with garlic and some kind of spices. I politely asked a waiter if they weren't maybe confusing tahini with tzatziki, but they say no. It's a small family-owned place, and they will not share their recipe or even give a hint as to what's in this sauce.
I've googled tahini, but have not really found anything (either recipes or store-bought products) that resemble this. Is it some heretofore-unknown variety of tahini, and if so, what is it called?
I am pretty sure I have seen a tahini like the one you describe. I don't know names for different styles, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if there were variations. There are many different styles of salsa, different styles of humus, and many other sauces, so I imagine there are different styles of tahini.
"Tahini Sauce" and "Taratour Sauce", which are sauces based on tahini, are often simply called "tahini". Generally the recipe is tahini, lemon juice, salt, and optionally herbs and/or garlic.
Example recipes:
http://mideastfood.about.com/od/dipsandsauces/r/tahinisauce.htm
http://chocolateandzucchini.com/archives/2009/11/simple_tahini_sauce.php
Thank you! I wasn't aware that "tahini sauce" was something different than tahini. That does sound like what they provide.
Yeah, it can be pretty confusing. I've even seen tahini and tahini sauce used interchangably in recipes.
The one delivered with shawarma is Taratour Sauce, it is basically made up of tahini, with some garlic, lemon juice, and if you like you can add some parsley. They usually add some water to make it thin white.
You can make using tahini many kinds of sauces, like the chickpeas sauce, which is prepared by smashing the chickpeas then add tahini and garlic and lemon juice.
Everything could be prepared from tahini and lemon juice and garlic, and it will give a nice taste.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.014650 | 2012-03-29T01:03:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22626",
"authors": [
"Bill Frasure",
"EmmyS",
"FrustratedWithFormsDesigner",
"FuzzyChef",
"Jane Doe",
"Lionel",
"Madam Polo",
"hotips",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50984",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50987",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7185",
"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
} |
18026 | Can you freeze jalapenos?
It's getting colder outside and I have a lot of jalapenos in my garden. I like eating them fresh (not cooked) on homemade tacos and omelets, etc.
If I freeze them and thaw them out later in the winter, will they still be as spicy and crunchy, or does the freezing and thawing take some flavor away from them?
I have a whole freezer full of jalapenos - so yes, you definitely can.
They definitely retain their heat just fine.
They keep their texture better if you do 2 things:
Use a vacuum sealer and take out all the air - to reduce freezer burn. Because of this, I recommend you freeze them in batches.
Blanche them for 2-3 minutes in boiling water and then drop them in freezing water. From what I've read, this destroys a particular enzyme that helps not break the pepper down further. I've done this and not done this - and doing it definitely helps on the texture.
They should be good for a little over a year in a vacuum sealed bag - as far as the texture goes. They should never go bad otherwise.
Cos and Sobachatina - bring up another good point: freezing fast and effectively. You can try AB's method that Cos points out, but I do what Sobachatina does. Freeze on a single layer on a tray in the freezer. They freeze quicker and better than dumping them in a bag.
I have never applied [Alton Brown's flash freezing] technique to peppers but think that it might improve the texture without blanching. What are your thoughts on this? could it help preserve the raw jalapeno?
http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/alton-brown/frozen-strawberries-recipe/index.html
I'm not familiar with blanching. Does blanching them cook them?
Anything that I freeze I lay in a single layer on a pan and freeze in the chest freezer before bagging. They sustain far less damage this way and also don't freeze together into a solid mass. @CosCallis- This is essentially what AB is doing. Freezing faster is always better as ice crystals will stay smaller.
@Sobachatina that is what I was getting at, I just wasn't sure it would apply to peppers in the same way it does strawberries. Thanks for the input.
A tip from a friend of mine works great if you only want to use your jalapenos for cooking!! Chop them up and push them into an ice cube tray. Top up with a tiny bit of cold water and then freeze. Once frozen take them out of the tray and put into plastic bag. To use just take as many cubes as you think you need and just throw them into whatever you are cooking
I like the quick freeze tray technique. Thought I would re-mention that you also get a more uniform spice level by mixing lots of these together after dicing and before storage.
Yes you can, you just have to take out all the air out by using a vacuum sealer to reduce freezer burn. In this way you can freeze them for a long time and you should freeze them in batches.
Hello! Your message got flagged as spam. It actually does provide an answer if we take out the link, and the link is not really necessary, so I think it can stay here without the link, instead of deleting it outright.
If you don't have a vacuum sealer I use a drinking straw and suck out most of the air from a freezer baggie before sealing.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.014862 | 2011-09-26T23:07:57 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18026",
"authors": [
"Charlotte Stewart",
"Cos Callis",
"Elle",
"LarsTech",
"Leanne Lee",
"N. Nguyen",
"Sobachatina",
"TJ Kemball",
"Teresa Ingram",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132652",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132653",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147628",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98688",
"rumtscho",
"thaimin",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
16808 | How to prepare chanterelles?
I always find myself buying chanterelles because I really like them when I eat them somewhere where the chef knew what he/she was doing. I always end up with an inedible mess -- or at least something that is significantly less tasty than what I expected.
Clarification: I'm not looking for a recipe that uses chanterelles, but the basic technique to prepare the mushrooms themselves.
What exactly is inedible or messy about your chanterelles? Maybe you could give an example of a recipe that uses them but doesn't work for you?
They mostly end up as either a pulp or too rubbery. Again, I am not talking about a specific recipe but about the chanterelles themselves: the consistency and taste seems to be hugely different from what I know can be done.
Yep, I know you're not talking about a recipe, but in order for people to help you out, it often helps to know what you're doing. It sounds like advice on how best to fry/saute them is what you were looking for - but I've certainly heard of people cooking them in the oven too.
Ah, I see. Yes I was thinking about frying them, but I am certainly open for suggestions!
The basic technique that I've found effective is to "dry fry" them in a pan to allow water to cook off before adding any other wet or fat ingredients, including oil or butter. If you skip this step, you'll often end up with a bit of a rubbery texture. I recommend cooking them in a small cast-iron pan, but a nonstick pan will do.
I usually season with little more than shallots and/or garlic, plus butter, salt and pepper. But I always add the butter after a fair amount of water has been extracted from the mushrooms and cooked off.
Chanterelles seem to have a lot more water than most other mushrooms. I haven't verified that scientifically, but I tried following the same technique with button or small crimini mushrooms, and little to no water comes out in dry frying. (Large crimini mushrooms, also called portabella mushrooms, will give off a fair amount of water when roasted, but nothing quite like fresh chanterelles). Shiitake and even oyster mushrooms don't give off much, either.
I just ran a quick test with 3 pieces of different sizes, and it seems they're getting better, the more you deprive them of water. Perhaps I didn't use to fry them enough, and with too much liquid.
I'll just add that you shouldn't fry too many mushrooms in one go or you'll be steaming them rather than dry-frying.
Dip them in an egg wash (milk/egg) followed by a dredge in flour seasoned with salt and pepper. Deep fry until golden brown. Delicious!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.015171 | 2011-08-11T12:30:27 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16808",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Kavin Eswaramoorthy",
"Momster33",
"Ruth Robertson",
"bitmask",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35886",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35892",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85328"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
18502 | What is the best way to store fresh berries?
I have been buying fresh berries from the store on the weekends, and am looking for the best way to make them last throughout the week for use as either a snack or as a component for salads.
The blueberries last the longest, and I can usually salvage enough by Thursday or even Friday, but the blackberries and raspberries seem to either get moldy, or turn to mush, before Wednesday is over.
I've been storing them in the refrigerator in the plastic vented clamshells they come in.
Is there a better way of storing them that will extend their shelf-life another 1-2 days or more?
Blackberries and raspberries are highly perishable. Still Tasty gives 'em 2-3 days without freezing
Add to @Joe 's comment: If you're going to not freeze the berries, make sure to check them every 12 hours as they rot really fast. Get rid of the bad ones as soon as you can. Also with berries, if they look shady but not moldy yet, they make for not bad juice
Unfortunately the absolute best way to store them longer than their normal life is to freeze them, but then they won't be what you want for snacks or salads.
Related: How to keep fruits and vegetables fresh.
Store them unwashed. Take out any "bad" ones. I've had decent luck adding some paper towels to wick away extra moisture that seems to speed up the spoilage. Martha Stewart suggest going even further and spreading them out on paper towels on a sheet pan. I have no idea who keeps a fridge empty enough that they can store full sheet pans in there, though.
I've never tried this, but someone suggests washing it lightly in vinegar/water. *shrug*
Then of course, wash and freeze them spread out on a sheet pan (to make it easier to separate later). I assume this isn't what you want to do, but it is very effective, depending on how you plan to use them.
Most fruits, a few days:
Use kitchen towel to dry them (don't wash)
Line a sheet pan with kitchen towel
Spread them so they don't touch (any mold on one berry won't spread)
Refrigate
Fragile berries:
Put the pan in an inflated plastic bag (so the bag doesn't touch
the berries)
If you see any mold on some berries, you can delay mold formation on the other berries like this:
Discard the berries with mold
Heat a pot of water to 52 degrees Celsius
Immerse berries for 30-45 seconds
Dry them
I've had really good results with special "breathable" plastic bags designed to let ethylene gas escape. The ones I'm using now are made by PEAKfresh USA. These work particularly well with strawberries.
Apparently some retailers are catching on and prolonging produce shelf-life through ethylene absorption.
Yes. Generally don't ever cover fresh fruit in non-breathable bags (even paper) unless you're trying to ripen it.
Fenugreen ethylene absorption papers work great for my berries.
Wash them in a solution of 10 parts water to one part white vinger. This will kill any bacteria. Lay them out to dry or line a lettuce spinner with paper towels to dry. Store them uncovered in the frig.
White vinegar is usually on the order of 5% acetic acid; diluting it by a factor of 10 will leave it as less than 0.5% acetic acid. Is there some evidence that this is strong enough to "kill" bacteria in any significant amount? A citation is warranted here.
FWIW, I've had good experience keeping strawberries fresh for 5+ days with a combination of a diluted vinegar and ethylene absorption. Haven't done A/B tests but I've read the vinegar tip elsewhere. Here's a Lifehacker citation and discussion of the vinegar tip.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.015407 | 2011-10-21T18:55:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18502",
"authors": [
"Adina Hoang",
"Callithumpian",
"Cascabel",
"Joe",
"Lakesha Smith",
"Nick",
"Ricardo cabriles",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"dassouki",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40057",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40077",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55015",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87",
"willem"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
62386 | Do pressure-cooked vegetables really have nothing else to give?
Yesterday, I watched an episode of Good Eats, where Alton Brown made broth by pressure-cooking mirpoix and beef for about 50 minutes.
At the end of that time, he discarded the vegetables, stated that they had "given their all," and citing (as proof) the significantly higher level of liquid post-cooking.
This seems to me like a waste. Do these vegetables have any value left (texture, nutrition, something)?
On the other hand, he also stated that the difference between soup and broth can be the addition of chunks of the ingredients.
After extended pressure cooking (or any liquid cooking, for that matter) the vegetables' cell walls (composed primarily of flavorless starch) have broken down to the point where they're barely holding together, and are basically mush. Most of the flavor and nutrients contained within those cells has escaped into the liquid at that point. There might be a bit left in the solids to extract, but very little practical way to do so.
It's probably more accurate to say that the vegetables have given up enough that they're unpalatable. You could eat them, but they wouldn't be anywhere as pleasant as fresh vegetables, and would offer little nutrition separate from the broth itself.
I suppose you could puree them (though you'd be turning flavorless, starchy mush into smoother flavorless, starchy mush) but they have little culinary value left. At most they would be filling, but probably unpleasant to eat.
On the other hand, if you look outside of culinary applications, they make great compost.
You could also use the purée as thickener for a stew.
They have fiber to offer and not much else. @NadjaCS that's an interesting idea, though I think it would be a slippery thickener, yeah? Maybe if it were in a darker gravy stew that's already got flour in it.
The problem is likely to be that they're already hydrated and won't absorb any more liquid, so their thickening ability would be pretty minimal.
Using them as filler for bread, vegetable patties etc could be viable...
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.015713 | 2015-10-08T17:47:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62386",
"authors": [
"Escoce",
"Gerald Moore",
"Louise Price",
"NadjaCS",
"Shirley Dicks",
"Suzanne Walters",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148280",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37179",
"logophobe",
"rackandboneman",
"sharon rees"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
25289 | Breaking down fruit with sugar and water for cookies
I just made some amazing date cookies. They were made swiss-roll style; you make the date-mixture, then spread it on a rolled-out layer of dough, and roll it; then refrigerate, and cut into 1/4-inch cookies.
Yum.
For the filling, the recipe required me to take two cups of pitted dates, and cook them on medium-low with half a cup of sugar, and a cup of water. As a result, the dates (which were dry, sticky, and very firm) ended up becoming a nice, sweet brown paste.
It occurred to me that perhaps I can apply the same method to other fruits. Does it work? Are there certain fruits (or classes/categories of fruits) that will break down well on a low heat with some water and sugar, and can hold their own inside swiss-roll style cookies?
Ideally, your answer should not be a laundry list, but some sort of general principle I can apply to any given fruit to figure out if I can use it or not. But a laundry list is okay too of which fruits will work well and which ones won't.
See also rumtscho's ongoing series of blog posts for ideas for more exotic things you could use.
The cooking technique to make the filling is basically the same as any compote or jam so I would say it would work well for most soft bodied fruit and other jam favourites.
You may have to modify the technique slightly to accommodate for fruit with higher water content to get the same spreadable texture: i.e. simmer the fruit in the sugar water until it starts to break down, strain and reserve the fruit and then either reduce the remaining liquid or only use a fraction of it and recombine with the fruit.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.016035 | 2012-07-27T02:26:14 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25289",
"authors": [
"Jeannean Churchill Ledford",
"Nate White",
"Susan Haren",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57854",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57859",
"o.comp"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
30808 | Should patina be burned (wok seasoning)
I just seasoned my wok for the first (three) times with vegetable oil. I noticed that the wok smokes a lot (as expected). What I find troubling is that the patina looks like it's blackened and burned.
To say that a different way, it seems like patina is essentially highly-heated, burned oil. Is that really what it's supposed to be? Am I supposed to "cook" it until it burns, or should I be stopping at some point prior to blackening?
(The wok is carbon steel, although I don't think that matters)
Howdy! The words "patina" and "seasoning" refer to different processes, and are not the same. Seasoning is buiilding up a coating of polymerized oil on cooking vessels, and is desirable; patina is selective oxidation of metals and is NOT desireable in cookware. If you use the right terms, you'll find more useful information online.
As long as the surface isn't rough (i.e. with burned-on bits of food) then yes, the patina should be a dark brown or black.
That's more-or-less what a patina is; it's essentially tarnish, the result of cumulative oxidation, which normally happens to some metals anyway but is accelerated by the rapid oxidation of oils via high heat.
If you end up with a slick, evenly-distributed black layer, then you've seasoned it perfectly. If it's streaky or splotchy then you need to start over by scouring it down.
(P.S. Carbon steel is different from, for example, cast iron, because the latter is porous and you'll never see that perfect black, just a noticeable darkening.)
Is it true here that, just like cast iron, bumpy/lumpy seasoning leads to cracking and uneven heating?
@ashes999: You mean uneven seasoning in a carbon-steel wok, as opposed to cast iron? It means that the wok isn't seasoned properly, which means food will stick to it. I've never seen "bumpy/lumpy" seasoning on cast iron, but cast iron cooks unevenly to begin with, so it doesn't make much difference there.
Seasoning is NOT "tarnish". No oxidation of the underlying metal is involved; if anything, you're protecting the metal from oxidation via a coating of polymerized oil. You're confusing patina (controlled oxidation of metal surfaces for decorative purposes) with seasoning, and they are not at all the same thing.
Also - my cast iron is jet black, my carbon steel only ever gets dark brown.
Brown or black patina is being made over time. At the beginning the layer of patina is very thin. If you burned the oil while seasoning, you probably put too much oil. You only need about half a spoon of oil for the inside and outside of the wok.
On the photo: new patina - cooking for one week.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.016220 | 2013-02-10T15:58:03 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30808",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"C Campbell",
"Connection Coach",
"FuzzyChef",
"Tetsujin",
"ashes999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72091",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72100",
"john scott",
"sapphire_slayer 2007"
],
"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
} |
15900 | Crisping Chicken Without Skin
Most of the recipes that call for crispy chicken mention that you must leave the skin on. That's what crisps.
Is it possible to make crispy chicken without skin?
Have you thought about oven fried chicken? The skin is removed and the meat is soaked in buttermilk with garlic and herbs for a couple of hours. Then it is removed and set to dry uncovered on a rack on a sheet in the fridge. Then it's floured, dunked in egg mixture and covered in seasoned breadcrumbs tossed with olive oil before being baked on a rack in the oven. No skin, uses good olive oil for fat, tastes great, even better than normal fired chicken IMO, and is super crispy.
It depends on how you define crisp.
You can definitely have a different texture on the outer side of a piece of chicken. In fact, you can't have the same texture as on the inside, unless you are making it sous vide. It will be browned, and drier than the inside. But you can't make it go "crack" when you chomp down on it. You can compare it to the outside of a good steak. So if you want the chicken to be crisp, you really need the skin.
If you don't insist on the chicken itself being crisp, and just need the texture, you can bread the chicken with breadcrumbs, or froth it with batter. Breading is the usual option and works well with pieces shallow fried in a pan, such as chicken breasts or boneless backs. If you are making a whole chicken, you'll have to be creative, and frothing may work better. In any case, a breading or batter cover needs fat to be crisp, so if you are removing the skin for the calorie content, you don't gain anything.
When in doubt, there's always breading and frying. It'll put a nice crispy layer on the chicken, and might be what they mean by "crispy chicken." I know "crispy chicken strips" are generally breaded and fried chicken breast cutlets.
Simply frying in deep fat will crisp the outside of the skinless chicken. However it has the draw back of making the meat dry and unpleasant to eat. Best done only with thin strips of meat that will cook quickly and so not dry out too much. If dealing with large bits of meat you can cook normally in an over or water then fry after in hot oil for a short time, just long enough to colour the outside, since the inside is already cooked.
In China they crisp chicken by covering it in a very thin layer of corn flour before frying. You want just the thinnest coating. Too much will make the chicken look like it's battered like KFC.
Crispy chicken can be made without skin as well.Soak chicken pieces in fresh milk for 2 hours.Then add salt pepper chillypowder and other spices of your choice.Beat an egg and mix it with corn flour.Dip the pieces in this mixture and then cover it with bread scrumbs and deep fry.
Actually this method of making crispy chicken works well when we use skinless chicken according to my experience.
Yes!
I just fried all the pieces from a whole chicken separately. I have a small 1 basket fryer.
I soaked in milk for 2 hours, dried, used coating: corn bread flour-pepper-sage-celery-thyme, rolled in that. Put an (unfrozen) thigh/drumstick in the fryer (350 F), after 7 minutes pulled it out, and let it "set" on paper towels. (You may want to put your basket in the hot oil first so food won't stick). For (2) wings I took 3 minutes, breast just about 14 min.
After I let it "set" the pink went away.
Was your chicken skinless or did it still have the skin on?
I usually just add salt and pepper to my skinless chicken and then heat my cast iron skillet until it's lightly smoking. Searing it on both sides gives me the crispy outside. It tastes close to fried chicken to me. :)
Soak in vinegar - 2 hrs.
Dry spray oil
Spices I prefer the warm spices
flour and cornmeal let sit in the fridge
An hour before frying set on the counter and fry in peanut oil
Finish cooking in the oven to not dry it out.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.016457 | 2011-07-02T19:37:57 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15900",
"authors": [
"Adam S",
"Cindy",
"Jenna C",
"Ted Feng",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33829",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33831",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33877",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4039",
"jpleboeuf",
"timshutes",
"user33830"
],
"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
} |
56758 | Is it possible to make souffles that rise without beating egg whites?
TLDR: Is it possible to make a souffle that doesn't have beaten egg-whites, but still rises? Leaveners don't seem to work.
Longer version:
I've never eaten "real" souffles (at a restaurant). I tried this recipe, which tastes great, but doesn't deal with beating egg-whites. This (beating the egg-whites into stiff peaks and folding) seems to be something of a fundamental or hallmark of souffles, which is credited to their rising.
The recipe's souffles don't rise much (not even out of the pan). I also tried a variation with baking powder, which had a negligible effect.
Is it possible to make a souffle that rises, without folding in beaten egg whites? Would baking soda work?
NB: these (from the recipe) are also not baked in a pan with water with them.
It's not that egg whites produce the rise, it's that they form a strong protein foam that captures air bubbles and which hardens upon heating, producing the airy texture. Leaveners will just produce more bubbles, not necessarily "capture" them in the same way.
@logophobe I don't know much about the science behind it. That's why I can't figure out the answer to this question myself. Are you suggesting there's no alternative that will act similarly?
I'm suggesting that it will be tough, and that you may want to update your question (or your searches online) to refine what you need.
@logophobe I tried to make it as clear as I could. Maybe you can suggest some edits to increase clarity?
TL:DR answer - not really. The beaten egg whites are an integral component of the souffle, forming both the rising action of the mixture (by capturing air within the protein network of the eggs) and and the structure. The recipe you linked to is more of a cake than a souffle, even using the creaming method commonly seen in cake production.
While other ingredients can capture air as well (such as the gluten formation from flour in a cake or bread), they change the nature of this dish so much that it's no longer recognizable as a souffle.
Adding baking soda unfortunately won't help in this particular instance as the rise caused by this is due to the carbon dioxide gas released. The souffles have that part covered with the air bubbles released during baking - what they need is the structure to trap them in.
I hope that helped to clarify!
Yes! I got this recipe from CBS Saturday Morning.
4 eggs
1 1/3 C heavy cream
1 1/2 C shredded sharp cheddar cheese
1 1/2 C grated Parmesan cheese
Mix all the ingredients in a blender over medium speed.
Pour into souffle baking dish (greased or not depending if the dish is non-stick).
Bake at 425 for 25-35 minutes or until a toothpick inserted into the center comes out dry.
Takes MUCH longer—at least 10 minutes and then we have to put it in the microwave sometimes. Top becomes really browned. Maybe use just 1 C of cream? (preferable) Or add another egg?
Yes, I don't see why this would not be possible. As someone pointed out above, the white does not serve as a leavener, but creates structure. Modernist cooking uses an array of ingredients that produce foams in a variety of ways. See here, for example: http://www.modernistcookingmadeeasy.com/info/modernist-techniques/more/culinary-foams-technique
Versawhip, for example, is a soy protein that has been treated with an enzyme. It can be added to a liquid and whipped into an egg white-type foam fairly easily. It can be used hot or cold. There are probably other options.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.016775 | 2015-04-17T21:00:27 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56758",
"authors": [
"Aisha Mawasi",
"Amy Keegan",
"Cazelyn Tagorio",
"Christi Emanuel",
"Evans Eglevor",
"Valerie Eastwood",
"ashes999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134977",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134978",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5714",
"logophobe"
],
"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
} |
20501 | What is the proper way to store steak at home?
When you buy steak from the market it is usually wrapped up under shrink wrap and the meat usually sits on top of a moisture absorbing pad. When you get it from the butcher, it is wrapped up in waxed paper and/or brown paper.
Once you get it home, if you're not going to eat it for a few days, what is the proper way to store it?
The reason I ask is that if I let it sit in the waxed paper for a few days, when I open it up, it looks slightly discolored on the surface, with a slightly slimy texture. I'm assuming that this is okay because I've cooked may steaks that looked like this and have not gotten sick.
Should I take it out of the packaging and have it just sit on a plate? Does this emulate dry-aging? Taking it out will definitely prevent meat from getting the slimy texture.
The discolored surface is a product of oxidation, the same thing that happens when you leave apple slices in the open air. Oxigen is a highly reactive molecule and it binds to anything it can find, in this case your steak.
It is not rotten or unsafe to eat in any way, it just has an unpleasant color/texture when raw. Meat packaging is often filled with carbon dioxide, and since the oxygen is already binded to carbon it no longer reacts with the steak. The side effect of this is that your steak could have gone bad, but it still looks good. The pad just collects any fluid that might drip off the steak, again for aesthetic purposes.
I'd suggest to remove the wax paper and shrinkwrap it, this will prevent it from oxidizing.
Is shrinkwrap the same as vacuum pack using those vacuum sealing machines?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.017076 | 2012-01-16T19:21:29 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20501",
"authors": [
"Ian",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45014",
"milesmeow"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
20198 | What's the functional different between a skillet and a saute pan?
I see that a skillet or a fry pan has sloped sides...for easy tossing. A saute pan has straight sides.
I see that a skillet/fry pan as more of a all-round pan to have...and if I complement it with a lid, I don't see why I would ever need a saute pan.
Am I missing something here?
Skillets are not designed to hold much liquid; as you point out, the curved sides are optimized for easy flipping and turning (i.e. with a spatula). They also normally do not come with lids; I'm sure there are some out there, but even my All-Clad skillets didn't.
You can really only use a skillet for high-heat searing or frying due to their low profile. Don't bother trying to poach or even shallow-fry in one.
Sauté pans, on the other hand, have more height, and usually do come with lids. They're a little heavier, and don't make it as easy to turn, but they can also be used for shallow-frying and moist-heat cooking methods like braising or poaching.
I've seen people make sauce or chili in sauté pans as well; sometimes they're more convenient if you're only going to make a small quantity, since the large exposed surface area (relative to a saucepan) makes it easier to reduce sauces. It's a no-brainer if your recipe starts out with sautéing garlic, onions, vegetables, etc., and then has you adding the liquid ingredients; if you have a large enough sauté pan then you don't need to bother transferring to a saucepan afterward.
I think you've got it backwards; of the two options, a sauté pan is definitely the more versatile option. I use both, but if I only had the space or budget for one, I'd choose the sauté pan, because it can do everything a skillet can do (just not quite as well) and many more things a skillet is useless for. A skillet is really only necessary for people who do a lot of pan-searing.
Note that as commenter Owen suggests, there are "French skillets" sold which have higher bases; these are not really skillets, and are not normally sold with lids, but assuming you can find or improvise one, they would make semi-decent multi-taskers. I maintain that cast-iron skillets, while taller, are not nearly as versatile due to their reactive material and weight - I only ever use mine for searing/grilling.
It's not necessarily true that skillets have low profiles these days. Many manufacturers are making skillets that have lids and a reasonable amount of depth to them. All-Clad markets them as "French skillets", for example. Lodge cast-iron skillets also have plenty of depth to them. So either skillets or saute pans could make a fine all-in-one, depending on how they're made. Keep in mind: the extra depth could make certain kinds of frying a tad more unwieldly, and look for pour spouts etc. in the rim of the pan that could compromise the effectiveness of covered cooking.
Hi @Aaronut. Do you want to incorporate Owen's comment that either a skillet with good depth plus a lid or a saute pan with a lid are both equally good multitaskers? I think that then I'll be able to mark your answer as the accepted one. :)
@Aaronut I've got the following pan, and do most of my cooking in it. What would you classify it as? I've managed to braise, sear, make sauce etc without problems. Would you say that is more a skillet, or more a sauté-pan? http://www.netonnet.se/ItemImages/hem-och-hushall/matlagning/grytor-och-stekpannor/tefal-jamieoliverpan28cm(163568)-Large.jpg
@Max: That's the "French skillet" referred to in Owen's comment and the last paragraph of this answer.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.017225 | 2012-01-05T17:58:08 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20198",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Laconic",
"MKII",
"Max",
"Owen S.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/189",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44312",
"milesmeow"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
32040 | How to prevent Orecchiette from sticking to each other while cooking? How to separate in water?
This shape of pasta easily nests inside each other. A lot of times if you just pour it directly from the bag/box into boiling water, you will get stacks of them together.
Once they are cooking this way it is a major endeavor to separate them. The pasta won't cook evenly because they are stacked together. The ones stacked in the middle will have more al dente centers.
How do we prevent this? (One way is to make sure they are separated before entering the water.
Once they start cooking and some of them are stacked, what is the best way to separate them?
Do you find the orecchiette are notably different than other pasta in their tendency to stick?
Their shape I think makes them pile together easily...
Well, I will press post on what I typed, and you can decide if it is helpful or not. I find that other than when shells nest inside of each other it has been very effective, but I haven't ever done little ears (cause I cannot spell that again).
I can say without a doubt that the orecchiette I've had (the Trader Joe's brand) are by far the worst pasta I've ever seen in terms of sticking. I think the shape is fun, but wow, if you give those things a chance, they'll just stack up and glue themselves together. Maybe there's a reason Wikipedia just mentions it as a homemade pasta shape.
Detail: what do you stir them with?
Adding your pasta to cold water before boiling it may help. You will need to stir more often overall, but the shells won't initially stick together as soon as you add them to the water, and then you can stir to prevent the sticking as they become softer.
Harold McGee in a New York Times column wrote this:
I prefer starting with cold water, because the noodles don’t stick together at all as they go into the pot, and because I don’t notice a difference in flavor once they’re drained and sauced.
What happens is that the starch on the noodles gets rinsed off in the water before it can gelatinize and stick to everything. So you will have to stir even before the water gets warm.
This works because it rinses the starch into the water before it can gelatinize and stick everything together, so be sure and stir before heating.
Just wanted to say thanks for this answer, for years I've had hit and miss results with orecchiette and last night I used this technique and they came out perfectly.
It's a kind of silly answer, but if all else fails, try a different brand. I've tried everything (including plenty of rinsing) on the Trader Joe's orecchiette, and never had much luck: they're smooth and identically shaped so they just stick anyway. But other brands have some variation in shape and ridges, so they can't stick as easily.
If you stir the pasta a couple of times in the first minute or so in the water, it should then finish cooking without undue sticking.
This is because the surface starches gelatinze and become gluey and sticky first, but are not yet dissolved into the water. At this early stage, it is easy for sticking to become permanent. If you agitate a couple of times before they can stick together, once the surface starch dissolves into the main body of water, the pieces won't be so sticky any more, and will tend to stay separate.
Hi @SAJ14SAJ. I tried that as well and for some reason this doesn't work for this pasta shape. This works for the other pasta shapes that I like...penne, farfalle, spaghetti, etc.
The problem is that orecchiette are similars to "sucker cups" and they will stick together.
Ah, the trick then is to use a mini-muffin tin. You set your oven to 400, and preheat the water so it is about 180 F. This will cook pasta just fine, as Serious Eats has shown. You then put one piece of pasta into each cup in the tin :-) :-) :-)
Are we really sure that "orecchiette" doesn't really translate to "little sucker cups"? That's my experience as well!
OK, I battled with this Shell Shapped Pasta inside each other for a couple years while using trial and error to try and identify a fix.
All my other pasta shapes are perfect everytime. (Gluten free still give me trouble)
Science helped work out why it was a problem. And why the solution is different for everyone.
Different Cookware and cook tops make the answer different for everyone.
Don’t do anti stick pasta techniques this just makes the layers slide into each other easier!!!!! Aaaarrrgggghhh
Different Brand is best option. Usually a physically larger shell will only be a 2 layer issue.
Smallest Aldi shell shape. Worst up to 4 and 5 layer in each shell.
And the shell sit inside shell occurance happens at end of boil and drain. So while
Cooking, everything looks ok, with very few layered. To complete disaster As they happily slide into each other with gravity assistance. And even more so if you’ve lubed your pasta with oils etc.
Washing the starch out of the pasta first doesn’t help, and makes pasta task wierd
If you don’t find the right brand that is consistently bearable.
Just use a different shape like bow ties or something.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.017525 | 2013-02-19T04:19:39 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32040",
"authors": [
"BillDOe",
"Cascabel",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Magean",
"Mien",
"Mjweinst",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sherry Murphy",
"Shoib memon",
"Stefano",
"Vikas Hanumegowda",
"aguilina123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12789",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73671",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73677",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73700",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73701",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7552",
"milesmeow",
"napolux"
],
"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
} |
28618 | Apple pie making...how to add the crumble crust on top of the mound of raw apples?
We made two apple pies for Thanksgiving. Both recipes called for adding a mixture on top of your apples to create a crumbly top crust for the pie.
Mixture one involved butter, flour, and sugar. (I cut the dry ingredients into the butter)
Mixture two involved melted butter, crushed graham crackers, crushed walnuts, and sugar
There was about 2 cups of each mixture.
Mixture one was stickier and had larger chunks due to the solid butter that we were working with. It was easier to add to the top of the mound of apples.
However, we found that it was almost impossible to pour mixture two on top of one of the pies. We couldn't contain all of that on top of the mound of apples. We essentially just mixed most of it into the apples and then poured the remaining on top for the crust.
Are there any suggestions for making crumple crust for apple pies? I guess one idea could be to add the crumble crust after the apples has reduced down a bit during baking.
Were the apples in the 2nd pie really mounded up? Is that why the topping didn't want to stay on the apples?
@KristinaLopez, yes...the apples were really mounded up. But they all cooked down and the final result was a fairly standard looking pie.
It's the 'melted' that's wrong there. You should use cool butter for crumbles. The idea is that the flour should coat the butter, but that the butter and flour don't become completely mixed.
Maybe you just needed a slightly deeper dish?
@BaffledCook ... +1 for suggesting not to melt the butter for the second crumble. Perhaps I can melt, mix and let it solidify again?
No, that's not how it's done. The butter has to be cool, otherwise it'll mix with the flour. You want to coat the butter with flour. "It is important that the butter is cold, or you will end up making more of a dough than a crumble."
According to the crumb recipe on the Epicurious Website, the crumb mixture should be the texture of wet sand and then packed down on the mound of filling:
1 cup all purpose flour
1/2 cup sugar
1/4 cup (packed) golden brown sugar
1 1/2 teaspoons ground cinnamon
1/2 teaspoon salt
6 tablespoons chilled unsalted butter, cut into 1/2-inch cubes
Blend first 5 ingredients in processor. Add chilled butter cubes;
using on/off turns, cut in until mixture resembles wet sand.
(After mounding the filling in the crust, pack topping over and around apples. Bake pie on baking
sheet in pre-heated 400-degree oven, until topping is golden, about 40 minutes (cover top with foil
if browning too quickly). Reduce oven temperature to 350°F. Bake until
apples in center are tender when pierced and filling is bubbling
thickly at edges, about 45 minutes longer. Cool until warm, about 1
hour. Serve with ice cream.
I accepted the answer because I think the technique of packing the topping around the apples is the key. I think I needed to pack it with my hands. I was spooning and pouring the loose mixture on top of the mound. :)
@milesmeow, thanks! ...and I learned about mounding the filling while researching this answer.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.017970 | 2012-11-23T20:31:11 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28618",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Frannie",
"G Platides",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Liz Estrada",
"Sharlene",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66434",
"john",
"milesmeow",
"vwiggins"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
22957 | How long do you have to cook wild morel mushrooms for them to be safe?
I have recently been given some wild black morel mushrooms. I know that you aren't supposed to eat them raw, as they contain toxins which must be cooked out (at least now I know that... good thing I only ate a tiny piece raw!).
However, how long should they be cooked to be safe?
I was thinking of sauteing them, which I am fairly confident will cook them "enough", but also of making them in omelets, or as a topping on pizza. Either of those could result in rather minimal heating (I usually make my omelets so that the eggs in the middle are still a bit wet).
Should I cook the morels first, and then add them as a pizza topping/omelet filling? Or is this overdoing it?
Honestly, in a case like this(and most food safety question in general) there is no such thing as overdoing it to insure you do not get sick from food. In your case, you know that it is toxic if it is not cooked enough so cooking it ahead of time and then adding it on to the omelet and pizza is definitely the route you should take.
I've looked through a number of recipes, and the vast majority of them indicate that you should cook the morels thoroughly (preferably in butter) first, before using them as a pizza topping or in an omelet.
I did find at least one recipe for a morel omelet that did not call for pre-cooking the mushrooms, however.
I must admit that I did my research a bit late, as I had already decided to risk it and made an omelet with morels, as I had not yet received any answers to my question.
I added the morels to the raw egg, rather than putting them in as a last-minute filling just prior to folding the omelet, so they did cook a bit during the process. The result was actually quite delicious (I also used some fresh garlic, chives, and Gruyere cheese), and I did not become ill.
However, it does seem that some people react differently, and alcohol consumption can greatly enhance any negative reactions to wild mushrooms.
Given the information I found on the Internet (none of it terribly authoritative, as the vast majority of quality information was on small sites maintained by wild mushroom hunting clubs and enthusiasts), I would not repeat my omelet without pre-cooking the mushrooms, nor will I make pizza without pre-cooking them.
The consensus seems to be that they should be sauteed once until "thoroughly cooked". At least one site (amid heavy cautions) specifies that this is usually 8-10 minutes, although I suspect that this is for intact mushroom halves, rather than small pieces (morels should always be sliced lengthwise to ensure that you can remove all the insects from the hollow center).
It needs to be stressed that even with the proper cooking, it seems some people have strong reactions to wild mushrooms, so use caution and moderation when trying them for the first time, and do not try them with any form of alcohol until you are sure that you can eat them without problems.
Edit: I misunderstood the original question. The answer below applies to a different variety of morel than the one the OP is asking about.
There are different types of morels. I am afraid I cannot advice you on exactly which type is which. The one that is poisonous is very common in Sweden. Its local name is "stone morel", but I have no idea what the variety is called in English. If you want to eat them you have to blanch them several times, cooking them for 5-10 minutes per "round" of blanching. And you need to throw out the water in between the rounds. Merely sauteing them will not kill the poison. Actually, blanching them will not kill the poison either, but most of it will be transferred to the water.
This particular type of morel is actually outlawed in Sweden now. It is that dangerous. This means that they cannot be sold or served at restaurants. However, it is not illegal for individuals to pick them and eat them themselves. Personally I eat them (they are absolutely delicious), but only after having blanched them three times and thrown out the water in between. However, I will never serve them to other people unless I know for sure that they know what they are getting into.
Sadly, the more you blanch them the more you dilute their flavour. But that is just a fact of life.
In other words, you cannot saute them raw. No way. If you absolutely want to eat them, blanch them in lots of water for 5-10 minutes, then throw out the water. Repeat for a total of three blanching rounds. After that you can use them like you would any other mushroom. My recommendation would be to sautee them in lots of butter with a little chopped onion, then adding a splash of amontillado sherry and some cream. Add salt/pepper to taste. Serve the sauce (and yes, it does deserve to be referred to as the main component of the dish) with a nice steak, medium rare, and some kind of potato based side dish.
Based upon your description, this must be a very different morel. The black morels found in the US are typically soaked in salt water to get rid of insects living inside them, and then sauteed in butter (with or without battering), and are not uncommon in high-end restaurants. The only indication I've found of concern is repeated warnings not to serve them raw, and one incident of a naive chef who served them raw in a salad, resulting in numerous patrons becoming ill.
Yes, they must be. Here is a google image search on the mushroom in question. Does this variety not exist in the US? http://bit.ly/Ixwffs
Oh, my. That looks nothing like the morels I've seen in the US. The most common ones in my area are the black morels.
Ah, I see. Those are "toppmurklor" over here ("top morels" in translation). :) The link is not working by the way, but I found plenty on google. Anyway, just disregard my answer. It is obviously not the same mushroom.
@HenrikSöderlund Yeah, those exist in the US in Michigan. They're Gyromitra Esculenta. They're usually listed as toxic in the mushroom guides, but my Grandfather picked and we ate them after soaking in salt water and cooking. He called the "Beefsteak" mushrooms, but that name is also used for other types of mushrooms, so it might not be the correct english name.
@Steve: Cool! I knew that they had to exist outside Sweden, I just could not find the English name. As for the toxicity, it is all a little exaggerated. If the instructions are followed very little of the toxins remain, and unless you eat them very often you will be fine.
Morel mushrooms have the toxin Hydrazine in them which has a boiling point of 237°F
Water can only get to 212°F and is NOT suitable for breaking apart the toxin, so just steaming or boiling will not work.
Olive oil has a smoke point upwards of 350°F and is suitable for sautéing Morels.
As long as they're not dried, mushrooms will not get significantly above 212°F when sauteed. Only the outside exceeds that temperature.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.018362 | 2012-04-11T17:54:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22957",
"authors": [
"Anna Kimbel",
"Beofett",
"Harry",
"Henrik Söderlund",
"Jay",
"Sneftel",
"SteakMaster",
"Steve",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51869",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51915",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51924",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7019",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"ironbutterfly",
"rubie",
"user51915"
],
"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
} |
25761 | How do I maximize the shelf life of my homemade hot sauce?
I am planning on putting this year's crop of hot peppers to use by trying my hand at making my own hot sauces.
I've never tried this before, but I've found a number of recipes on the Internet. However, I'm concerned about shelf life, and the variations in preparation methods that I'm seeing in the recipes are a bit confusing.
Some of the recipes simply call for mixing the peppers, some other vegetables (typically carrots, onions or bell peppers), seasoning (such as sugar or garlic) and vinegar. The mixture is then blended in a food processor, and is "ready to eat" with no cooking.
Others call for simmering the ingredients in vinegar prior to putting them in the food processor.
Yet others actually detail month-long fermentation processes.
Some of the recipes say the resulting sauce will last at least for a year. Others say a month or two.
Since the sauces will be too hot for anyone in the house but myself to use, I would prefer to extend the shelf life as long as possible. If it goes bad in a month, I'll wind up throwing away a ton.
What is the basic method I should use to maximize the shelf life of a combination of hot peppers (bhut jolokia or ghost peppers, if that matters), carrots, garlic, and possibly bell peppers, apples, or grapes (all alternative ingredients I am interested in experimenting with)?
What is the best way to store the results?
What is a reasonable expectation for a safe shelf life for the resulting hot sauce?
I suspect the blended ones would keep for quite a while (years) if frozen. But I confess, I've never tried freezing hot sauce.
For what it's worth, I have made hot sauces via all the various ways (just blended, blended + simmered, and long-ferment) and they all seem to keep just fine when frozen in batches.
Vinegar and sugar make good preservatives. Provided you use sterilised containers - place them in boiling water for twenty minutes, add the sauce, seal, then boil again for ten minutes - you should be fine. Store the bottles/jars in a cool place out of direct sunlight.
Avoid using oil during preparation, as you run the risk of introducing Botulinium into the mix. This would probably be neutralised by the vinegar, but it really isn't worth the risk.
As always, if the sauce smells or looks suspect when you come to use it, throw it out. Again, it's not worth the risk of food poisoning.
Botulism lives in the soil, so I'm not sure why only oil would introduce it? Especially if your hot sauce contains garlic, which is known to often contain spores. But most vinegary hot sauces easily are low enough pH to not worry.
Botulism also doesn't change the look or smell.
Botulism isn't the only reason a foodstuff can go bad...
I think you have to be careful about this - if you're not lowering the pH enough with the vinegar, it'd require pressure canning.
As a point of clarity: Sterilization of containers in a home setting is likely impossible as "sterilize" means "to eliminate (remove) or kill all forms of microbial life". The correct term for what you are describing is either disinfected or sanitized.
The more basic the recipe the greater the shelf life. I create and sell hot sauces here in Chicago for VK Urban Farms. We have a pure Ghost Pepper sauce that is literally Ghost peppers sautéed in vegetable oil and then processed with equal part vinegar. The 50/50 ratio ensures that nothing will ever compromise the integrity of this sauce. (within reason) I've noticed that the safety of hot sauces as with all sauces is directly relative to the variety and composition of the sauce. More fruits and sugars the greater the risk of spoilage without refrigeration. There is a chance of separation in some of the simpler sauces but this rarely affects the actual flavor and safety of the sauce. Give the bottle a good shake and enjoy.
I've used 50:50 peppers/vinegar for years without problems. Store the stuff on the basement steps for up to a year, still good. If a years batch is a bit thin, I'll cheat and add 0.1% Xanthan gum. That keeps the sauce from separating.
Salt... Salt has been used for thousands of years to preserve vegetables and cure meat. Vinegar does add further benefit to adding shelf life. As a matter of fact you'll find that these are two major ingredients in any big name hot sauce. Beyond this one could even employ canning methods to further the shelf life.
I recommend pasteurizing the sauce first. Read about it online. You need to get the temperature right for a moment and then put the sauce in glass jars to cool. (Like good old jam containers) Pasteurized sauces would have a shelf life of about three months if refrigerated. Also it depends on how sterile the jars are.
Also you need to treat the jars with sodium benzoate solution first. That kills the bacteria efficiently.
If you want maximum shelf life, then i suggest using sodium benzoate as a preservative. It is very effective. Just be sure to use the right amount of it. It wouldn't hurt lowering the ph a bit with vinegar but that isn't necessary at all.
Keep them refrigerated.
Sodium benzoate is one of the oldest preservatives and it's quite safe if you follow the dosage. At least if you get it right, your sauces could last one year in the refrigerator.
I have been making hot sauces for about 20 years. .....not much scientific knowledge going into it, but I have "seriously hot" mashes & whiskey hot sauces, wing sauces, etc. Some have been aging for more than 15 years. They get better w/ age. (most really old ones are refrigerated, never frozen). All have some vinegar, & salt. Early ones I would crush up vitamin C & dissolve out the C from the "pill" (ascorbic acid) for an added preservative. Canning sections of the store have benign preservatives which can be used. The only ones that last less than a year are mashes with little vinegar, & contain oil(usually canola). All are cooked. They will change color (lighten up) and start to lose their zing. I throw them out.
I believe that the success of these potions is that I will use only "perfect" specimens of pepper. If in question, cut open and look before ruining an entire batch. Over ripe (...or?) sometimes get mildew, or moldy inside even when they look pretty good on the outside.
But.......if you want to save ALL of your crop & do not want to process all as it is extremely time intensive?..........the one word answer is ....dehydrate! (but that is a whole new subject that is quite worthwhile for hot pepper growers) .....Oh...Hot Vodka, Hot Bourbon, & Hot Scotch...let them sit for at least a year before using.
Definitely trying out some hot scotch now... Thanks for the suggestions! I only use "perfect" peppers. I've gotten better in the past 4 years, but I still have a lot to learn.
If I wanted preserved hot sauce, I would buy Sri Racha from the supermart.
However, I prefer fresh chili mix. The taste and texture is totally different. And you don't have to flood it with vinegar to destroy the freshness of the taste. As long as you refrigerate (not warmer than 38F and not near the door) as well as consume within 2 weeks.
If you indeed have a garden full of chilies you needed to process - use as much vinegar as suits your taste not the preservation - I think deep freezing them in sterile containers should last them at least 3 months. I don't think you should freeze them longer than 6 months.
It should also depends on whether you cook your chili mix after blending. I prefer mine fresh and uncooked - that's why I trust the freezing to last only two months. Therefore, I have no idea how long further it would last frozen if it had been cooked first.
If you are making fresh chilly sauce, you would have a combination of ginger, spices and garlic or even celery bits or chopped up cilantro mixed in after blending. The vinegar flood would destroy that delectable fresh mix scent and taste of the hot salad dressing.
Have that fresh chili dressing mix sandwiched between two slices of bread melted with cheddar. Yummmy. Or have you tried tortilla with fresh chili sauce? Vinegar flooding will destroy all that.
What you should do is, process the chilies, ginger, garlic and spices and freeze them. And even vacuum bottle them before freezing. When you need a bottle, after defrosting, then only mix in fresh chopped {celery/cilantro+sweet peppers+onions}, which would refresh the scent and taste of a forgotten frozen bottle of "fresh made" chili sauce/dressing.
If you don't mind oregano or sesame oil, you should mix them in before freezing. I have anecdotal feeling that oregano contributes somewhat to the preservation of the chilies. However, be warned, my experience is - ginger may acquire staleness of taste after long periods of freezing. But then, if you had flooded it with vinegar, you would not notice the difference.
I don't know why sesame oil ... let me check wikipedia: A-ha! wikipedia says
This is because it contains two naturally occurring preservatives, sesamol and sesamin.
My test of quality of fresh chili sauce is having it on poached salmon - too much vinegar, sesame or oregano and the ruined taste of the salmon would let you know. Too watery, it would mush up the salmon steak. To test the staleness, I think, but it may not work with everyone, that placing chili sauce (or any spoiled fluid) into the yolk cavity of a cooled hard-boiled egg seems to amplify any staleness of scent of the chili sauce to me. May be it's because I'm sensitive to changes in smell of egg whites.
Disclaimer is, I have never tried vacuum bottling so I do not know its effectiveness.
BTW, I have a bottle of toasted onions+garlic dunked in sesame oil, sitting in a cabinet at room temp behind me in my office for the last three months. It still tastes fresh every time I scoop a table spoon into my pasta.
Deterioration in the freezer is a matter of loss of flavor and texture, not food safety. The degradation can be greatly reduced if you freeze things airtight with as little extra air (room for frost) as possible, with the ideal case being vacuum packing as you mention. I'd be surprised if you couldn't make things last at least up until the next harvest season (almost a year), with a little care.
You may want to add some citations to your claims and save the dissuading until later in the post. Your answer is difficult to read because it doesn't seem to maintain focus on the question as it was posed.
I can't cite/find any academic studies on why I personally find vinegar ruinous to the flavour of my chilies. Or, why I love the scent of fresh chopped vegs that should be added at time of consumption. Or, why spoiled fluid added to egg white bother my smelling sense. I guess I am not too interesting a person to have someone study my culinary preferences so that I could quote that study here.
Boil your jarred chili sauce in the oven with the lids on at 270°C until the liquid boils. Watch it doesn't boil over and make sure you raise the heat gradually to save the jars from breaking. Do this for 4 minutes at 270°C and then place the jars in the fridge immediately. This sucks the tin lids down onto the jar. The chilli sauce lasts 3-4 months. Once opened consume within 3 weeks.
Putting hot glass jars directly into the refrigerator will likely crack them, causing a big mess with broken glass & is not recommended.
I've been using Chef Emeril's hot sauce recipe (from food network) http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/homemade-red-hot-sauce-3645026 for 5 years now with some ingredient modifications that do not alter the pH. (such as dried spices, variations of vinegar, and fresh horseradish) I only use peppers that have zero defects, no brown/black inside, etc. In my experience this sauce lasts for up to a year in the fridge easy.
Raise the acidity and reduce the water.
Garlic is antifungal. Rosemary and other herbs are preservatives.
Some microorganisms are friendly: research kim chee, miso, sauerkraut, and sourdough bread.
besides this being hard to read, I don't think that herbs are preservatives at all.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.019224 | 2012-08-21T13:51:20 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25761",
"authors": [
"Beofett",
"Cascabel",
"Cynthia",
"Debbie M.",
"Didgeridrew",
"Duarte Farrajota Ramos",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Fairy",
"GeraltofRivia",
"Jamie",
"Josie ",
"Lisa Cowburn",
"Matt Torchal",
"Michael",
"Mrsdavis",
"Ola Adeyemi",
"Tonio Liebrand",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"derobert",
"franko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137052",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59085",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59086",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59108",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7019",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81894",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94548",
"julie",
"mfg",
"rumtscho",
"thursdaysgeek"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
40728 | I want to invest in some hotel pans for home cooking, what size and quantities should I buy?
When I watch cooking shows and observe equipment in restaurant kitchens, I see a lot of different size hotel pans.
I see that various sizes can be used to hold sauces, hold mise en place, hold cooked product, etc.
What would be a good set to invest in? What sizes and how many of each?
Hotel pans are used in institutional cooking because they are already ubiquitous, because they fit in steam tables. Otherwise, they are are far from optimal for most purposes, or at least no better than common equipment you already should have. Why would you want to use them at home?
Part of it is that they lend themselves to organization. They are standardized around sizes and can fit into grids. I can see myself organizing food during prep, etc. Do you think it's overkill? I don't have to invest in the full size ones...those are way too big for home.
Then only you can answer what sizes you want for the use you are going to put them too, but I would suggest to you there are better alternatives for almost any home use case.
Hotel pans are primarily used in institutional settings because everything is already made to fit them. Steam tables, prep coolers, etc, are all made to fit hotel pans and their fractional sizes. While I agree with the comments that they aren't generally the best pan suited to many tasks, they are great because they are fairly inexpensive and can be stacked and nested so easily.
There are not, however, any specific sizes that you must have. Even restaurants only buy sizes that they need for specific tasks. For instance, I have worked very few places that had more than one or two full sized hotel pans, as those are usually only used as the water-holding layer of a steam table (or occasionally to do roasts and the like). Basically, get the sizes that you think you will use. For instance, if nothing bigger than a 1/2 pan will fit in your oven, don't get any full pans. If you primarily want them for refrigerated storage, only get the plastic cold table pans and lids in sizes that will fit in your refrigerator.
If you are primarily using them for storage, I'd highly recommend getting Cambro or Carlisle storage containers instead. They come in standardized sizes, have color coded lids, and nest neatly. They also have snug fitting lids, which hotel pans lack. The plastic cold table pans generally have loose lids that work in institutional settings for things that won't be stored longer than a few hours, but wouldn't be practical at home.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.020192 | 2013-12-31T05:47:41 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40728",
"authors": [
"Lauriellen",
"Owl Renard",
"Quint Stoffers",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94798",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94799",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94800",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94904",
"milesmeow",
"ravi singh"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
94587 | How to rescue 'dry' carnitas?
I made carnitas in a slow cooker. I did not get a pork shoulder/butt cut of meat to make the carnitas recipe. I used pork loin instead...and rubbed salt, pepper, cumin, oregano on the meat. I put onions, fresh squeezed grapefruit juice, & garlic. I cooked it for 8 hours on low heat.
After it was cooked, I shredded the meat a bit.
Even though the pork was cooking in its own juices, etc. the meat is 'dry', i.e. when I eat it, it doesn't have a nice mouth feel. Is it because the pork loin is not as fatty as pork shoulder/butt?
Now I have 4 lbs of 'dry' meat that I don't want to waste.
Is there anyway to rescue this? Do I just smother it in a lot of BBQ sauce, for example?
Any type of moisture is going to help the meat. Take a small amount out to taste with each of your tests. Whether you use BBQ sauce, the suggestion below by @Johanna, vegetable stock, or a (taco style) sauce(?)... definately do taste tests before you "fix" all of the meat.
It is the fat and connective tissue breaking down that give pulled pork the luscious mouthfeel you describe. Smothering it with barbecue sauce would probably help, but my favourite thing to do with leftover or less than successful carnitas is a pasta sauce. I just add the meat to a good tomato sauce with appropriate seasoning and let it simmer for 10-15 minutes.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.020418 | 2018-12-08T18:49:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94587",
"authors": [
"elbrant",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70026"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
62064 | Should I rest pancake batter?
I read somewhere that pancake batter should rest. This confuses me.
On the one hand, mixing the wet ingredients with flour creates gluten. Resting lets the gluten relax, so that I don't get chewy pancakes.
On the other hand, my recipe uses leavening (baking powder). When that reacts with water, it forms bubbles. Letting it rest means those bubbles escape, which means less air in the pancakes (less fluffy).
Should I rest my pancake batter or not? If so, for how long?
Resting pancake batter improves texture. I think the rise is better and the pancakes less chewy.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baking_powder
Double-acting baking powders work in two phases; once when cold, and once when hot
When you initially mix the baking powder, you will get bubbles, but this does not mean the baking powder is used up. You still get leavening from heat activation.
The King Arthur Flour Baker's Companion suggests resting is about lumps, which you will have because of gentle handling:
If you have time refrigerate the batter for an hour or so, which allows lumps of flour to slowly dissolve, and makes for a more fluffy flavorful batter.
In Keys for Good Cooking, Harold McGee suggests trying to have things both ways:
Prepare most unyeasted griddle cake batters an hour or more before cooking, to give the flour time to absorb moisture and produce a velvety texture... Refrigerate for rests longer than 2 hours. Withhold baking soda or powder and/or beaten egg whites and add just before cooking to maximize their leavening power. Whisk powders with a little flour first to help incorporate them evenly.
(Anecdotical)
When I make pancakes,
I prepare the batter, then I let it rest while I set the table, start the coffee/tea, prepare the other food I will eat with the pancakes.
So, I let it rest for about 1/2 hour.
The almighty Google doesn't have a definitive experience, so you should ask your mom, she knows better (that is what I did).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.020565 | 2015-09-26T12:55:47 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62064",
"authors": [
"Cynthia moore",
"Gay Lyons",
"Harvey Wexler",
"Kevin Mangan",
"Liam ArAghaida",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147372",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147375",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147376"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
16012 | Can a Toddler Eat Food Cooked With Honey in it?
One of the recommendations for enabling a young child to pick up some of the more slippery foods is to coat them with bread crumbs or graham cracker crumbs. While looking for graham crackers at the store, we found honey graham crackers. Considering that exposure to honey can cause infant botulism, I was wondering if the honey graham crackers are safe for him to eat?
Whatever the answer is, I would strongly advice you to ask your pediatrician rather than seeking for medical advice on the Internet.
@nico, definitely. This is just a sanity check prior to asking as the next appointment isn't for a month.
Is there actually real honey in them? Anyway the other ingredients are probably not very healthy. Put some plain oats in a food processor, and make crumbs from them. At least you know what's in it
@TFD: At least some brands of graham crackers say "made with real honey" on the box.
Never knew about the honey and botulism thing. I find it kinda funny though because apparently I was fed a spoonful of honey when I was still a newborn -- For some reason my mom's milk was not suitable. Apparently I dodged a bullet as soon as I was born ;)
That bit of the Wikipedia article is unsourced, but Health Canada confirms and says that spores may be present even in pasteurized honey. (I never would have thought that.)
I wouldn't expect the cooking of the crackers to damage the spores significantly more than the pasteurization. I can't say for sure that there will be live spores in the crackers, but it's a definite possibility and if you're concerned about this then you should not risk it.
That's the whole point of spores :) They can resist to heat, cold, pressure, disinfectant, UV, time etc etc! A very smart way of surviving if you ask me.
This is actually the type of information that I was looking for. Thanks.
You say "toddler" and not "infant", which leads me to believe that you"re referring to a child that's at least one. At least in Canada, the honey prohibition is only for children sub 12 months. In which case, yes, it is safe to feed a toddler honey.
Either way, lots of sugar in Graham crackers. Try panko; my kids love It crusted on pretty much anything.
Since the toxin producing spores need a moist environment to germinate and cooking destroys any residual toxin that may have existed in the honey prior to processing, I would say honey graham crackers are safe for kids.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botulism
Please check the article again. The moist environment is the infant's intestines. In adults, the established microbes will outcompete botulism spores, but this is not yet the case in toddlers. That's why they are specifically vulnerable to botulism spores.
According to the CDC the temperatures achieved by a pressure cooker are sufficient for neutralizing spores in a low acid canning application. Other sources quote the required temperature for killing the spores between 240-250 degrees. I would think a cracker would reach this temperature during high heat industrial baking, but I wasn't able to find a source confirming this.
You might want to specify degrees F or C. 240°F sounds too low to kill spores, and 240°C sounds far too hot. The sugars in honey would dissociate, not to mention a lot of other complex organic compounds.
It was degrees Fahrenheit.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.020865 | 2011-07-07T18:51:26 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16012",
"authors": [
"AaronN",
"Cascabel",
"Kate Dixon",
"MSalters",
"Mostlyharmless",
"TFD",
"chapka",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2645",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34081",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34090",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34091",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6433",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6688",
"mgc",
"mikołak",
"nico",
"rcollyer",
"user34091"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
7877 | How long does shrimp paste last in the fridge?
Basically, I have some shrimp paste, it's a nice, very dark purple colour, and I keep it in the fridge. It's not "dry", but it's dry enough to be extremely firm when I take some out of the jar with a teaspoon.
I'm wondering how long it will last - since it's mostly salt and is very, very thoroughly cooked when used, I'm thinking it will last quite a few months, but would it last a year?
I grew up in a fishing village and making shrimp paste is one thing we do for a living. The good manufacturing practices we observe keep our shrimp paste in good condition for a year and a half. I don’t even put it in a refrigerator.
Keeping it at room temperature really doesn't sound safe...
@Jefromi: Which probably led to the preservation-technique of making shrimp paste, especially when refrigerators weren't available.
"anything that could happen to it, already did happen to it" ;) The question is how well anything else in the fridge will stay taste when there is shrimp paste around :)
As your shrimp paste is mostly salty, it will last quite a while even without refrigeration. IMHO, it is better to keep it in the fridge as you do. The important thing to remember is to seal it well to cut down on odor leakage. In this way it can sit finely in the fridge over a year.
Screwing the lid on securely is NOT optional, indeed - it stinks until it's been cooked!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.021187 | 2010-10-06T10:30:33 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7877",
"authors": [
"Arafangion",
"Cascabel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
7461 | How are savoury meringues made?
I've come across occasionally mentions of savoury meringues with flavours such as beetroot. How are these made? What is used as a substitute for the sugar?
The eggs whites in traditional meringues are used to spread the sugar into a thin foam that is then dried in the oven (or dehydrator) leaving behind the sugar structure and some proteins from the eggs. To make a meringue you need something that dissolves to tangle up with those proteins. I would guess that the beet meringues from Café Atlantico are made with beet powder replacing the sugar with the goat cheese in the middle adding to the sense of savory.
I have never made savory meringues, but if I were to experiment I would mix freshly whipped eggs whites with sugar to those created by reducing a savory liquid and then adding powder egg whites to it.
I don't believe that sugar is required to make meringues come out properly. I don't see any reason that you couldn't go without it altogether.
Sugar is extremely helpful to prevent the meringue from collapsing by bonding with the proteins in the egg white. If not used, it will be extra important to get some acid (lemon juice or cream of tartar, for example) into the meringue for stability and strength.
I would be very interested to see what happened if you baked whipped egg white. I would expect that @Martha is absolutely right, and the foam would collapse. I'd like to see that proven experimentally, though!
I just tried making them with no sugar (just a small amount of vinegar). They looked fine, but had no substance - they just collapsed when bitten.
I've done this by substituting with a less sweet sugar, like isomalt, but the filling also adds to the effect. For example, my last version was a cocoa macaron with chicken liver pate filling. It worked well.
Sugar is crucial to making meringues!!
It is what helps the chemical reaction with the egg whites and helps create that beautiful fluffy texture.
However, I've come to own a fabulous book called "meringue magic" by Alisa Morov(who invented savoury meringues I believe). Amongst amazing savoury recipes she says you can reduce sugar to a certain amount but can never do without it.
But the spices and salt make it a distinctively savory meringue.
While adding sugar changes the texture somewhat, you can certainly beat eggwhites into a fluffy mass without sugar. In fact, the change in texture is towards less fluffiness, not more.
certainly, but it will not create a meringue, just beaten egg whites.
if you have ever made meringues, i'm sure we can agree that the texture changes more than "somewhat" when you add the sugar :)
I guess it depends on what you consider worthy of the term "meringue". If you insist on a very specific texture (small regular holes, slightly gooey), then you have to use sugar, yes. But people tend to apply the word to all sorts of beaten egg whites, and if we use this meaning, then they don't require sugar.
The thing is, I was talking about the classic definition of what a meringue is.
If we start calling every single pasta spaghetti, things will get confusing. Cognac and whine, although both made from grapes, are radically different alcohols. Frothy egg whites are not (yet) a real meringue
1 Savory meringues are made with salt not sugar.
They are primarily used to smother and braise a side of fish or chicken.
[2] Cheesy Clouds
This recipe can have added herbs and seasonings.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.021340 | 2010-09-20T15:38:35 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7461",
"authors": [
"Ashritha Bs",
"Cory R. King",
"Damson",
"David Ruttka",
"Julian",
"Monica",
"Tom Anderson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135567",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15323",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15335",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7364",
"justkt",
"rumtscho",
"user13136",
"user15324",
"z0r"
],
"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
} |
3079 | How is congee made?
Does anyone know how to make the congee like those in Dim Sum/Yum Cha restaurants?
Which kind of congee do you want? Chiuchow plain or with added ingredients, maybe bean-curd or beef, chiken, perhaps noodles. is it deep fried? There are lots of variations.
Congee itself is just thick rice porridge. It is usually made with a combination of short-grain and 'sticky' (glutinous) rice, but any kind of white rice will work.
Put 3/4 cup rice (1/2 cup regular, 1/4 cup sticky, if you have it) in a pot with 8 cups of water and a little salt. Bring to a boil and simmer for 1 to 1 1/2 hours, until it is a thick porridge. Stir now and then so it doesn't stick. Many electric rice cookers have a congee setting, which makes everything really easy - just put in a measure of rice, add water up to the congee mark, turn it on and wait.
There are many, many traditional toppings or additions to congee. Eileen Yin-Fei Lo said it well in her "From the Earth: Chinese Vegetarian Cooking": "Virtually any food can be added to one's breakfast congee in China. What you might add to it depends upon your preferences."
I would also add that instead of just straight water, you could also add a little stock or soup bones to the mix to add extra flavour to the congee.
Just wanted to offer a cheaper variation to this. Presoak the rice with a tea spoon of salt and a tea spoon of vegetable oil overnight or for half an hour if you're in a rush. Basically, the longer you presoak the rice, the less you need to cook the rice in water before it begins to break apart. Simmer the rice and water solution with additional water, stirring occasionally. You should see the rice gradually thicken until it begins to break apart. About ten minutes after this is a good time to stop. When the rice first begins to simmer, you can add chicken stock and or pieces of chicken leg. Traditional congee often has meat with bones!
Flavour with more salt. Some popular condiments include fried peanuts and freshly chopped spring onions. Stir these in after cooking for a fragrant treat.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.021639 | 2010-07-24T11:14:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3079",
"authors": [
"AntonioMO",
"Kris",
"Patricia Kehr",
"Pulse",
"Starx",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113886",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47411",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5567",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5590",
"idbentley",
"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/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
55125 | Are arborvitae branches safe to use as a seasoning?
Back in old times (really old times), when people would get scurvy (vitamin C deficiency) on long voyages, Arborvitae (Thuja occidentalis) was used as a treatment/cure to help folks recover from scurvy. That shows that it is useful in some amounts, and can be ingested.
So if it is healthy/safe, what amounts can be used as a seasoning/flavoring, and can it be used in place of (or mixed with) any common herbs/seasonings?
We've decided that "what goes with X?" questions are mostly not a good fit for the site since they tend to act like polls, with people listing. This one might be okay though... seems fair to ask if there are any traditional dishes containing it (given how obscure it is), or for a description of the flavor (e.g. comparison to more common herbs would help find things it goes with), at the very least. And maybe it's okay even as-is - we can wait to worry til a dozen people post their arborvitae recipes.
@Jefromi Come to think of it that makes a lot of sense. I reworded that part.
My first instinct was no way, remembering that the branches and leaves contain a high amount of thujone, which is a neurotoxin and not without risks, especially if used over a long time or while pregnant. This is the same stuff that caused absinthe to be discredited for decades.
But Thuja oils typically contain 40% α-thujon, sage (salvia officinalis) up to 60%. Thuja's pungent smell would prevent ingesting too much.
So my conclusion would be:
do not use for a long time or when pregnant (most midwives caution against using sage, too, btw.)
use sparingly for health reasons, a limited amount is considered safe by health agencies world wide, see information on absinthe for example.
use very sparingly for culinary reasons, because the taste is quite "pronounced". I had to take a herbal medicine with thuja decades ago and still shudder to think of it. (It did work, though...)
When thinking of potential culinary uses, think of uses for sage or juniper - you will want to use it as a spice in foods that can "handle" the woody, bitter tinge. Dark red meat or even game perhaps? Complement with a generous amount of pepper and perhaps a good red wine.
Another approach that might be worth a try is sweetening it up - like "fir syrup" (is this known in American cuisine?).
Well it was used to make a medicinal tea and tinctures. I don't know if I would want to use it as a seasoning, at least not regularly but if there are no reported hazards, I would think it's safe. I would do more research before committing to that idea though.
Assuming it's safe, I would think anything that would benefit from an evergreen facet (like rosemary), could benefit from it. I don't think you'll find too many people will have experience with white cedar as a seasoning.
The question was regarding the safety and you didn't answer that. Qualifying everything with if's and assumptions is not the same as an answer.
"The natives of Canada used the needles of Thuja occidentalis (Eastern White Cedar) to make a tea that has been shown to contain 50 mg of vitamin C per 100 grams; this helped prevent and treat scurvy." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuja
@WayfaringStranger Yeah, but... does it have anything besides vitamin C that might be bad, but not noticed back then?
@Jefromi It also contains arginine and other essebtial amino acids. Intresting story: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2647905/ And of course, thujone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thujone ,one of the minor components of Absinthe. Thujone is used medicinally, and is probably not good for you in large, repeated doses, but the plant was not called "tree of life" for its toxicity. -A little on your pizza shouldn't hurt.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.021836 | 2015-02-25T20:08:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55125",
"authors": [
"Allene Keenan",
"Bryan Burke",
"Cascabel",
"Elena Tilisanu",
"Helpxpat Southafrica",
"J. Musser",
"Mr. Mascaro",
"Preeti Sharma",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"christa campbell",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130964",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130969",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130981",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8702"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
15035 | Why add breadcrumbs to meatballs?
Besides getting them to stay together, what other reason would there be for adding breadcrumbs to meatballs. Do they impart any particular flavor or texture?
In meatballs or meat loaf or even burgers, breadcrumbs are sometimes added with egg.
The bread, if unseasoned, doesn't change the flavor much except to dilute it.
The texture is definitely different. It is smoother and spongier. The breadcrumbs also soak up liquid so the product doesn't lose as much and stays moister.
Purists often decry the use of breadcrumbs in things like burger patties. For myself- I will add breadcrumbs when I am in the mood for the breadier texture- often when I will be adding extra liquid flavorings like Worcestershire or liquid smoke and want to strengthen the structure a bit.
Smoother, spongier, moister, and also less dense. A big 2-3 incher, without bread crumbs, can cook up dense and tough enough that it'll resist cutting with a fork.
Often the bread is also cut with milk to make a slurry before adding it to the meatballs. This adds a bit of fat, and makes a very moist meatball.
I agree with the above but wanted to add I prefer the taste too, without bread i find it's too meaty and I can only eat one or two. With bread I'd have maybe 5 with my spaghetti.
The motivation is mostly textural. The major motivation for using bread crumbs is if they are soaked in milk, making what is called a "panade". Since meatballs and meatloaf are often cooked to well-done, they tend to be tough and dense. The panade does act as a binding agent, but, more importantly, the milk activates the starch in the bread to form a gel. This gel acts much like a fat, lubricating the meat's protein fibers and discouraging them from forming a tough matrix. Enzymes in the milk can also help tenderize tough cuts of meat, however, that would likely take longer than the average meatball recipe allows. Finally, if the meatballs are fried, breadcrumbs can help crisp the outside of the balls (especially if the balls are rolled in breadcrumbs on the outside).
Unfortunately this doesn't help if one cooks in a kosher kitchen - mixing milk and meat is forbidden. Would water "activate the starch in the bread to form a gel"?
@No'amNewman: Yes, any liquid that contains water should work. I'd recommend using something like beef or chicken stock for flavor, though. If you want to keep the panade parve you could experiment with soy milk, but I have no idea if that would taste good.
Meat stretcher. The crumbs from sliced bread, leftover porridge, broken bits of crackers or chips can be put to use to stretch the recipe yield.
Bread crumbs do not help meatloaf hold together. It was started back in the depression when they wanted meat to stretch out, they would add the crumbs. The thing that hold meatloaf together is the eggs.
Bread with milk or water will suffice. Bread is the important additive as it has rising agents and this mixed with ground meat serves to lighten the texture and slows the hardening of mincemeat once cooked. It's not used to extend the meat yield.
The yeast ("rising agents") are dead in bread crumbs, since they have already been baked. The bread adds starch which act as a binder, helping to hold the meatballs together, and to suspend milk or water making them more tender and moist.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.022172 | 2011-05-25T18:13:27 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15035",
"authors": [
"Bruce Alderson",
"ESultanik",
"Fuego Diego",
"Gabriel",
"No'am Newman",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81441",
"vwiggins"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
36869 | Which foods and ingredients are the main sources of fibre in traditional Lao cuisine?
I'm taking an interest lately in Lao cuisine (I'm in the country). But I haven't noticed where they get their fibre from.
Which traditional dishes or ingredients should I investigate?
What do you mean by "fibre" in this context?
Dietary fibre, that keeps you regular (-: I tried to avoid anything that made it sound like a health and nutrition question and keep it to a factual question.
As in non-digestible polysaccharides?
As in "roughage". Non digestible. Not sure about the polysaccharides, it's not my field.
Reading the lao cuisine wiki article, they seem to be a fairly typical Asian cuisine with a lot of vegetables. I suspect that is your answer: the cellulose in the cell walls of most vegetables is not digestible.
Yes they actually serve a plate of raw greens with most traditional meals too. Would raw green/leaf vegetables mean more fibre too? I think this is a peculiarity of Lao cuisine.
let us continue this discussion in chat
Papaya salad(tam mak hoong) has firbre.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.022463 | 2013-09-17T04:59:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36869",
"authors": [
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Shmidt",
"hippietrail",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99940"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
18174 | Is kangaroo meat safe to eat raw such as kangaroo tartare?
I know that kangaroo meat is usually cooked rare because it's so low in fat.
I also know that certain meats are not safe unless well cooked, such as chicken and pork.
But what about kangaroo? For me it's the most delicious red meat so if I like steak tartare I know I should like kangaroo tartare, but how could I make sure that I'm doing it the safest way possible, if there is a safe way?
Where does your kangaroo meat come from? If it was a wild kangaroo, the risk for parasite infestation is probably higher than with a farmed kangaroo.
Are these "free range roos"?
It would be from either a butcher shop or a supermarket, but I don't think we farm kangaroos though I'm naive of what the supply chain actually is (and I'm travelling overseas right now so can't ask so easily).
The links in the highest voted answer appear dead / changed, but Macro Meats is the most common brand I've seen in supermarkets and their page confirms they are not farmed http://www.macromeats-gourmetgame.com.au/Aboutus/KangarooIndustry.aspx#.U2zanLHNkgo
It seems the meat is not farmed at all but entirely "harvested" in the wild
http://www.daff.gov.au/agriculture-food/meat-wool-dairy/ilg/industries/kangaroos.
So it should be treated as a game meat rather than a farmed one - i.e. best to cook it.
Here's advice from the Department of Primary Industries saying you should never feed raw kangaroo to your dog, so I'd err on the side of caution
http://new.dpi.vic.gov.au/pets/pests-and-diseases/health-care
That is true—but in the second page kjm submitted it states that "raw meat/offal (especially kangaroo or deer) can be full of parasites. Feeding of these raw meats and offal to dogs can pass on diseases like Toxoplasmosis or Hydatids to humans on the farm." Toxoplasmosis can also be spread through raw or undercooked meat consumption and may cause flu-like symptoms and complications in pregnancy. I, too, would err on the side of caution.
@AshleyNunn: It's true that some substances that are fine for humans are toxic to cats and dogs, but those are very specific and whether or not it's cooked doesn't normally make any difference. In fact they generally have very little trouble with raw meat; so if there's a type of meat that you wouldn't want to feed raw to your pet, you definitely won't want to eat it raw yourself.
Kangaroo meat is recognised as a health risk - as it's a bush meat, and is butchered in field. It can take up to two weeks before it is transported to a processor where the testing regime (which itself is only sampling a small number of carcasses) is only for salmonella and e.coli - not for the many many other pathogens and diseases kangaroos carry. There is good reason that farmed livestock are wormed, drenched and husbanded.
I really wouldn't go near it, and you most certainly should not eat it undercooked which is a recognised health risk. See this article on contamination from my site.
Welcome! I've edited your answer, because we require that any sort of self-promotion (including linking to your own site) come with disclosure. Without that, it may be flagged and deleted. See https://cooking.stackexchange.com/help/referencing for details. (@JanDoggen I assume you just didn't notice, so no worries, but when you're editing links to not show the url you probably want to watch out for ones that are the user's own site, since it gets harder to notice post-edit.)
While you question is not a duplicate, most of the answer for How safe is steak tartare? applies here.
If you have good quality meat, from a reputable provider, you are likely to be fine.
Given that you would likely need to find a good butcher, I would suggest you talk to him/her and ask if they would eat their product in that way. If not, perhaps take their advice.
Kangaroo meat is subject to the same level of inspection as microbial testing as other red meats. It is perfectly safe to eat in the same way as all other red meats. There are no parasite problems in the product. The only proviso is one which applies equally to lamb or beef: that pregnant women, the elderly, very young children and sick people should not eat any raw meat due to possible toxoplasmosis rick.
I know this is a really old post, however id like to add something to the conversation.
6 days ago I went to a fancy restaurant and ate Kangaroo meat, it was quite raw, as you would eat if it was raw beef.
From the night i ate this kanagaroo onwards (6 days later) i have had constant severe stomach pain. Ive been to the doctors twice, blood tests came up ok and have just had more testing to look for parasites. I havent got the results yet, but im 99% sure it is a parasite problem, and it all started a few hours after i ate the raw Kangaroo. I also hadnt eaten any suspect food at all in the 48 hours leading up to the Kangaroo meat, so i can easily say it wasnt anything else i had eaten.
Ill be happy to post back here when the test results arrive.
I always thought it was safe to eat reasonably raw, but my opinion has now changed. I wouldnt eat unless cooked all the way through from now onwards.
Sorry to hear you are nit well, but a few hours ir a really, really short time. Parasites usually don't develop this fast. Do you or your doctors suspect any particular paradite?
This line is particularly problematic "I also hadnt eaten any suspect food at all in the 48 hours leading up to the Kangaroo meat, so i can easily say it wasn't anything else" Almost all foodborne illnesses take longer than that to develop symptoms. Parasitic infections can take weeks or even months to show symptoms.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.022591 | 2011-10-04T10:33:35 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18174",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Ashleigh Phillips",
"Cascabel",
"Cos Callis",
"DMichael Chappel",
"Hrishikesh Haldankar",
"Jolenealaska",
"PeterJ",
"Ray Guest",
"Stephie",
"Still.Tony",
"Vecta",
"aroth",
"hippietrail",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103801",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152869",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
55868 | Boiling Water For Pasta - With Lid On....Do I Have To Wash The Lid?
I hope this is an appropriate question for the site.
Today I was cooking pasta. To begin with, I filled a pot of water and placed the lid on top. Then I cranked the heat up until the water was rapidly boiling. At this point, I was of the opinion that the lid was still clean. I'd even argue it very clean, as it had been 'steam cleaned' and the high temperature would (in my mind) probably kill some germs.
A roommate of mine disagreed.
Is the lid dirty?
What does your roommate wash his/her dishes with?
As long as there wasn't pasta in the pot, should be fine. If it's a glass lid, it may get spots.
Can you clarify whether it's just water or water and salt, pasta, etc...?
Plain tap water (the same water that would be used to wash the lid)
It depends. In a commercial setting - definitely not. In a private one, well, you have some leeway. However when cooking pasta you might want to add some salt and/or olive oil to the water, which might get on the lid. Also pasta might release some starch while being cooked, which might also stain the lid.
In your case I'd say it was as good as clean, however depending on how greasy your fingers are you might consider giving the top a little scrub while cooling it down with some cold water before storing it.
Also if if pot wasn't quite clean that might affect things, but essentially you've steam-cleaned the underside of the lid, and if you weren't cooking anything splashing grease around your kitchen even the top might be cleaner than when you started.
So in conclusion, it depends. Unless you can document the states of the lid and kitchen, and what criteria should be used for "clean", all any answer here can hope to achieve is give basis for opinions you and/or your roommate(s) still have to choose between =P
Adding olive oil to the water? I'm sure that myth died centuries ago
I'm not so sure the practice did though, I usually just douse it with butter when it's done anyway ^^
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.023141 | 2015-03-19T19:24:54 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55868",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Doug",
"Julie Barker",
"Ken G",
"Lillian Curtis",
"Rabiatul Mohamad",
"Rob P.",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132768",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132769",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6250",
"simonra"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
56864 | Turn Passata Into Tomato Paste?
I have an American recipe that calls for 12oz Hunts Tomato paste and 1.5 cups of water. The nearest thing I have is Passata.
I don't know much about cooking, but they both seem to be made from tomatoes...is there any way I can use the passata I have in place of the tomato paste? I'm assuming I would reduce the water or completely skip the water - is there a general guideline here?
My instinct is to just throw it in a pot and, if it seems to watery, simmer until it thickens...but I figured I should ask people who know.
Passata is crushed tomato. Tomato paste is a concentrate of tomato produced by cooking for a long time, removing seeds and skin, and cooking further. They are different products that are going to produce different results, both flavor-wise and in terms of texture. If I were you, I would not add extra water at all, if you are going to use the Passata. I am sure it will be good...it will just be different from the intent of the recipe.
Also, in my experience, Hunts Tomato Paste has an aggressive level of salt, so it might be necessary to adjust salt levels in your recipe.
But just to be clear: As Passata is "weaker", substitute tomato paste and water by Passata or you would change the total amount of liquid in your recipe. Or use even more and simmer down a bit.
@Stephie I am not sure I would agree. Because Passata is a different product the end result is going to be different from the original recipe. Of course, the original recipe would be helpful, but I would NOT add any water. Why add water, just to evaporate it off?
Neither would I add water! Perhaps add more Passata than the original (paste + water) amount of "liquid" and simmer down to concentrate the flavour and thicken a bit. Sorry if I was unclear in my comment.
@Stephie ...ahh, got it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.023355 | 2015-04-22T17:00:07 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56864",
"authors": [
"Anna Newton",
"Jason Henderson",
"JasonTrue",
"Paul Domenici",
"Stephie",
"Tara Page",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135265",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
36009 | What is the proper word/term/expression to describe a dish that appears to be something different
I want to experiment with dishes that fool the senses. Dishes that look like one thing but taste completely different from what was visually expected (e.g. Heston's parsnip cereal)
I want to google for these kinds of recipies, but what seach terms should I use? Is there a term of art or word which describes these dishes?
A now-legendary SCA event based on this idea was called the Feast of Illusion, if I recall correctly. It was an entire medieval-style dinner where nothing was as it seemed: the sweet dishes looked savory and vice versa, the hard-boiled eggs were actually eggshells stuffed with custard, and so on.
I think any SCA event that is legendary is legendary within a pretty small community :-) Perhaps a fun and exciting one, but not a widely known one.
what's the SCA ...?
Society for Creative Anachronism. They recreate historical events the way they wish they had been. That is my best understanding, anyway.
I believe the most common term, especially for foods that just visually look like another food, is Trompe-l'œil. While the Wikipedia article linked focuses on other forms of art, the word is still applied to foods.
If you google "Trompe l'œil food", you will find many examples of the term in use.
Note that Google seems smart enough to handle either "œ" or "oe".
I suspected that term might be used, but a search of this site of the word "trompe" retuned no results, so I assumed it wasn't widely used in cooking.
The term seems to be illusion foods.
They seemed to have been very popular in the middle ages: Here's a description of the medieval feast I mentioned in a comment. There's also a chapter on such foods in an online medieval cookbook. But a quick search also finds pinterest boards and lists on general-interest websites.
They may under a few terms:
Mostly under Faux Food
Also Fake Out food
Also April Fools Day recipes
Sometimes they hide in plain sight and not so searchable. Like these Vegan sunny side up Eggs.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.023530 | 2013-08-13T20:02:53 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36009",
"authors": [
"Gabi",
"Joan",
"Ken",
"Marti",
"Maureen",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"TardigradeSi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6282",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84425",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84427",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84440",
"mohamed khames guen"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
23668 | Ready to eat food not suitable for microwave
I bought a pre-made cornish pasty fromt the supermarket. The packaging says it can be eaten hot or cold, which presumably means it is already cooked. But the packaging also says it "is not suitable for microwave" and recommends 22 minutes in an oven at 200Cif it is to be heated. Why can't I heat it up in the microwave?
Because it is made from pastry dough. Pastry dough (and any other kind of dough) gets ruined by a microwave. See this question for details of what will probably happen.
The only exceptions for dough in the microwave is pasta (which is supposed to be boiled in water anyway) and some kinds of very soft batter, which can be eaten immediately as a "microwave cupcake" (I think they get unappetizing if left to stay for a while). Any other kind of dough is destroyed by the water escaping the starch as steam.
I was too hungry to wait so I nuked it anyway. The pastry blistered badly and became a bit more chewy or tougher. The filling inside was fine. Overall the thing wasn't perfect, but reasonably edible. My oven takes 20 minutes to heat up so I will be tempted to nuke my pasties in the future.
This is why some microwave pastries come with some kind of reflective foil type wrapping (hot pockets, lean cuisine sandwiches) that can be used to put some of the crisp back into the item (tho it will be chewy and tough).
another exception: flour tortillas.
I had cheese and onion pasties in the microwave for 2 minutes. They weren't soggy or anything. They were nice. I do it all the time. There's nothing wrong with it. Just ignore the packaging and what some people say. It's safe; don't worry. It's a lot nicer and quick.
I heated my pies in my microwave, they were delicious. Take no notice of advice on wrapper.
But only heat them for at most 3 minutes
Rod is right. Even 3 minutes is prob. too long. If you leave them in just long enough to lose the fridge-chill, but not long enough to develop a full steam treatment, then they aren't too bad. If you are a real princess, then, yes, microwaving will ruin your pastry, but my husband nukes bread, pies, pizza, etc. practically to-death all the time out of pure stubbornness, and thinks the result is great.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.023748 | 2012-05-09T13:47:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23668",
"authors": [
"A. Tran",
"Hendro Tanjaya",
"Kat",
"Ken",
"Lorel C.",
"Rod",
"dipak chowdhury",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53631",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53634",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6282",
"huzzah"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
23671 | Why does my oven take so long to heat up?
My modern whirlpool electric oven take forever (about 20min) to heat-up to 200C. This seems similar to other electric ovens I have used in Ireland.
Hoever, when visiting my mother in law in the USA, I noticed that her very old(20+ years) electric oven heats up very quickly, about 5 minutes.
Is this rapid heat-up time typical of american ovens or is there something special about hers?
Why does my oven heat-up so slowly in comparison?
Is that measuring with a thermometer or waiting until the oven says it is ready? I have noticed that my newer oven seems to reach the temp and hold it for a bit while the interior surfaces heat up- instead of just the air. Alternatively is the older oven a higher wattage?
There are two ovens in my house. A newer oven that might take up to 30 minutes to heat up to 375 F(190.5 C). While my old oven only takes like 10 minutes. I was kind of curious too.
Perhaps newer ovens have to conform to relatively recently introduced safety standards that effect the speed they heat up at.
I noticed that my (old) oven heats up by just putting on the grill. So when putting something in the oven before the oven is reached the right temprature, it will get toasted. I noticed that my mom's oven does not give that effect when heating up. Maybe new ovens use an other way than just putting on the grill until the right temperature is reached? Just guessing..
@Elendil- That was my thought as well.
Might be the eternal chase of manufacturers after the much-desired bogus 'energy efficiency' ratings. Your oven taking half the power as your MIL's so the manufacturer gets to paste a sticker with 'A' instead of 'B' on the 'energy efficiency' chart, while in fact it takes up 2 times as much energy as the 'inefficient' one as it just dissipates half of it into the air over all that time it takes to heat up.
There is a large collection or reasons, some are:
Differences in makes and models
Modern form over function problems
Crap EU standards (EN 60350 etc) that limit the amount of power a element can use. It's something like <= 0.25 W per cm2, and a typical domestic over is around 1100 cm2
For same standards the typical total KW/h of modern over is 3.5 KW/h, where ovens of twenty years ago where around 4.5 KW/h\
20 minutes for around 350 F is pretty normal for electric ovens with HIDDEN elements. Older ovens tended to have OPEN, VISIBLE elements. Plus the reasons other people gave.
My hidden element oven takes 11m to reach 350. I think you're right the old visible ones are faster...
Very possible your oven has a faulty element. Most use both the lower and the upper/broil element to get the oven to set temp
Once the oven gets to temp it only uses one element. Check your broiler first to see if that is working properly
Yep for me it used only the bottom element which was cracked...it should be getting red https://www.quora.com/My-oven-takes-forever-to-preheat-What-gives/answer/Shari-Kenny
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.023963 | 2012-05-09T15:09:13 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23671",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"Ian Worsley",
"Jay",
"Jazz",
"Lotte Laat",
"SF.",
"Sobachatina",
"Sugar Angel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"rogerdpack"
],
"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
} |
17776 | Which kind of icing should be used?
In reading about baking one comes across many different type of icing; royal, buttercream, fondant etc. What is the difference between these? What determines the choice of icing used on a cake?
Fondant is nearly solid -- it's rolled out, and placed onto the cake (with a buttercream underneath as an adhesive). The advantage is that it goes on really quickly and smoothly over large items. It can also be cut into shapes with rather clean edges (modeling chocolate gives sharper edges, but it's not flexible enough to cover a round cake). You often see it on professional non-traditional cakes (more novelties, when they need a solid color or something that's strangely shaped.
Fondant can also be used to give a solid background can then be piped into (with buttercream icing, generally) or painted. As it's nearly solid, it can also be worked like you would clay to make decorations.
Royal icing dries hard as it has no fat in it. It's generally only used on cakes as a drizzle where you're not attempting to cover the entire cake. You'll often see it used on bundt cakes, but you more frequently see it used for cookies when you're doing a flood-fill.
Buttercream icings (commonly called 'frosting' in the US) is likely the most standard for non-professional stacked cakes. It's spread on, so it takes a little more work to get a clean smooth surface. (the trick is to wait 'til the surface has hardened, put down some waxed paper, then smooth out all of the spatula marks ... you need to wait 'til the waxed paper doesn't stick, but not so long that it hasn't set up completely). You can also use buttercream in pastry bags to create flowers, ropes, basketweave and other decorations.
...
And then there's other frostings/icings, too, but they're not as general purpose. They generally go with specific types of cakes -- caramel and other cooked frostings (eg, used in 'German Chocolate Cake'), cream cheese frosting (for carrot and other spice cakes), whipped cream (used in black forest cake & strawberry shortcake)
There are three considerations when it comes to icing: look, texture and taste.
Royal icing is stiff and mostly used for decorations.
Fondant looks smooth - think of how a wedding cake looks. It's also slightly stiff and chewy in comparison to buttercream or ganache icing. You would roll this out with a rolling pin and place it on the cake instead of applying it with a knife.
Buttercream is less structured but you can pipe it into swirls or roses. It's basically creaming butter with icing sugar.
Ganache is made with cream and it's really rich and can be rather runny.
good point -- I forgot about ganache ... how much it runs can be adjusted by adjusting the chocolate to cream radio. (same with royal icing ... you can do it stiffer for pipping, or runny for flood-filling.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.024229 | 2011-09-15T20:16:13 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17776",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
18751 | How Do I make My Casserole (with Noodles) Less Dry?
Okay, I know why pasta absorbs the sauce and it can be dry if left in the sauce, but what about making it not so dry in a casserole you cook in the oven? Did a great casesrolle last night and it was REALLY dry! Do I need to begin with more sauce?
Was it densely packed? If you have decent-sized noodles that don't pack well (e.g. penne) maybe you just had a lot of air in it, so it was able to dry out quickly?
Can you list the recipe you used?
First, you might want to try parboiling (cooking about halfway) the pasta to remove some of the starch and help the pasta absorb some water before combining it with the liquid in your casserole.
Second, if you didn't already, I would rinse the pasta before cooking it in a casserole. Because it is mostly flour, pasta obviously contains a lot of starch, a lot of which gets transferred to its cooking liquid. If that cooking liquid is your casserole, then the starch will combine with the liquid and thicken everything as if you were adding flour to it.
Third, I would cover the casserole to prevent liquid from evaporating during cooking. If your casserole depends on a browned top, just crank up the temperature for the first few minutes and place your casserole on the top rack close to the burner, then after 5-10 minutes, reduce the temperature to the recipe temp and cover with foil.
And of course, you can always add more liquid! This may not be ideal, so I would try the first three techniques above, and only add liquid as a last resort.
What are you making? I make a casserole which consists of rotini, ground beef, onions, tomatoes, and a few other things. I also don't like a dry casserole. What do I do to combat this? I add beef stock. It's a beef based casserole, I add beef stock. Water will 'dilute' the overall flavor of the dish. But if you use stock - well, that just enhances the flavor. Give it a try.
However, in a nutshell, if you want a casserole to be less dry, you need to add more liquid.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.024458 | 2011-11-04T01:22:16 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18751",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Kevin Cronly",
"daiscog",
"doomedcow",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40634",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40635",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40669",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
63203 | Does it pay to store instant coffee in the freezer?
I understand that it pays to store freshly ground coffee in the freezer. What about instant coffee or cheep prepacked Turkish coffee?
Your understanding remains an item of debate. The coffee stack would be a better place for the question. And you can't preserve quality that's not there to start with.
See this question on the (non-?)benefits of freezing coffee, over at [coffee.se] SE! We have several questions about storage, instant coffee, etc., that are related and might be helpful.
If you'd like to leave the question here, I'll answer it with some answers and links to [coffee.se]. If you'd like to delete this question and move it to [coffee.se], we'll answer it there!
I didn't realize there was a coffee stack exchange. I feel OK leaving this here because the question has more to do with food storage than coffee.
It's ok to store freshly grounded coffee or instant coffee in a freezer. Just consider to:
Pack the coffee in a sealed package or container.
Avoid keeping coffee with some other high fragrances items such as vanilla essence, rose water etc as these things can affect the main coffee essence.
Here is a source on How to Store coffee that has a clear explanation.
In chemistry it is generally accepted that a reaction rate drops in half for each 10 degrees in C drop (about 20 degrees Fahrenheit). So oxygen would still oxidize the freeze dried coffee, but at a slower rate.
Is the only issue oxidation?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.024646 | 2015-11-05T10:46:39 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63203",
"authors": [
"Charitha Polgasdeniya",
"Diane Harvey",
"Ecnerwal",
"Jack Whittaker",
"Lee Russell",
"Marge Hughes",
"Mark Shark",
"Natan Yellin",
"hoc_age",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150395",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150396",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150447",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158676",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7870"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
10000 | Why is cocoa powder sometimes used in chocolate cakes when chopped semisweet chocolate is already used?
I found a flourless chocolate cake recipe that I want to try, it uses semisweet chocolate which I thought would have enough cocoa solids already but it calls for cocoa powder, why is this?
You can't add too much chocolate into a cake, as you'll end up adding too much fat, which will change how the cake sets up. They likely wanted more chocolate flavor than what they felt they could get from chocolate alone, and so opted to add cocoa powder as well.
Just adding the note that chocolate is a combination of cocoa solids and cocoa butter (the fat that Joe refers to). Cocoa acts as a dry ingredient in baking...chocolate increases the fat, which increases the tenderness of the crumb, but hinders the structure. Being a flourless cake, you are already "low on structure" because of no wheat protein, so anything that would decrease it further could cause you to end up with a luscious chocolate pudding, but not something that would seem like cake.
Cocoa powder also adds starch, which helps with structure. The plant stores starch in tiny, hard granules, but these granules swell and absorb water as they heat up (when your cake hits the oven). Eventually, they swell too much and burst, releasing individual starch molecules into the liquid around them. These long molecules tangle with each other and create a mesh-like framework that prevents free movement and helps turn your cake batter into a solid.
Chocolate also contains these starches, but solid chocolate also contains fat, sugar, and often milk or other additions. Adding these components individually gives you more control over the flavor and texture of your cake.
More about cocoa powder and its role in baking at my blog: http://www.fchem101.com/2015/01/cocoa-powder-and-cookies/
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.024814 | 2010-12-11T16:35:35 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10000",
"authors": [
"Annie Rincon",
"Bart Burg",
"Doug Johnson-Cookloose",
"Paramount Garage Door Repair",
"VKM",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126825",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20480",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3479",
"miazo"
],
"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
} |
9251 | Gas or charcoal grille which one to buy
I need a grille for doing mainly chicken, there is an inkling to buy a gas grille but I heard charcoal grilles are better for flavour, I like the convenience of gas, but flavour is compelling, is this true?
There are many advantages to gas: better heat control, easier to clean, less potentially carcinogenic soot.
In my experience, the flavor that can be imparted by charcoal is superior, especially with good charcoal like that sold at Trader Joes.
However, I have not tried any of the wood slabs that are meant for use with grilling. Perhaps these have some effect on the difference.
Thanks, I think I will just go for a gas grille with a smoke chamber just in case I need anything from wood.
This is very subjective but I think charcoal grilled food is better. Although I have found that larger quantities is easier to make on a gas grille because it is easier to keep the temperature on the same level for a longer time.
Because of the differences others have mentioned, I actually own both. I prefer the taste of charcoal but just don't have the time or energy for charcoal sometimes.
My main grill is a gas grill, which is very large, convenient and easy to use. I can have grilled chicken go from fridge to plate in about 15 minutes, including prep, without having to do almost any work at all. I also have a smoker box for when I want to use wood chips in the gas grill. I also sometimes cook on wood planks in my gas grill, such as salmon on cedar. As johnny mentioned, when I have a large amount of guests, I find it much easier to work with my gas grill.
Then, for when I have the time or energy, such as when I have a couple guests over for a nice steak on a Saturday, I pull out my small, cheap charcoal grill and chimney starter (which heats the coals faster and more evenly).
Thanks, I have seen the smoke box thing mentioned on Primal Grill with Steven Raichlen.
I'm a big charcoal advocate. You can get higher temperatures from charcoal, and a good grill (read: Weber kettle) offers a great deal of flexibility. It's easier to deal with flare-ups, and once you attain a good skill level you can have more consistent temperatures across your cooking surface. Plus, it tastes better.
Once I started using lump charcoal and a chimney starter, I have been able to get up and running a lot quicker. Usually I'll start a chimney full of coals, then do my prep work on the food. Within 10-15 minutes, the coals are ready for cooking (using Kingsford briquettes, it's more like 20-25).
However, I find the biggest benefit to be the use of indirect heat. You can use a gasser to cook food indirectly, but it's just not designed to do cooks that way, making for a very inefficient cooking method. I've used my big gas grill in the past, but it uses a lot of propane, and a lot of heat escapes from under the hood. The kettle, on the other hand, is designed to convect heat. Particularly for roasting/barbecuing at somewhat higher temps (350F+), charcoal is the way to go.
Overall, I recommend having both. Spend 100 less dollars on whatever gas grill you want to buy, and complement it with a Weber One Touch Silver (80 bucks for the 22") or something comparable.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.025260 | 2010-11-19T04:49:00 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9251",
"authors": [
"Jim",
"Marcia Wiggins",
"Simmerdown",
"chaqke",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18924",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3416",
"imayer",
"user18924"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
19469 | Date cookies are thin and spread out
When I bake my date cookies they spread out and don't get high. They are very thin. I follow the recipe but this happens. There is baking soda and baking powder in the recipe. Any suggestions?
This isn't enough information for us to help you. What is the exact recipe, has anybody else been known to get good results with it, did you measure by weight, and what are your baking skills (e.g. some recipes only list ingredients assuming that the baker knows the correct order of mixing, the correct ingredient temperature and which stages are sensitive to overmixing)?
Substituting half of the white sugar for brown sugar should work, but I've found that if I'm making a lot of cookies the temperature of the room rises due to the constant heat leaking from the oven. The problem with most recipes is that they assume that the dough and oven remain at a constant temperature and don't account for baking multiple trays of cookies with hot baking sheets, hot kitchen, etc.
First, make sure that you're using softened butter and creaming it properly with the sugar. I use a regular fork and press the butter and sugar together (if you have a pastry blender, even better). I know too many people that have your problem because they microwaved the butter until it became oil x_x
Second, if the room is a bit warm and the dough has a sort of slimy texture try sticking the dough in the refrigerator for an hour or so. Make sure that the dough is sealed airtight so that no nasty fridge smells mess up your cookies -- I use cling wrap pressed tightly against the dough in the bowl.
Presumably, you're following a standard cookie recipe that creams together butter and sugar, mixes with some flour, and adds leavening and other stuff.
In my experience, thin cookies are usually the result of two things: too much liquid, and white sugar. The ratio of dry ingredients to wet ones should be pretty self explanatory: for thicker cookies you might want to try adding less liquid, and/or more flour.
More likely is that you're using too much white sugar. White sugar liquifies at a high enough temperature, and in cookies this translates to a spreading out of the dough while baking. Then when the cookies are cooled and the sugar crystallizes again, the cookies become hard.
To remedy this, start by substituting half of the white sugar in your recipe for brown sugar. You can also try experimenting with other sweeteners such as molasses and honey, which should also help the cookies stay thicker (and likewise more cakey). Just keep adjusting the ratio of white sugar to other sweeteners until you get the texture you like.
I have to disagree with the two answers above in regards to the brown sugar. Brown sugar always have more moisture (unless you left it out and its dry as a rock. in which case its not very good brown sugar anymore) than granulated white sugar which makes the problem worse. What I would suggest is to throw the dough into the refrigerator for a hour or two.
Brown sugar contains slightly more moisture, but it doesn't melt as easily as white sugar in the oven and tends to stay in crystals.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.025631 | 2011-12-07T03:33:36 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19469",
"authors": [
"Crystal Sanchez",
"Dusda",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42366",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho",
"user3250930",
"user42364"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
19570 | Veggie Burger local to Tulancingo, Mexico
When I was in Tulancingo, Mexico I had some type of vegetarian burger that I was told was specific to that region. I don't know the Spanish name or what was in it.
Does anyone know what this would be, what it is called, what's in it?
I was there in 1993-94.
We call those sandwiches guajolotes [*]; they are specific to to Tulancingo.
One of the typical foods of the Tulancingo region are los guajolotes: buns (similar to a white bread baguette) are halved, filled with refried beans, cheese enchiladas, onions, and salsa. Guajolotes may also sometimes include meat, such as: shredded chicken, ham, sausage, or other delicacies. The assembled sandwich is then pan-fried in butter or oil. [**]
Here is a youtube video of one being made.
* Direct translation: turkeys
** Roughly translated from wikipedia: Tulancingo de Bravo
+1 for a tough answer! I read this question, was intrigued, and then spent the better part of an hour searching for any evidence of such a sandwich. I came up empty handed, and empty stomached. I'm excited to try one.
awesome, that's exactly what I as talking about.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.025898 | 2011-12-11T05:06:35 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19570",
"authors": [
"Michael Yanni",
"Sam Ley",
"Samuel Neff",
"Theresa",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47820",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9091",
"murtaza abdi"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
41410 | Ideas for a banana dessert crust, gluten free
I came across a nice little dessert consisting of sliced bananas sandwiching peanut butter. My kids would love it, but I have a youngin and he's gluten-free. Worried handing him raw bananas as he'll a mush them up, so I want to put a crust of sorts on it to contain, or at least minimize the mushing. Chocolate is one alternative but I'm leaning towards something a little healthier.
In my experience, no amount of crust will prevent mushing if mushing is what the youngin' wants to do...
Ha ha, so true, but I should make an attempt... I am thinking a graham cracker crust of sorts may go well, gotta find it gluten-free...
Pamela's at http://www.pamelasproducts.com/products/baking-mixes/ makes a great non-gluten crust. I even added more coconut flour to it and mixed it in the food processor for a sweet potato pie. It came out firm and tasty. Also baked it first then added the filling and baked it again. If you add more flour you might want to add a little more salt but I like mine bland. Hope this helps.
The easiest answer is a gluten free graham cracker.
http://www.amazon.com/Kinnikinnick-Foods-Smoreables-Graham-Crackers/dp/B004T3AWRA
Most gluten free cookies and crackers tend to be pretty crumbly, so the additional moisture from the banana will help keep the treat from exploding into 1,000 crumbs.
Here's my favorite gluten free pie crust.
http://www.landolakes.com/recipe/3071/pie-crust-gluten-free-recipe
I use store bought flour blend.
We'd prefer that you stick to answering the question; the OP wasn't asking about cookie recipes, so I'll just edit that out. (In general we are a Q&A site, not a recipe swapping site, sorry.) The rest is really, helpful, though - upvoted!
Cook's Country, America's Test Kitchen's sister show has a very interesting recipe from this season for a chocolate pie with a meringue crust.
The entire recipe and video is here: Chocolate Angel Pie That recipe is free right now (as of January 2015) because it's from this season. It will go behind a paywall next season. The site offers a 14 day free trial that includes all of their sites, which I totally recommend for all cooks to check out. You need a card to sign up, but they will not charge it if you cancel withing that 14 day window.
For the crust:
1 tablespoon cornstarch, plus extra for pie plate
1/2 cup (3 1/2 ounces) granulated sugar
3 large egg whites
Pinch cream of tartar
1/2 teaspoon vanilla extract
FOR THE MERINGUE CRUST: Adjust oven rack to lower-middle position and heat oven to 275 degrees. Grease 9-inch pie plate and dust well with extra cornstarch, using pastry brush to distribute evenly. Combine sugar and 1 tablespoon cornstarch in bowl. Using stand mixer fitted with whisk, whip egg whites and cream of tartar on medium-low speed until foamy, about 1 minute. Increase speed to medium-high and whip whites to soft, billowy mounds, 1 to 3 minutes. Gradually add sugar mixture and whip until glossy, stiff peaks form, 3 to 5 minutes. Add vanilla to meringue and whip until incorporated.
Spread meringue into prepared pie plate, following contours of plate to cover bottom, sides, and edges. Bake for 1½ hours. Rotate pie plate, reduce oven temperature to 200 degrees, and bake until completely dried out, about 1 hour longer. (Shell will rise above rim of pie plate; some cracking is OK.) Let cool completely, about 30 minutes.
That would be a gluten free crust, interesting too. I want to try it.
I make those sometimes and I freeze them. They become more like popsicles, and they also aren't as prone to making a mess.
Just be sure to "flash freeze" them separately on a plate/cookie sheet so that they don't stick together.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.026034 | 2014-01-24T01:56:20 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41410",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"David Lozzi",
"Donna Colan",
"ElendilTheTall",
"John suscavage",
"Mink Minque Paw",
"Nat",
"Nicole Yancey",
"P GERM",
"Phil",
"Rosetta Sarlija",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127378",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127394",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127520",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96511"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
19752 | will wine marinade kill bacteria?
After grocery shopping, my husband left vacuum sealed 2 jars of wine marinades herring outside the fridge on a shelf for 2 days. The shelf is in a cool spot. Can we still eat it? I have put them back into the fridge.
Were they previously opened? Were they in a refrigeration section when you bought them? Does the jar say "keep refrigerated" or "refrigerate after opening"? If they were homemade I'd say definitely not, but if they came off a grocery shelf then they might have been pasteurized, and/or the wine marinade may have been treated with citric acid or another acidifier.
This is essentially the same question as How long is it safe to marinate meat? and Is acid-marinated raw chicken still safe after several days? and the OP has never followed up, making this too vague (not to mention dangerous) to answer properly anyway.
Lots of bacteria aren't killed by wine or any acid marinade.
Anyway, if jars were sealed and content pasteurized they probably didn't grow any bacteria meanwhile. You can consider cooking it if you're unsure.
If you're unsure about bad bacteria...you don't cook it, you throw it out.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.026338 | 2011-12-18T18:03:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19752",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Archipoeta",
"RoxTMc",
"bill",
"dbzgod9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48055",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
24336 | semi-freezing ripe avocado for easier handling
I've got a sack of ripe avocados that are going to be used in
vietnamese salad rolls, sliced into long pieces. The avocados
are getting bit too soft to cut, and I'm considering putting
them in the freezer for 1-2 hours to harden them up so they'll
be easier to peel and cut.
Am I asking for trouble putting my avocados in the freezer?
I would avoid freezing them as it will change the texture. A lot of people say they don't notice, but I notice right away. I can tell if food has been frozen in the first bite.
I just halve them, take out the pit and then slice them lengthwise in the skin.
Then with a spoon carefully scoop out the slices.
Works like a charm, no matter how soft.
Freezing will not successfully firm up the avocados and make them any easier to cut. Also, it makes them brown faster and they will be squishy inside the salad rolls, which you don't want.
I suggest making guacamole with the avocados you have, and buying some new firmer ones for the salad rolls.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.026471 | 2012-06-10T04:08:01 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24336",
"authors": [
"Amadeus",
"BoneZo",
"Natasa Bozic Grojic",
"biggles 182",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55378",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55472",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55711",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94524",
"paktvdramas",
"sally"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
10391 | Kitchen safe touchscreen recipe reader
I think it would be nice for me to have a rugged computer based networkable device with a touch screen mounted in the kitchen to bring up those difficult recipes.
Does anyone here have any experience with such equipment and so point me to a reliable one?
I would be concerned about grime on the screen from all that touching while cooking. Also, touch screens are often a sanitation issue already. This doesn't seem like the greatest idea, but I can see the appeal.
I was considering this and instead of a touchscreen you could always use a keyboard with a keyboard protector. That way with grime you can clean/replace the protector.
you usually know what you want to cook before you start cooking so it is not hard to imagine that one could call up a recipe on screen and then use that without touching afterwards when your fingers may be messy. There are industrial grade touch screens for factories and other hazardous places so I see no reason why a display along those lines would not be available for the kitchen, like anything else it would have to be maintained, It could be splash resistant so that it could be cleaned and sanitized, just like cutting boards.
I'd have to respectfully disagree about pulling it up beforehand and then not touching it. There's a few things in my kitchen wrong with that (I've tried :) - first, the recipe is often too long for a screen and needs to be scrolled. Second, sometimes I'm using modified versions of more than one recipe and combining them, or cooking more than one thing at a time. Also, I listen to music or podcasts and often need to pause or press next. I do like the industrial/restaurant supply cover route, that might work real well with a custom system instead of a tablet.
I am not asking for a small display tablet device, With some recipes you may need to scroll but a vast amount of my recipes hold on an a4 sheet that will display on a 15 inch portrait screen without the need for scrolling, the other thing to consider is this, sometimes you do not need to see all of the recipe at once, sometimes I need only to be reminded of a few things to do so I usually go to that spot, then there could be a number of styli anchored nearby for scrolling, there is also the possibility of an assistant, 99% of the time I have one and lastly, god forbid voice command :)
Grime: I pretend I have raw chicken on my hand before I touch my screen. (Meaning I wash and dry my hand well before changing anything). If I need to do any scrolling, or quick stuff. I use a chopstick. So far my 23" touchscreen has stayed fairly clean. I also listen to podcasts, watch videos, and whatever on the screen. If you're still paranoid, there are a number of industrial and or ruggedized monitors that are designed for harsh environments. They are just considerably more expensive.
Ah, yeah I was picturing a tablet sized screen, if you have a real monitor or larger touch screen device I could see how scrolling wouldn't be an issue. Also, multiple, washable styli nearby is a great idea I hadn't considered!
@Simmerdown print them out and discard after use. The cost, power, and cleaning risk of a touch screen monitor can't be worth it. A page or two printed out each day is only a few cents
A cheap 8" android tablet might be the way to fly. For under $50, you get 16GB or so and an SD card slot. The Slot will get you up to 128GB storage. That's a lot of books. Aldiko reader, Libre Office, wi-fi, bluetooth. Lots of software for recipes. Toss it in a baggy. Not much $ lost when it ends up in your blender: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWqw5SpITg8
It's not "rugged" yet, as I need to put a protective layer on the screen and hide some of the pieces. I will probably build the parts directly into the kitchen when I remodel (hopefully happening soonish). I built myself one out of a laptop with a broken screen and Acer T230H monitor (23", touch screen). It's just running windows 7, and still needs some tweaking. Call it a work in progress, but it works great. My wife and I love it. The laptop was lying around and the monitor was quite affordable (about $350ish CAD).
This is the path I'm going down right now as well, though in the new year I'll be trying to involve a solution that includes an Android tablet of some kind so it's easier to mount in different areas of the kitchen.
I've been using an iPad as others have suggested. Option 1 is to vecro it to a cabinet or the fridge etc. where it is not in danger of getting caught in a spill. You can navigate just fine with a nuckle or the back of your wrist if your hands are a mess.
Option 2 is put it in a gallon zipper bag. I recommend the 'storage' type over the freezer type as the plastic is thinner and won't interfere with the screen. If you are going to be using it for something with audio it won't sound good, but if you have something with airplay (I use a in the kitchen you can shift the audio over there, which is a good idea anyway as the volume level of an iPad really can't compete with kitchen noise.
I'm considering putting in a permanently mounted 50" LCD screen when I remodel. If so it will be connected to a computer in the basement under the kitchen, and have a touchscreen overlay added to it. The overlay uses light beam interruption and senses 'touch' without you really having to make contact with the screen. This is probably more than most people want to mess with though.
Four feet of spare counter space?!!!!!
Find any PDA or tablet you like that has a resistive touchscreen, then vacuum seal it inside a plastic baggie. For perfect sealing, get one that can charge inductively, so you don't have to put a hole in the bag for the power cord.
If you're gonna try this, make good and sure you're not cutting off air to the passive (or active!) cooling systems, or you'll just end up cooking your hardware.
I actually use my iPad. But here is a great way to mount one. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTSDPKktbUk
I understand your request. I have always wanted this as well. What I did was buy a 21 inch all in one computer (touchscreen enabled). This stays in the kitchen and is used for recipes only. I may enjoy some music videos while things are cooking. It can be done! Do not listen to the negative responses. :-D
Have you just considered the typical web apps on whatever smartphone you might happen to have? For instance, Epicurious.com just came out with an iPad/iPhone app where you can view your "recipe box" recipes. The screen size would be the biggest problem.
Or, just find a cheap desktop (with a WiFi card) or a laptop and you'll be able to browse whatever sites you want. I think having a dedicated recipe-finding machine is a bit impractical unless you're constantly cooking... albeit a very cool idea :-)
There are many uses for a computing device in the kitchen :)
I saw a deal on one of these a few weeks ago and while my mouse was haning over the buy-now box i had a mental picture of my cook-books. Mine are covered with grit, grime, and god knows what else. Before you think about going with this solution think about what currently holds your recipies and what kind of shape it's in. If yours look anything like mine then your new shiny touch screen could be ruined in a very short time.
Also, think about where you're going to put this. Too close to the stove and you have heat/ steam issues; too far away and it's pretty useless to have a scroll touch-screen if you can't reach it. Also, when I'm in the kitchen I alomost always have something in my hands, wooden spoon, sharp knife, apple, whatever; I'm sure I would stab, bludgeon, or otherwise mangle a touch screen very quickly.
I am not sure you would mangle an industrial grade touch screen that easily, while one would have to think where to put it in the kitchen this should not be hard, these things are designed for very harsh environments heat/steam will not be big issues. The problem I have with paper based books is exatly what you are saying they are in dreadful condition, they are the ones with the sanitization problems, not so easy to sanitize paper, and people never usually do. If you can open your refrigerator or oven door no reason why you could not grab a stylus and scroll your display.
And if holding a knife means you might accidentally stab a monitor, I think you shouldn't be touching knives....
your kitches must not be as chaotic as mine is.
My knives are excessively (obsessively?) sharp. I think of it as a loaded gun, I don't point them at anything that I don't intend on destroying (cutting, dicing)... ever. Knives go back on the rack when I'm not cutting. I also wash my hands if I need to move around on the monitor.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.026619 | 2010-12-21T19:50:56 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10391",
"authors": [
"Celeste",
"Darryl",
"David Smit",
"JinSnow",
"Kyra",
"Martin Vézina",
"Naomi Campbell",
"Shog9",
"Simmerdown",
"TFD",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"boxed-dinners",
"ccsdg",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21223",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21224",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21228",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21371",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3760",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"stephennmcdonald",
"talon8",
"user15741"
],
"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
} |
30227 | Alcohol-optional desserts?
I am having a dinner / make-fancy-cocktails party, and trying to work out the menu. Since it's a cocktail party, having some sort of alcohol in the dessert seems appropriate.
The difficulty is, for the designated driver, we need to have a non-alcoholic version. So a recipe where you only add the alcohol at the last step would be ideal. Unfortunately, my attempts to find such a thing is only turning up recipes where it can be omitted entirely, as opposed to not added to certain serves.
Does anyone have any suggestions?
What kind of desserts have you looked at so far? Have you considered making rum balls and non-alcoholic truffles? That's the only thing that instantly pops into my mind.
If you want to keep it simple, how about a couple le colonel? Basically a very simple vodka sherbet with lemon ice-cream and whipped cream, popular in France. If you make (or buy) good lemon ice-cream, it will be fine without vodka (obviously). http://allrecipes.fr/recette/6931/coupe-le-colonel---au-sorbet-citron-et---la-vodka.aspx
oooh, haven't had that in ages. very theme-y if served in a martini glass
Are you sure you need a non-alcoholic version for the driver? The amount of alcohol in a dessert shouldn't be affecting the ability to drive.
@Mien: Inexperienced drivers in Australia have a zero alcohol limit.
Oh, cool! Didn't know that.
The only dessert I can think of where alcohol would be truly done on a portion by portion basis would be the type of ice cream parfait we used to serve at a restaurant I worked at in my long ago youth: it was essentially vanilla ice cream layered in a parfait glass with a sweet liqueur such has au de noisette or Framboise--the possibilities are endless. You will note this is essentially a minimalist adult sundae, so you could easily have one made with plain caramel sauce or chocolate sauce for the designated driver.
Still, if the issue is a designated driver, rather than a recovering alcoholic who can have no alcohol whatsoever, I wouldn't worry overmuch. Many desserts which contain alcohol have very little per serving, and should not be an issue for the driver. Some of these are spectacular show pieces. Some you might consider are:
Bananas Foster
Crepes Suzette
Rum cake
Truffles (as lemontwist mentioned in their comment answer)
Trifle
Another option would be any number of rich coffee based drinks, where you could omit the liquor for the designated driver's portion. Not truly a dessert, but in line with your theme.
Lastly, I don't think a party of any sort, even a cocktail party, requires desserts with alcohol in them. Be free. Serve what you like. Serve no dessert at all if you like.
Going one step farther, there are lots of desserts where the alcohol is just in the sauce (not just that particular "adult sundae"), so you could just save a bit of the sauce before stirring in the booze.
Crepe suzette?
Then crepes and ice cream, or chocolate sauce, is good for the drivers. As a side note, the amount of alcohol in most deserts would be well below the limit for driving in most regions.
Flambeed crepes is one option (grand marnier (for an orange taste), calvaldos (with apples), cognac, or similar).
Creme brulée can also be very spectacular, if you already have a hard sugar crust, you can use something quite high proof, like everclear (flavorless) and extra sugar, and then set it on fire right in front of your guests. I recommend practicing first so you can get maximum effect.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.027298 | 2013-01-19T10:03:33 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30227",
"authors": [
"Bev",
"Cascabel",
"Cerberus",
"David Cheng",
"Dean Meehan",
"Margaret",
"Mien",
"Pat Sommer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70550",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71419",
"lemontwist",
"pat cristensen",
"perigon",
"user70550"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
21512 | Are American food colourings weaker than in other countries?
I was looking at baking a yet-to-be-determined-colour velvet cake, and happened upon a recipe for blue velvet cake: http://bakebakebake.livejournal.com/3342197.html
This calls for two tablespoons of food colouring! The food colouring I am most familiar with is stuff like McCormick's, which is generally measured by the drop. Generating an entire tablespoon of a single colour would probably require several packets' worth.
Am I misunderstanding something? Are the comparative strengths the same and you just need a heck of a lot of colouring to make a cake that dark? Or is the American stuff a lot weaker and I'd only need the 4-5 drops I would expect from a recipe?
The simple answer is: No.
First of all the recipe says 1 tablespoon of blue food coloring. This is pretty typical for a velvet cake. In fact it's actually less than I would expect. This is because the original color is dark brown from the cocoa powder. To cover that up and turn it into a different color requires a lot of food coloring.
If you take a look at these standard red velvet cakes, you will see that they ask for 1 ounce food coloring. And 1 fluid ounce is equivalent to 2 tablespoons.
http://allrecipes.com/recipe/red-velvet-cupcakes-3/detail.aspx
http://allrecipes.com/recipe/red-velvet-cake-vi/detail.aspx
http://allrecipes.com/recipe/red-velvet-cake-iii/detail.aspx
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.027575 | 2012-02-20T01:32:38 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21512",
"authors": [
"Joseph LoGiurato",
"angussidney",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47723",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47724"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
20014 | Searing after sous viding - what temperature?
I just got a sous vide supreme for christmas and I am super excited to use it. Many of the recipes I have seen online suggest to sear the meat after cooking to provide a crust. No problem.
My question is about doneness - If I want a medium rare steak, I would cook it to 125-130. With a sous vide and an after bath sear - should I still cook it to 125, or should I cook it to 115 and let the pan finish cooking it?
Thoughts?
Thanks
The searing applied after sous-viding should not be enough to alter the temperature of the meat notably. All you're trying to do with the sear is create the flavorful crust on the outside of a piece of meat via the Maillard reaction, not accomplish any cooking of the interior of the meat itself. This is best done by applying very high heat for a very short amount time, usually just a few seconds. Some like doing this via pan-searing or on a very hot grill, but I usually use a high-powered blowtorch. The important thing is that you not sear for so long that interior of the meat has a chance to notice. A perfectly sous-vided piece of meat should be a uniform color throughout, except for a heavily seared crust. There shouldn't be any gray band of over-cooked meat under the crust. Avoiding that is why you're sous-viding in the first place.
Also, I find 125-130°F to be a touch on the rare side. For a good medium rare, 133-135°F gives me better results.
Thanks for that. Follow up question on the blowtorch then - Oil or no oil on the meat?
I've tried it both ways, doesn't appear to matter. Propane burns much hotter than any cooking oil, so I have to imagine any oil you put on would quickly be burned off, to little effect. Oh, yeah, when I mentioned "high-powered blowtorch", I should have specified propane, acquirable from any good hardware store. The lttle butane torches that cooking stores sell for creme brule' are just not up to the task.
I would add that, if using a pan, make sure to use a paper towel to blot excess moisture off of the steak prior to searing. It doesn't seem like a lot, but I've had it cause my steak to need to stay on the cooking surface too long and start cooking it more than I wanted while developing the crust.
When blowtorching meat, try to pat dry the surface with a paper towel just before applying the flame. This will help the surface of the meat to more quickly come up to the temperature required for the Maillard reaction to occur (~180°C).
The interior temperature will rise when searing after sous vide, though with a blowtorch that effect is probably minimal. With a pan or grill sear, I'd plan for the internal temperature to rise anywhere from a few degrees to 20 degrees or more, depending on the length and conditions of the sear.
(1) First, let's consider a very short and very fast pan sear. This graph gives some data points. (The overall page this is from is also worth a look regarding sous vide techniques.)
In that case, a 30-second/side sear in a very hot cast iron pan resulted in an internal temperature rise of 5-7 degrees Fahrenheit in the final meat for steaks that were 3/4-inch to 1-inch thick. A 1.5-inch thick steak experienced almost no temperature difference, but I assume this was measured in the very center of the steak. I've observed similar temperature rises when searing on a grill or in a pan, though I haven't bothered to measure them so accurately.
You won't see much of that undesirable "gray band," but it's important to remember that the thin surface is still getting really hot, which means some of that heat will carry over into the steak after it is removed from the heat, as seen in the graph. (Note the slight temperature loss during searing; this is a minor but interesting effect that may help to negate the later carryover temperature rise in some cases. But it's only relevant for very short searing. See comment below for details.**)
(2) For a more extended sear on a grill, this graph taken from this page can give some useful data. While not technically sous vide, it still uses a "reverse sear" method where a thick steak is warmed in an oven until the internal temperature is 115F and then seared on a grill until the interior rises to 130F, about 5-10 minutes. In this case, both internal temperature rise and carryover were quite significant, with a 2-inch thick steak that spent about 12 minutes on the grill rising from 115 to 130F while on the grill and then continuing to rise to about 145F during resting. Obviously most people don't tend to sear on a hot grill for 12 minutes, but if you like dark or somewhat charred exterior, realize that the extra searing time can result in significant internal temperature rises.
If you're just going for a normal sear on a grill, the author of this last page recommends heating thick steaks almost to their serving temperature, which accords with the practice for the fast pan sear with a thick steak above. Still, as can be seen in the graphs, even a very thick steak may rise in temperature by 5 degrees or more during even a moderately fast (5-minute or so total) sear on a grill.
In general, the interior temperature rise will depend greatly on how thick the meat is and how long the sear is. And the required length of the sear generally depends on the temperature of the grill or pan or torch being used to sear, as well as the primary methods that heat is conveyed to the meat (conduction, convection, and/or radiative heat).
A blowtorch may be able to sear the meat precisely to the exact doneness at each surface area, without the excess heat conduction or convection from a pan or grill, so a much smaller interior temperature rise should be expected (if any at all -- note the comment below on extremely rapid searing).
Unfortunately, there's no "formula" for determining precisely how much of an interior rise during searing and during resting will occur, since there are so many variables involved. Only experience can guide you here, but I would always plan for at least some temperature rise myself.
** Comment on heat loss during rapid searing: The first graph shows a slight temperature loss during searing. The author claims it was "probably due to cooling effects from moving the steaks," and that the lowest temperature occurring at the point the steaks were removed was a "coincidence." I think this is no coincidence and is in fact an effect of evaporative cooling where rapid moisture loss on the surface could actually pull a small amount of heat out of the interior of the steak. Evaporation requires a significant amount of energy to free the water molecules from the liquid and separate them into the gaseous phase -- that heat for evaporation must come from somewhere. (This is related to the well-known "barbeque stall" effect when slow-cooking meat, though in the case of high-temperature cooking, the water is actually being driven out of the meat at a very high rate by excessively high temperatures.)
This also explains why the temperature fall rate increases after the flip: the upper surface of the steak is now much hotter, and moisture will continue to evaporate off of it at a faster rate than when the raw surface was on top, likely enhanced by convective air currents caused by temperature differentials in various parts of the pan. Once removed from the heat, the steak gradually moves back to equilibrium, allowing residual surface heat to flow back toward the center.
If high-temperature searing causing steaks to temporarily cool down internally seems strange, note that precisely the same effect is observed in the graphs on the bottom of second link discussed above (images here and here). These probes were only 1mm into the steak on the side of the cooking surface, and yet they both show a temporary decrease in internal temperature by a few degrees for the first 20-30 seconds or so (after a brief initial temperature burst), which only makes sense if we assume evaporative cooling effects. As seen in these graphs, if the first link's steaks were seared longer than 30 seconds or so per side, the surface evaporation rate would quickly slow enough to negate the evaporative cooling effect -- as the dry "gray band" appears -- and the interior temperature would begin to rise during cooking as normal.
(In other words, nobody should get too excited by the fact that heat sometimes can seem to flow the "wrong way" for 20-30 seconds. It doesn't violate any laws of thermodynamics either. So, sorry folks: you can't power your perpetual motion machine by searing steaks.)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.027819 | 2011-12-28T15:34:56 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20014",
"authors": [
"AaronN",
"Dave Griffith",
"davidovp",
"ddg",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3819",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43768",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8489",
"mikebmassey",
"navjotjsingh",
"sufw",
"thursten",
"user43768"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
21501 | Blow torching meat after sous vide - add fat or not?
After I pull the meat out of the sous vide and then use a blow torch to sear it, should I use a fat on it or not? Will that get a better crust on it?
I have not noticed any real difference from using a fat, so I skip it. What does make a difference is thorough drying the meat.
I haven't ever had great results from a torch though. I prefer a screaming hot pan or grill, although both are way more effort.
Set pan on stove, turn stove on...its that much more work?
Yes. If it's hot enough to sear off quickly, then the oil splatters everywhere. The issue is the clean up, not the cooking.
Ah, that makes a bit of sense, gotcha.
I use a blow torch and get great results but I have a commercial/industrial blow torch, not a little kitchen model. This is the torch I use which hits 3,450F : http://www.homedepot.com/h_d1/N-5yc1v/R-202185047/h_d2/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10053&langId=-1&keyword=torch&storeId=10051
One way to make this a lot easier is to throw it in the freezer for like 10 minutes before you sear (or even better deep fry) since the freezer will freeze the outermost later of the meat, dry it out, and protect the inner meat from overcooking from the searing process.
At least one commercial chain (Panera Bread) uses fat when searing meat that is prepared sous vide.
Here is a video example. After cooking sous vide, they dry the meat and use a very hot cast iron pan with generous amounts of butter.
Sous vide followed by searing in butter
I haven't noticed any real difference with or without oil or fat to be honest. When searing in a pan, the oil would simply aid heat transfer from the pan to the meat by eliminating insulting air pockets.
However, I have experimented a little with brushing a weak glucose syrup onto steak before torching, and believe (without scientific measurements) that this results in a nicer crust with a lower propensity to blacken due to the flame. This is based on something I read in McGee's On Food and Cooking, which implied that the browning Maillard reaction would be accelerated by the addition of glucose. Apparently glucose is more reactive than sucrose found in normal sugar.
I've also discovered that drying the surface of meats with a paper towel just before blow-torching results in nicer and more rapid browning. I'd speculate this allows the surface temperature to rise more quickly as there is less liquid to boil off first.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.028436 | 2012-02-19T19:26:06 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21501",
"authors": [
"Adisak",
"Brendan",
"Cooker Shmuker",
"D Hydar",
"Shai Deshe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47700",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79244",
"rfusca",
"user47700",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
21456 | In what container should I put lemon water for storage?
I have a polypropylene water container and some large PET bottles. I don't know if it's OK to put lemon water in there. I read from somewhere that you shouldn't put lemon water in plastic or aluminum as acid in lemon can leach contaminants out of the container. What containers are safe for storing lemon water?
Both glass and stainless steel are non-reactive and should be fine.
From recipetips.com
Stainless steel, glass, enamel, and glazed ceramic are examples of
non-reactive materials that are not affected when food items such as
tomatoes with a high acid content come in contact with the surface of
the utensils or equippment.
Are you talking about mixing lemon juice with water? Or are you talking about a commercial sports drink such as: True Citris Lemon Drink?
If you are talking about the mixed drink, the product's website indeed do warn the consumer against using a plastic water bottle for the mixed drink. However it actually recommonds using the lightweight aluminum water bottles.
Turns out we should have kept that metal container, because the one-time-use plastic bottles that water, soda and juice come in are proven to leach DEHP, a carcinogen, into the liquids. And old-style Nalgene bottles (those wide, smoked plastic ones that a lot of camping types love) are also no-no’s. They leach BPA, a synthetic hormone that may cause cancer.
If we are talking about lemon juice (from the actual fruit) mixed with water, one should stay away from storing any type of acidic food in metal containers. There are of course some metals which are safer to use(less reactive to the acid) but as a rule of thumb you shouldn't. Aluminum is however reactive to the acid and so you should avoid using aluminum bottles.
To actually answer your question, check on the bottle's website to see if they say it is BPA free. If it is indeed BPA free, then you may use the bottle to store the lemon water. If not, then use a glass jar. This of course is impractical if you intend to carry that bottle with you on a jog or something. Another option is to take a look at this: BPA-free Nalgene bottles.
@Joselyn there is no way to tell what your bottle is made from. Many manufacturers use this shape, and they can use any metal they want, and if they use a reactive one, they can cover it on the inside with a non reactive layer.
Stainless steel is magnetic and aluminum is not. I'd say take a magnet to it to solve the riddle.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.028665 | 2012-02-17T14:37:47 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21456",
"authors": [
"Preston",
"Sébastien Barbieri",
"arc_lupus",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47493",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47500",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47683",
"rumtscho",
"tmthydvnprt"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
67449 | How can goat milk be prepared to reduce the 'hairy' after taste it has?
I have bought goat milk as an alternative to cow milk. Others and myself say that there is a strong 'hairy' after taste which makes it less pleasant. Adding sugar does not dilute/reduce that taste. Is there any way of preparing it or adding something to it to make this after taste softer?
I don't know about after it's been produced, but for people raising the goats, it's been shown that having females penned w/ the males changes the flavor. Also storing the milk for long periods (which happens w/ stuff in stores) and/or not keeping it cold (a byproduct of pasteurization?) are known to increase the 'goatiness' of the milk.
I think I understand what you mean about "hairy" taste; I think of it as a "goaty" taste. Unfortunately, the diet of the goat contributes much more to the flavor of the milk, than sheep or cow diets/milk. This is one of the reasons that goat milk is a favorite when it comes to cheese making. It adds a little funkiness to the cheese.
Now all that said, how are you drinking your milk? I love goat yogurt and cheese, but I'm not crazy about goat milk in my coffee. Part of this has to do with the temperature at which your consuming the milk. I usually eat my yogurt cold, and the goatiness is noticeable, but not as much as when I try to drink it in my coffee. Warm/hot foods tend to "taste" stronger, while cold foods kind of numb your taste buds.
I know that I haven't answered your question. I think if you drank it for a while (say two weeks), you'd notice it less and less. Kind of like moving from whole milk to skim milk.
For lamb, people put cardamom, there must be a herb or preparation method to help
Without having tasted it myself, I am told that goat milk just be served icy cold, otherwise it tastes off in a musky, goaty or hairy way as you put it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.028893 | 2016-03-15T15:48:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67449",
"authors": [
"Annette Fleming",
"Joe",
"Kanchan Vishwakarma",
"Vass",
"Wayne Bent",
"donna padilla",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161848",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161849",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161850",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8804",
"tammy messer"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
20629 | Carrot soup and avoiding the use of a blender?
Most recipes for carrot soup I encounter require a final stage of blending/whizzing to get the creamy texture. Eg:
recipe1
recipe2
recipe3
Can the blender/whizzer be avoided? How must the recipes be modified in that case?
Is there a reason why you don't want to use a (hand) blender?
@Mien, I very often find myself without a hand blender and what to know if there are other options.
One way to modify the recipes (but you won't get the smooth texture of the original recipes) is to cut the onion and carrot a lot smaller than the original recipe ask for. You want to almost dice it. When you are frying the onion and carrot in the pan, do it for like 1-2 min rather than the whole 5 minutes. And finally you will need to cook it in the stock for much longer than the recipe asks. You want to bring the stock to a boil then let it simmer covered to allow the carrot to become really soft. Then use something with a big flat surface(a large wooden spoon or something similar) to help you mash the rest against the side of the stock pot. The results will come out a lot lumpier than the orginal recipes but some texture and "unblended" bits of carrot is actually pretty good in carrot soup.
do you think that I could add some flour to the carrots and onions during the frying stage? This is done with dishes like goulash to make them more thick. But that is meat based, so I am unsure if it would work.
In case you find yourself without a blender, but DO find yourself with a pressure cooker, follow the recipe sauteeing the ingredients, then just add maybe 1/2 cup of water or stock, and pressure cook for 5 mins under full pressure (if you have the timing kind) or 1-2 whistles (if you have the whistling kind). Once this cools and you can open it, you will see that your carrots are VERY soft and can basically be mashed up into puree. You add the stock and whatever else of the ingredients at this point and cook, but it won't need as much cooking as it says in the recipe.
The onion will not mash as much (though still pretty well), so that I would reccommend chopping a bit smaller to help get a smoother end result.
You can also do this with cauliflower for a nice cauliflower soup, or even potatoes (though I would double the pressure cooking time for potato). Should work with other things as well.
I don't think you need to blend anything.
If you like good chunks, skip the blending step.
If you don't like big chunks, cut the carrots and other veggies in smaller pieces. I have no experience with carrot soup, but if possible, try to mash it with a potato masher, before you add the liquid. If this isn't possible (because the veggies are still too hard), put the liquid in, let it simmer as instructed and instead of putting it in a blender, use the potato masher then.
You will have some smaller chunks left, but nothing large, normally.
If you are just against buying (or using) electric machines, maybe you can find a food mill (wikipedia link) which used to be used for baby food and to make smooth soups and even potato mash before the machines became popular.
For a first try, if you do not have such a machine, you can use a sieve or colander over a pan or bowl and push the food through with a spoon or a something like that. This is much harder work but how hard depends on how well done your veggies are.
Both these methods require your carrots (and other veggies) to be well cooked, so that they fall apart when pushed, more so with the sieve method.
Creamy soups were invented before machines, so old methods were available before newer ones pushed them out of use.
No need to blend if you cut the carrots into thin slices. Unblended they have a nice bite to them which you don't get in blended carrot soups.
You could buy carrot puree sold in a can. Most of your recipes called for a weight so you could use that accordingly from the can's size (also in lbs. for that specific can) or water down to your desired thickness.
Canned carrot << Fresh carrot. Fresh carrot has that delicious sweet and natural carrot taste that you just can't replace with in canned carrot. On top of that... $21.52 plus $31.55(shipping) is beyong outrageous and you can spend much less for fresh carrots and a decent immersion blender.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.029102 | 2012-01-20T14:22:58 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20629",
"authors": [
"Barkode",
"Coleen",
"Jay",
"Mien",
"Vass",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45337",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8804",
"user45318",
"user45341",
"vinnief"
],
"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
} |
36176 | Do lamb kidneys require their cores to be removed and what is the easiest way to remove them?
I am cooking lamb kidneys by frying them on a pan. If I do not remove the cores of the kidneys, that tissue in the core remains and is hard to chew afterwards.
Is there a way to cook the kidneys with the cores in place so that they become softer? this is because they are not easy to remove.
What is the easiest technique for removing the cores if needed?
The simplest way to remove kidney cores is to cut the kidneys in half (horizontally) then snip the cores out with a pair of sharp scissors. With practice this can be done in two or three quick cuts.
This Youtube video illustrates it. I'm sure there are others, too.
@JoeFish, super video link! :)
You're asking two questions here. (See Elendil's answer for how to remove the cores.)
Chewy connective tissues can be made tender by slow cooking. You will never be able to soften them up by pan-frying. If you want tender kidneys, and are interested in trying a different cooking method, you could make something like steak and kidney stew. (Disclaimer: I've never actually made steak and kidney stew, so I'm making a few assumptions.)
so they can be treated like beef that need a long medium heat in a simmer?
Like I said, I've never actually tried it. That's the only way I know of to cook them that could make them more tender, though.
Put either oil or some butter in the pan. What this does is soften up the cores so they can be eaten. I personally enjoy the cores and don't remove them.
OP said they're frying, so they already have oil or butter in the pan.
Not necessarily, when you fry bacon do you put oil in the bottom? No, they create their own juices.
@YoungGuilo, the cores still come out chewy and tough like tendon meat. how long should they cook for / what heat level / how much height of oil or butter in the pan (eg. 0.25 or 1cm) ?
@Vass What type of stove do you have?
The oil/butter probably has nothing to do with the softening - it's just your cooking time/temperature.
@YoungGuilo, a simple electric one
@Vass cook the kidneys for about 15 minutes on level 6.
For anyone still interested in this, I soak kidneys overnight in lemon juice (or at least a couple of hours) then drain before cooking. I've never found them to be very chewy myself. Maybe that might help.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.029473 | 2013-08-21T00:45:16 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36176",
"authors": [
"American Maggie",
"Bob",
"Boris Valderrama",
"Carolina Vallejo",
"Cascabel",
"Jennifer de la Concepcion",
"Jessy",
"JoeFish",
"Peter Taylor",
"Tinker George Jemmott",
"Vass",
"Young Guilo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84876",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8804"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
83836 | Got a refrigerator?
Reading Butter cake creaming method reminded me of something I was taught in school, more years ago than I care to admit, but long enough ago to make it relevant... In many Asian cultures having a refrigerator was (at the time) 'rare'. Not for lack of infrastructure (electricity) or due to economic circumstances but culturally people in Japan (if I recall correctly) preferred to go to market daily and get whatever they needed fresh. Is this still the case?
The Economic Research Service of the United States Department of Agriculture says household ownership of refrigerators in Japan in 2008 was 99.6%, so I would guess no.
Here's the data in an excel file.
It's worth noting that lower income countries in Asia have significantly lower numbers, but your question specifies reasons unrelated to wealth. High income Asian country households overwhelmingly own refrigerators.
Microwave Ovens, on the other hand, do seem to follow a pattern only loosely based on income.
None of this is to suggest that people in Japan don't do their purchasing in the manner you suggest. They might just use their fridges for other things, like keeping drinks cold.
Interesting data, thanks. I notice that they seem to classify entire nations based on (I'm guessing) 'average income'... would be interesting to see the break downs for India and China by income.
@Cos Callis actually there's an entire studies on this kind of thing: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40953-017-0084-5
I don't have access to the full report though.
Anecdotal evidence only, but when I was studying in Japan I noticed a correlation between having a car/motorbike/scooter and shopping frequency. How often someone shopped depended more on how much they could carry home at a time than the size of the refrigerator. There are also a number of things that americans tend to keep in the refrigerator that Japanese people don't (mayonnaise, jam, etc) which frees up fridge space for truly perishable items (raw fish/meat, certain fruits/veggies, etc.).
In Japan more than other Countries. Many lady's in Japan do enjoy there shopping group. 3 or 4 in a group that shop together every day. Mine in the Philippines pulls this about once a week. With the neighbor lady. Watch the kids while we go shopping for a few hours. Neighbor lady always gives me a big smile when they pull this. We have a large fridge & shop together every Monday. So no need for this. In Asia refrigerators are often small by U.S. standards. So need to shop every 2nd to 3rd day. Many have a U.S. student size one. You find apliances are smaller in Asia for the most part. Then were I live there is the over 50% who do not yet have electric. But that is not in Japan. But Japan does have electric restiction's. So size matters here. Think small size for most in Asia. So shop more often there.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.029711 | 2017-08-22T17:42:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83836",
"authors": [
"Cos Callis",
"Wolfgang",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60668",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"senschen"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
9562 | Cleaning a Sieve
Is there a better way of cleaning a sieve, other than stabbing at it with a brush, in a manner such as this ?
I can't help but think there must be....
It's really to get the scummy bits of 'rice juice' from a sieve, and that kind of thing.
This question made it onto the Stack Overflow Blog as an example of a "weak question".
You could get yourself a specialized sieve brush - the things are meant for mining sieves but cooking sieves are generally the same size (0.5mm - 1.0mm, the latter being the no. 16 that the first link is talking about). I haven't seen any of these sitting in home kitchens - could be that they aren't effective on cooking sieves, but more likely, cooks just don't know or care that they exist.
For the truly dedicated, you could get yourself a studded sieve cleaner or the similar triangle kind with brushes. These are meant for cleaning really fine sieves, as in flour mill equipment, so whether or not it would be useful to you depends on what kind (mesh density) of sieve you have.
Or, if you could loads of money to blow, you could go all out and get yourself an ultrasonic sieve cleaner. Of course, we're now talking about products that don't even have a list price, so if you have to ask, you can't afford it.
Here's perhaps the most interesting option for those of you at home, though: I noticed companies out there selling rubber balls as sieve cleaners, so I was curious whether or not one could just use an ordinary rubber ball. I happened to have one of those big squishy stress-reliever balls sitting around and gave it a shot on my 8" sieve/strainer that had some sediment stuck on it - and guess what, it works! It's not perfect, it didn't get every last grain out, but I only had to rub the inside a couple of times with the ball to get out the vast majority of "dirt". So there's your "home remedy" for cooks on the cheap.
man, that is some serious sieve cleaning information.
what about us lazy guys ? there must be a hack hrmm...
Wow, an Ultrasonic Sieve Cleaner! Great information, many thanks!
@Reno: If you're lazy and rich, get the ultrasonic. If you're just lazy, the rubber ball is really pretty easy.
I've never found this to be a big problem. If I have something dry in there, I give it a few whacks on the divider in my sink, then run it under hot water and scrub with a sponge for a minute. If there is something really stuck on, I might soak it in hot water first. Or if I have room, I'll throw them in the dishwasher. What do you have on your sieve that is giving you particular trouble?
I was going to answer that I also have no problems, but thought I was missing something obvious :) If I've used my sieve in conjunction with cheesecloth for something liquid, I just make sure to rinse it immediately so nothing dries on it. If something did dry on it, I'll soak it in a bowl of water (similar to soaking my dishes in a sink) for a few minutes, and it rinses right off.
FWIW, it's usually dishwasher for me too, but every so often I get a build-up, usually after a few instances of trying to pass through something thick and/or heavily seasoned (salt/pepper/spice grains).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.030068 | 2010-11-29T12:37:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9562",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Christian Hudon",
"Mike",
"Nick Haslam",
"Reno",
"Rob",
"Sam Holder",
"ScotlandBard",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19583",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3566",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72373",
"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/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
30048 | How to store tamarind paste?
I bought some tamarind paste the other day, and I am wondering how should I store it once opened, as the package does not say anything special. Should I put it in the fridge? Store it in an airtight container? Freeze it (as I am probably not going to use it very often)?
How long will it last?
rubbery block with seeds? that just needs plastic film around and lasts years. Anything more processed with water decreases shelf-life. I have had quite runny 'paste' that I could have frozen but used up quickly to replace with better quality. I sub tamarind for other tart ingr. regularly so get thru it quicker (Margaritas etc)
My tub of tamarind paste says store in a cool dry place. It should last up to its use by date (2 years in my case), provided it doesn't grow mould.
Mould, the reason I put most things in the fridge even if they say "cool dry place". I've had some occasional bad luck.
I am a south Indian who use tamarind in my daily cooking. As previously answered a block of tamarind can be stored wrapped at room temperature. but anything processed like a paste or juice should be refrigerated after opening.
According to this purveyor, you can store it under "ambient conditions" (which is industry speak for essentially room temperature) for about six months to one year. Of course, I would use an airtight container.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.030372 | 2013-01-13T20:32:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30048",
"authors": [
"Judy",
"Megasaur",
"Mehmet",
"Morgan Wayment",
"Pat Sommer",
"chiropterist",
"doug",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70081",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70084",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70085",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93504",
"user2687498"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
21186 | Breaking down a lamb "square shoulder"
I recently sent someone out to get a lamb shoulder roast which I would typically braise, but said person returned instead with a "square shoulder" which is a larger and bony cut. Short of just going at it with a knife what is the best way to extract the roast from the larger cut and is this even possible without a cleaver or saw?
You can treat the square just like a plain shoulder roast (assuming both with bone in?)
While boning it out may make carving easier, the less you cut it the better it will cook (speed, moistness etc.)
A whole lamb can be butchered with just a decent boning knife if you know where to cut. You may need a small saw to section the large bones depending how you cut it
For the square shoulder you need to knife out the rib, backbone (if attached), and then the blade. All from the non meat side of the roast
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.030512 | 2012-02-08T22:01:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21186",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
15639 | Preparing breaded pork chops
Is it OK to bread the chops and put them in the frig for a few hours before frying, or will that just make the breading soggy?
Probably not, it will yield a thick dense crust. You can prepare everything ahead of time, keep it in the fridge separate and then bread everything at the last minute. Since there is only a couple of bowls it will clean up quickly. If you marinate the pork chops put them on a wire rack uncovered in the fridge for a couple of hours before you bread them. If you absolutely need to bread them ahead of time have some bread crumbs or panko and roll them again right before you fry.
I do my breading in deep (soup) plates instead of bowls. They are perfectly easy to put away in the dishwasher withoug taking up so much space that it has to be started right away.
I think it'll be fine. All sorts of products are breaded, fried, and frozen, and a few minutes in an oven crisps them right up. If you're going to fry these chops, it won't take long for the hot oil to drive off any water and crisp whatever's left.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.030613 | 2011-06-20T18:17:25 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15639",
"authors": [
"Doug Holladay",
"Gabriele Petrioli",
"Picolo",
"amertkara",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33153",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
42114 | Do I need to clean an oven that's not been used in 10 years?
My house has a built-in oven that I've never used since I moved in ~10 years ago. (I prefer to use the oven function of a combi-microwave.)
My wife, who has just moved in with me, wants to use the big oven but I'm rather worried about safety since its been standing there untouched for so long.
Assuming the thing even works, should I have it cleaned first?
(It's a fan assisted electrical oven.)
If you had to ask, you know the answer. One that old, I would also get inspected by a qualified technician.
I think I would clean anything that hadn't been used in 10 years.
@SAJ14SAJ A "technician"! Is there such a thing as an oven technician? An oven is designed to last many years 20+ while being used at high temperature. Exactly what do you think is going to go wrong with it sitting at room temperature? The inside is going to be very clean if the door was closed, as there should be heat seals etc. This is silly. Just wipe it over, and heat it up and see what happens!
@TFD Whatever you call people who repair ovens... and I cannot agree with you that it is self-evidently safe.
Not everything that can deal with heat can deal with moisture. Heat drives moisture out, and regular use makes heat.
It should be fine to use. It is probably dusty, perhaps greasy from other kitchen sources. If it's self cleaning, go for it (and avoid using any harsh cleaners) It might get smoky at first, so you should have ventilation possible (window, fan, or whatever)
If not self cleaning, give it a good wiping-out with an ammonia based cleaner or use commercial oven cleaner(nasty stuff). If its possible that you have mice, you should probably make sure that they aren't nesting in the cabinet- get a technician if you aren't comfortable removing panels, etc. And buy an oven thermometer to check the oven thermostat. Self-cleaning or not, it will probably be smoky at first. Good luck.
I'd turn the thing on at say 250°F (120°C) for a while before doing a full bore cleaning cycle; just to test to see if anything unpleasant happens at lower temps.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.030763 | 2014-02-17T20:17:58 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42114",
"authors": [
"MeLissa Dean",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"TFD",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Xinrun Li",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98298",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98301",
"phunmoithammy spam",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
15782 | How to wash soft fruit?
I bought a pack of blackberries from the supermraket and the label said to wash before use. I tried that and it completely ruined them.
I tried running them under a tap (faucet). Ruined. I tried dropping the fruit into a bowl of water. Ruined. I tried running them under a slow trickle of water. Not ruined but also not washed.
How, please, am I supposed to wash soft fruit like blackberries?
How were they "ruined"? I've washed blackberries by dropping them into water a few times, and at least for me and my kids they still tasted great :)
They were mostly squashed or burst after being dropped into the water and fished out.
Sounds like they were over-ripe
Maybe - I had just bought them from the supermarket.
Probably the easiest way to do it is to just gently pour the blackberries into a basket strainer, then lower the strainer into a bowl of water. Then you can just lift the strainer out and the berries will come with it, no fishing required.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.030962 | 2011-06-26T14:48:59 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15782",
"authors": [
"Davis Newman",
"billpg",
"carlosfigueira",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6171",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6599",
"nico"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
21351 | Replace the mouthfeel of consommé in vegetarian soup?
In soups that traditionally include a consommé as the base, such as French Onion Soup, what are some ways to replace the mouthfeel of the gelatin-rich stock when converting the recipe to be vegetarian?
Background - I am quite happy with my vegetarian French Onion Soup recipe, using Vegemite to add umami, and homemade vegetable stock for a solid base, but the one aspect left somewhat unsatisfying is the "richness" or unique mouthfeel of the consommé. I know there won't be any perfect replacement, but I need some inspiration. Most discussions on gelatin substitution seem to focus on more obvious gelatin applications (jello-style desserts). I'm hoping that for soup mouthfeel there might be some other options I haven't considered.
Agar...derived from seaweed. Used in McDonald's milk shakes because it's vegetarian and cheap, lab petri dishes and vegetarian cooking. Doesn't have a flavour. You can find it in health food stores but I think many grocery stores are carrying it these days. Heat it up in water like gelatin and when it cools you have jelly.
You could use Arrowroot to give a slight thickening for texture or even cornstarch but I'm thinking those won't give you quite what you're looking for though Arrowroot will be closer.
I think there is a Chia seed gelatin too but don't have any first hand experience with it. Chia seeds when soaked in water give off this thick gelatenous substance, very weird to see it happen. Ask about it at the Health food store too.
Here's a website for a few more substitution ideas.
http://www.vegkitchen.com/tips/vegan-substitutions/
Good luck!
I'm not sure about the arrowroot - while it thickens, the mouthfeel of the resulting hydrocolloid is very different from gelatine. Agar will probably be closer, haven't tried it.
+1 Thanks, agar sounds like an interesting possibility and something I haven't tried before. I use arrowroot in a number of other soups, but doesn't seem quite right for the French Onion Soup.
Agar gets my vote too but in just this soup, a wee portion of the soft-cooked onions pureed into the soup add a silky touch.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.031088 | 2012-02-15T02:55:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21351",
"authors": [
"Ferus Olin",
"Pat Sommer",
"Sam Ley",
"dennisdeems",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47195",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9091",
"rumtscho",
"takteek"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
16727 | Recommendations on how to have a hog butchered?
I have commissioned a pig from a local farmer and it will be going to the butcher soon. It turns out that I can have it butchered to my specific requests. Has anyone done this before and have any recommendations?
Specifically, should I have the bacon sliced or leave it in slabs (Alton Brown says slab is better but how hard is it to cut)?
What is the best way to have the shoulder cut? I am thinking a picnic roast and a butt.
What is the best way to deal with the loin. Will each side give just one tenderloin and one "center cut loin" for a roast? If I get those will there be any back left for pork chops?
Any recommendations for the back leg? Ham vs. roast?
Lucky you. I usually have all the shoulders split in two, cured and smoked, hocks and shanks smoked, belly smoked (bacon). Some roasts and the rest into chops and steaks.
Your cut and wrap (butcher) will put things up the way you ask, so have him put up meal size bits. The usual way to receive custom cut and wraped meat is frozen, haven't heard of anyone getting it fresh..there's just too much of it.
I like my pigs between 105 - 110 kilos/230 -240 pounds on the hoof; seems to give the right lean/fat ratio. They grow them much fatter in some places, China is one.
You can have the shoulders left whole, that is a fairly large cut of meat though, better to have them cut into hams and picnics. Have them cut your shanks and hocks up a bit too.
Custom cut and wrap outfits that are good are very good, some of them make excellent sausage, which brings this consideration into the mix, I would recommend trying the sausage you are thinking of having made first.
Finally, the smoke on your very own pig parts will totally blow any other smoked pork product flavors out of the water, there is just no comparison.
enjoy :)
I would base my decision on when you plan on eating it... If you'll be eating it in the next 2 or 3 weeks, then I would have it sliced to what your ultimate goal. Larger chunks of meat should store better, so if you plan on storing it for awhile I would have it cut into larger slabs and then shave off what you need when you need it...
I don't know if you've ever tried to shave frozen bacon vs thawed bacon, but frozen bacon is like cutting butter, and thawed bacon is a knife accident waiting to happen from the room temperature fat.
For cheaper cuts of meat (like bacon), I will often freeze it just to make my life easier (as it comes to shaving/cuttiing)...
In short, I'm voting that you have it cut in chunks and then shave it later!
Def depends on how long you plan to keep it.
Excellent points, thanks - that answers the bacon portion! Anybody have clues about the rest of the pig?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.031301 | 2011-08-08T15:17:00 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16727",
"authors": [
"Jen",
"Mayo",
"NBenatar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35721",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6701",
"mdeceglie",
"wazeeer"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
16088 | Can I soak and rejuice the pulp that comes out of a juicer?
If I'm juicing Oranges it takes quite a few oranges to get a decent amount of juice. Would it be possible to soak the pulp in water and send it through the juicer again? If so, what is the best way to go about that? What ratio of water to pulp would be optimal?
I'd think that the resulting juice would be bitter from the orange plup and not sweet like the first juice.
The water soluble parts of the orange are all already solved in its juice. So in mixing the pulp with water, you aren't leeching any new orange components. The result won't be orange juice by any stretch, just water which has washed the last drops of juice your juicer didn't get.
If you drink your juice diluted (I prefer it that way: less sweet, less fructose, better value), doing it might provide it with a better diluting liquid than pure water. But it won't be anywhere near real orange juice for drinking on its own.
If you want to get some more orange taste out of the pulp, you can try boiling the pulp, or using a different solvent like alcohol or a fat. All will produce something very different from true orange juice (a syrup for the first if you add sugar, liqueur with alcohol or an essential oil with fat), and the amount will be rather small. So probably not worth the work.
Turning your question around, we've found that with our twin-gear masticating juicer (an older version of this), we usually run the pulp through it a second time. It comes out pretty moist the first time, but the second time it's pretty much squeezed dry.
I'm not completely confident, but it strikes me as sure, you could add water to the pulp, and then you could squeeze water right back out of it. It'd have a very slight orange flavor.
If you want to get more orange flavor out of your oranges, zest them before juicing and then use the zest.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.031880 | 2011-07-11T18:36:43 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16088",
"authors": [
"Daniel Maher",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34260",
"queenmo1",
"sgrsigma",
"user34249"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
59648 | How hot does popcorn need to be before it pops?
I'm interested to know if I can make popcorn in the oven, such as in a covered roasting pan. I'm also just quite curious to know the temperature it needs.
Would it pop in a 250C oven? If so, what temperature is needed for it to pop?
Would I get a good result making popcorn in my oven?
Why don't you try it! And tell us the exciting results :-)
@TFD. This work for me: open oven at 230°C. No oil, no butter and no thick pan needed, only using normal thin tray, open both top and bottom oven burn mode, waiting for about 3 mins heating, then pour the seeds in. Close the door, waiting for first pop (about 5 mins), then open the door and stir, close the door again and watch it pop until finish. The temperature at the tray was about 195°C when it pop (I have measured). 250°C may be too high a little. I guess 240°C is the best.
Some kernels would pop, but generally speaking it would not work very well at all. A popcorn kernel pops because of the water trapped inside -- it is heated rapidly on the stove, and its expansion is rapid enough to produce explosive force. The oven would cause the water inside the kernels to heat more slowly. The shell of unpopped corn is not perfectly enclosed, so slow heating would allow the water vapor to harmlessly escape.
Even if a roasting pan was pre-heated to 250C?
Ovens generally convey heat too slowly to be ideal to pop popcorn to understand why let's get into the science of how popcorn pops.
Popcorn pops that the boiling point of water inside the kernel at popping pressure. This is NOT 100 degrees Centigrade or 215 Fahrenheit. That is the boiling point of water at sea level air pressure (i.e. 1 Atmousphere pressure.)
The steam needs to reach much higher pressure to burst the kernel open, and thus needs a higher temperature to create steam to the pressure. (much like inside pressure cooker.) The pressure needs to reach roughly 135 PSI (~9 bar), or 9-40 times the pressure of a consumer pressure cooker (depending on model and design.)
The temperature at which this pressure is reached is roughly 180-200C or 350-390F. Yes, these numbers don't match up, they are just the nice round numbers referenced.
You may note that the temperature is well over the smoke point of butter, yeah, don't use butter. If you like butter, you'll have to use clarified butter, and the stuff you clarify yourself probably won't be good enough unless you are a 5 star chef so you'll have to buy the fancy stuff. Butter can go on afterwards as a flavoring.
Back to the point, as of why popping in the oven doesn't work well, you CAN pop popcorn in an oven, but that doesn't mean it's advised to. An oven will heat the oil too slowly, and thus heat the popcorn too slowly. The result of this is the steam escaping before it reaches critical pressure, and getting a lot of old maids, meanwhile the popped popcorn will spend too much time at cooking temperature and fry in the oil or otherwise cook and burn. Hence you will get a lot of burnt popcorn. It just doesn't make good popcorn.
The method I prefer is using an induction burner or some other thermostat controlled burner. However, you can use an oven burner (electric or gas) if you don't and use medium heat taking care not to burn the oil, and thus ruining all the popcorn.
For a cooking container I like a stainless steel bowl, other people prefer an enamel steel pot or cast iron. You need a lid, but if you don't have one, Aluminum foil is always a good substitute. Have a second container of roughly the same volume, or slightly bigger ready to pour the popcorn into.
There are two different preferred methods here, just use the one that works for you.
If you want to preheat the oil, which works best with larger and heavier cooking vessels heat the fat you like to it's cooking temperature (maximum temperature under the approximate 215C/420F where the starch will start burning way too easily, and smoke point of your oil, whichever is lower. I use 190C/375F myself, which works fairly well. When the oil reaches temperature (as determined by a thermometer, or your preferred method. You can always throw in a kernel to check. It should pop in a few seconds.)
Once the oil is ready you should throw in the kernels, enough to layer 3-4 layers over the oil, or enough to pop the container full of popcorn, whichever is less (obviously).
Throw the lid on, and shake the container periodically on the burner to keep popcorn from being stuck. Once the popcorn slows, or the container lid is being pushed off, pull it from the heat, and dump out the popcorn goodness.
To do the non-preheat method you need a powerful burner, a smaller container, and/or a thermostat controlled burner. Preferably all three. You throw the popcorn in at the start and heat like before. Shake it every 30 seconds or so until it starts to pop, then continue as before.
After you are done cooking the popcorn, add your favorite flavorings, be it fake butter flavor, real butter, salt, caramel or any of the more exotic flavors out there. There is Coco, Hot Pepper, Balsamic Vinegar, Malt Vinegar, fish oil, peanut butter, garlic, pesto spices or whatever suits your taste, there's plenty of crazy toppings out there, and if you ever run out of ideas you have a whole world of information online to find more ideas on. You have to love the information age.
As for an additional tip My favorite two fats are peanut oil and high-grade refined clarified butter. Since clarified butter is more expensive in the US, being a specialty product mainly bought by hipsters looking to impress their date and peanut oil is dirt cheap oil bought by us worker drones who like to fry our own fries at our BBQs, I tend to use peanut oil unless it's a special occasion. I hear that in Europe and Asia clarified butter is easier to get a hold of for a decent price. I don't know if that's true, but it might be good.
You need to get the popcorn kernels up to about 175–180°C internal temperature fairly quickly (but possibly not too quickly; the starch needs to cook). A very heavy preheated roasting pan could do that, probably.
But then you've got another problem. Normally, in a stovetop popper, the popped kernels "float" to the top. And they have very little contact with the bottom of the pan after that (where the heat is coming from). They thus fairly quickly cool (as all the water in them flashes off). In the oven, the heat comes from all around, and thus they'd continue to heat to your 250°C oven temperature. In other words, they'd probably burn.
If you want to try it, I'd recommend (a) good ventilation; (b) make sure the cover is on well—they explode with some force; (c) fully preheat a very heavy pan; (d) pull it from the oven the second popping starts to prevent burning; (e) shake from side to side while its popping. I'm interested in hearing your experimental results.
This worked for us: open the oven at 210°C. Close the door and wait for the first pop (about 5 mins), then open the door and stir, close the door again and watch it pop until finished.
Or microwave for about 10 min. or until the popping finishes.
Popcorn kernels burst because the water trapped inside expands and superheats into steam. While it is technically possible for popcorn kernels to pop at 100°C (212°F), it is much more likely to pop at higher temperatures, usually around 150°C, because the water rapidly heats up and steam doesn't have much time to escape, instead bursting open the kernel and "popping".
The 250°C you specified is more than enough to pop popcorn kernels. As for if an oven would work, it might. Convection ovens are the best for popping popcorn, for their even heat distribution and dry air, as well as their ability to whisk away moisture from popping kernels' released steam.
This work for me: open oven at 230°C. No oil, no butter and no thick pan needed, only using normal thin tray, open both top and bottom oven burn mode, waiting for about 3 mins heating, then pour the seeds in. Close the door, waiting for first pop (about 5 mins), then open the door and stir, close the door again and watch it pop until finish. The temperature at the tray was about 195°C when it pop (I have measured). 250°C may be too high a little. I guess 240°C is the best.
UPDATE:
I'm using electric oven.
The tray I used was fit inside the oven to handle all popped seeds. You can use metal container with cap like covered roasting pan. However it will need more time preheat for preparing high temperature enough. Also, if the pan was too small or too thin, the heat it transfers to the seeds will not enough, thus will decrease both percent popping and quality popcorn.
How did you keep popcorn from flying all over the oven?
Did you use a gas or electric oven? Presumably a gas one, since you mention the "burn mode".
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.032075 | 2015-08-06T01:05:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59648",
"authors": [
"Diann Pavelka",
"Elli B.",
"Erica",
"Highly Irregular",
"Jamie Slack",
"Lisa Knowles",
"Matt Walker",
"Robin Van der Pijl",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142553",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142629",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73168",
"phnghue"
],
"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
} |
27570 | Safety of glues in wooden chopping boards
It seems to be becoming more difficult over time to get a wooden chopping board that isn't made of separate pieces of wood that are glued together.
I did find some sites discussing how to choose a food safe glue:
http://www.thewoodwhisperer.com/articles/food-safe-glues/
http://www.ehow.com/about_4727757_glue-making-cutting-boards.html
The latter site states "Boards that are not made with FDA-approved glues should not be used for food preparation as the toxins in the glue could leech into the food."
Is anyone aware of any studies done into whether the chopping boards generally for sale are actually safe? (For the US, does the FDA check when they are imported?)
Obviously the quantity of glue that would make it into food would be very low, and probably undetectable by taste or sight. Has anyone experienced any ill effects from using a chopping board made with glue that's not food safe?
This question is probably off topic for SA. Can you name a suitable non-treated wood glue that is not food safe for a proven chemical reason? Ehow is generally a source of bad information. FDA is not a global standard, and may list things as not good that are acceptable in many other countries. NZ made GluLam board may use melamine/urea, but the amount or melamine is too small to be a health hazard, and many people have melamine benches anyway!
Sorry to disagree TFD but I found nothing in the FAQ's that made this question off-topic. Furthermore, since the OP's question includes reference to the FDA, one can assume a regional scope. While the FDA's authority may not be recognized globally, that is the OP's recognized authority for this matter. Let's be a little more generous to our members and if there's the need to "correct" or down-vote, please include some corroborating citations. What are your sources?
I'm actually in New Zealand, so the mention of GluLam happens to be particularly relevant, though I've never heard of it before. NZ is a small country, and we tend to have much more lax regulations than elsewhere, so even if we had regulations it's likely there would be no enforcement. It's likely that the majority of chopping boards on the market here are from China. It's probably safe to say that if there are no standards anywhere else, then Chinese manufacturers won't be paying much attention to the issue.
@HighlyIrregular Bamboo and other wood boards from China are probably glued using cheap phenol formaldehyde resin, which is highly toxic until cured. Once cured, you would have to ingest are large amount of it to get sick, or breath the smoke from burning it. Incidentally, it DOES cause immediate pain, and may also cause long term cancer. The amount you would ingest from a cutting board would be insignificant, if at all, and the toxins do not bio-accumulate
@TFD, thanks, that's just the kind of information I'm looking for. How do you know that? Is there more detail available online somewhere?
Recent market research. There are only so much cheap wood glues available, most are non-toxic after curing! I was expecting this question to close because it is essential a missguided health question. BTW NZ does not have lax regulation or no enforcement, that's just a media beat up. We also have a very low bribe acceptance compared to most other countries
Anyway, in NZ just buy a 20,000 year old slab of swamp Kauri and be done with it, they last for years :-)
My research led me to the fact that it is the glue that gets the FDA food-safe approval or not. The Wood Whisperer's website addresses the different kinds of glues used for cutting boards:
http://www.thewoodwhisperer.com/articles/food-safe-glues/
You probably wouldn't know if you had gotten sick from glue in a cutting board. Besides, that's not a good measure; it's entirely possible that the more toxic glues are carcinogenic in small doses but won't upset your tummy.
@Highly Irregular - I was just answering your question but probably should have added, "that I'm aware of". You are right, too, about not thinking about cutting board glue if I got an upset tummy.
The whole reason I want to use wooden boards is to protect from contamination... the science of it is documented here: http://faculty.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/faculty/docliver/cuttingboard.html
I'm unimpressed with the science you cite. Only plastic cutting boards can be run through dishwashers, which sterilize them regardless of their condition. I seriously doubt that scrubbing a cutting board with soap and hot water does the same regardless of what it's made of.
"I've never gotten sick from cutting board glue" - Frequently, you don't get sick from being exposed to things that shave off 5 years from your life-span.
Despite the fact the OP asked the question, "Has anyone experienced any ill effects from using a chopping board made with glue that's not food safe?" i removed my response to that question from my answer.
@CareyGregory, I question it too (esp since it's from a school of vetinary medicine!), but to date I haven't found anything better. Also, plastics are known to leach plasticizer chemicals when heated, so they might not be particularly safe when cleaned for a long period in a very hot dishwasher, even if they won't harbour bacteria in high levels when cleaned that way.
@HighlyIrregular: True, but any leaching would presumably occur in the dishwasher and be flushed down the drain.
@CareyGregory, not necessarily; if the leaching is caused by heat, the drying cycle would likely reach the hottest temperatures.
Does anyone know where to find good boards that are not glued (in Canada) or non-toxic? (Besides making one's own). I just went to look at my board and it's glued strips of bamboo.
@padma Have you tried asking a knife and/or cookware store/retailer?
Anyone who sells cutting boards knows to use FDA approved glue. From a business standpoint, it's the way to go and it's the only way you'll sell a single cutting board. That having been said, I highly doubt FDA approved glue is much different from non-approved wood glue. The glue is dry and is not gonna just seep out of the cracks, since these things are made precisely and glue in a joint is .0001"-.0005" thick. However, some woods that are often used in cutting boards are toxic (I had some serious respiratory issues when I was cutting/sanding purple heart, wenge, and padauk). Might be wise to look into that. But at the end of the day, maybe our immune systems need a little practice for when the serious problems happen.
Why do you think no one would use an unapproved glue if people do use unsafe woods?
Respiratory issues, even serious, do not require toxicity, and a respiratory toxin may be pefectly safe to ingest.
I heard that some of the glues have formaldehyde in them. I like to use solid piece timber chopping boards with no glues or laminates because of the glues, I like to use Camphor Laurel as it has a natural anti bacterial also, there is a great mob at Byron Bay chopping boards that do this.
This might be useful information, but do you have a source? "I heard..." isn't that reliable, and doesn't tell us whether the formaldehyde is unsafe either.
Would definitely appreciate a source for this
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.032817 | 2012-10-04T00:41:26 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27570",
"authors": [
"Carey Gregory",
"Cascabel",
"Chris H",
"Cynthia",
"Highly Irregular",
"Jay",
"Jim Lewis",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Leanne W",
"Ronna Miller",
"Smita",
"TFD",
"Tom",
"cppBeginner",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119028",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62193",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62195",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62196",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62233",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"padma",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
40033 | How cooking temperature and oven set up can help prevent cakes from becoming too brown or burnt on top?
When cooking cakes (especially lemon cakes for whatever reason; perhaps they're sweeter or have a different type of sugar?), I have trouble with the surface of the cake becoming too brown or burning while waiting for the inside to cook through. I frequently have to leave the cake in substantially longer than what the recipe states, and do my best to remove burnt bits afterwards.
This is probably partly because I often use a deep tin in order to get the right shaped cake for decorating, but I'm interested in techniques to reduce the browning/burning on the surface.
If I reduce the oven temperature, cooking time will take much longer, but that might be ok if the surface doesn't burn. How much would reducing the temperature help with this problem?
Are there other techniques that could slow the cooking of the top surface of the cake, such as shielding from above with tin foil, or increasing the humidity of the oven with a dish of water?
Is your oven electric or gas?
@Jolenealaska, it's electric, and modern (but not an expensive model).
How tall are these layers? Baking through without overdeveloping the crust is why truly tall cakes are assembled from individual layers.
Oops, I somehow skipped the "deep tin" bit when I read before, let me revise my answer.
You said that you're using deep pans to get the right shape for decorating. If you're using something deeper than the recipe calls for, you should expect to have trouble. It will take longer to bake through, while the top and bottom overcook, and if you've gone too far, the structure may not hold up as well during baking. You can probably get away with something 25-50% taller than the recipe is meant for, baking longer at a lower temperature, but in general, you should really try to use the correct size pan, and make multiple layers if you want something taller.
Wrong sized pans aside, reducing the temperature is definitely the best first thing to try. In pretty much all types of cooking, burning some parts before cooking others is a sign of too much heat. You should also check the temperature of your oven. Ovens thermostats can easily be significantly off. If you're having this problem with multiple recipes, it's plausible that yours is too hot. Depending on the source of your recipe, it's also possible that whoever wrote it was compensating for a too-cold oven.
Also, make sure that the cake is centered in the oven. The top of the oven is hotter, and too high a rack can definitely cause overbrowning on the top. Of course, if you lower it too much, you may overcook the bottom.
Shielding the top with foil is also very effective. If it's just that this is a particularly sensitive cake, I'd definitely try loosely covering with foil. Protecting the pie crusts is such a common version of this that you can buy pie shields, rings of metal to cover just the outside edge.
I wouldn't try to turn your oven into a steam oven for this; steaming will affect the texture of the surface of the cake.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.033360 | 2013-12-07T01:03:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40033",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Highly Irregular",
"Jolenealaska",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6767"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
28471 | What does the number mean in the specification for a mincer?
I'm looking at buying a mincer and am seeing them listed with descriptions like:
Cast Iron Meat Mincer # 12
Kitchen Craft Cast Iron Mincer 5
I haven't yet seen any mention of what the number means though! Can someone please enlighten me?
The number specifies the diameter of the grinder plate
#5 is 2 1/8 inches
#8 is 2 1/2 inches
#10 and #12 are 2 3/4 inches
#20 and #22 are 3 1/4 inches
#32 is 3 7/8 inches
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.033632 | 2012-11-17T08:42:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28471",
"authors": [
"Christopher Karr",
"Ian Newson",
"Kasun",
"barb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65761"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
23727 | When I'm separating egg whites, how much does it matter if a little yolk gets in?
I was separating egg whites today and one of the yolks broke and contaminated my bowl of whites. I started from scratch, but I'm wondering if I really needed to; would a tiny bit of yolk (say, 1/8 tspn in 4 egg whites) mixed in with the whites make a big difference?
To provide some context, I was about to whip the whites with castor sugar to make almond macaroons.
Yes, it matters a lot. When you are separating egg whites, it is for whipping them into a foam. This foam is a protein-based foam, relying on protein ends hooking into each other. Even small traces of fat will prevent the foam from forming. Egg yolks contain high amounts of fat. Once an egg yolk breaks in your whites, you have to start the separation anew, because it can prevent your foam from forming. Also, don't use plastic bowls for whipping egg whites (their surface retains some fat molecules even after washing, giving you a less stable foam) and only whip with a cleanly washed whisk or mixer attachment (not one you have just used for something else, not even if you wiped it clean).
To prevent big mishaps, just separate each new egg in a teacup and only add the new white to the old whites after it has separated cleanly. Else you are in big trouble if you are separating a lot and the last egg contaminates the whole whites with yolk. And a single contaminated egg is easily reused for a quick egg-and-feta sandwich or something else.
Contamination the other way round isn't so worrisome. You still want to work as precisely as possible, as yolk-only recipes will often have somewhat worse texture if eggwhite is included, but small contaminating amounts are usually not noticeable in the finished product, even in foams (zabaglione, mayonnaise). This is because yolk foams are fat-based, and small amounts of protein don't prevent a fat foam from forming.
I would add that it is especially important for something like macaroons, meringhe, etc. where a stiff foam is very important. You may get away with it if just lighly beating egg whites for a cake, though.
I have heard similar advice everywhere, but I must say I never noticed any difference when I switched from a metal bowl to some plastic bowl one day when I was lazy. I did clean it well. I have done it with success several times after. I use plastic measuring cups to whip egg whites in too, and it has always worked well enough. So I wonder what the real crucial threshold is: it must be somewhere between 1 molecule per gram and 1 % mass...
Nice answer. Pastry chefs use copper bowls for making meringues, as copper ions transfer to the egg whites and help stabilise them, preventing overbeating.
@ElendilTheTall you don't need copper. Acid does the same job as copper ions. So most recipes call for a pinch of cream of tartar (very weak acid, no taste). And it doesn't color the foam the way copper does.
@Cerberus I suspect that it depends on the type of plastic too. My measuring cups seem to be made of PLA or some similar hard plastic, while the plastic which always feels "greasy" is usually nylon-based. But I never tried it myself, only read about the problem in sources I consider reputable (I think McGee mentions it too), and of course for most applications, you don't want the stiffest meringue possible, just soft peaks.
@rumtscho: It is the kind that feels a bit greasy, it is fairly soft plastic.
I didn't say you needed it, I said pastry chefs use it :P
Nice answer. I'll give you a real life example and say that I accidently let some egg yolk into the egg whites and tried to save it but alas it did not foam and create stiff peaks at all. Save yourself and use a 3rd bowl/container for catching the egg whites of each egg.
I'm making financiers. They require whites only. It is not for whipping into a foam.
SeriousEats debunked this. https://www.seriouseats.com/2014/10/is-it-true-not-to-get-yolk-in-egg-whites.html
I just stumbled upon this to see if I ruined my angel food cake when some egg yolk leaked into my whites. I spooned out as much as I could but there was still a little in the whites but I didn't have enough eggs to start over. Gave it a go, and I was able to get stiff peaks. Took a tad longer than normal but I got stiff peaks nonetheless.
I had the same problem this morning as I was trying to make waffles, but I still got stiff peaks. I had a significant amount of yolk in my whites and what I did was I tried to scoop as much yolk as I could out of the whites with a spoon and, even though there were still some wisps of yolk leftover, the whites still became stiff peaks quite quickly (of course I was using the second highest setting on my electric mixer). Waffles were delicious!
I know that this question was from over a year ago, but id just like to point out that i make meringues at least once a month and often a little bit of yolk gets in.
This is never a big issue!!I just whisk the egg whites like normal and almost always it is fine.
Good Luck with future meringues!!
"almost always" and "never a big issue" contradicts itself a bit, I'm afraid.
It depends on the amount of yolk. 1/8 tsp of yolk to 4 whites may be a bit on the high side, but using a spoon and a damp paper towel to remove as much yolk as possible generally reduces the amount of yolk down to an amount that works fine. (You can sometimes lift yolk off the top with a damp paper towel, otherwise you can drag it up the side of the bowl with a spoon and then wipe it off the side with the paper towel.)
SeriousEats did a test where they compared whites with no yolk, whites with a trace amount of yolk (1 drop per 100 grams), whites with a larger amount of yolk (3 drops per 100 grams), and whites whipped in a bowl that had been wiped down with a thin sheen of vegetable oil. Only the whites with a larger amount of yolk failed to form stiff peaks. The other three tests formed virtually identical stiff peaks, although the whites with a trace of yolk took longer to form peaks.
That's good to know. I also love it that they looked at how the foam behaves after some time sitting around. In practical terms, a broken yolk is still a problem, I think - the "larger" amount was only 3 drops, and when a yolk breaks, I don't think I can remove it to have under 3 drops - but it is good info that we don't need to stress out that much. I suppose the good old rule might have been created before stand mixers - I have beaten egg whites by hand, and it feels as if it takes forever, even with the cleanest whites.
@rumtscho I added a little more on how to remove yolk, particularly I'd forgotten that a damp paper towel is important. I am Very Bad at cracking eggs so I usually have to use a combination of methods--cracking one at a time into a small bowl and then also removing traces of yolk from my small bowl to make slight oopses usable, so I don't end up with too many extra cracked eggs.
Before discarding, you can give this a try. Worked for me today (I was making tiramisu).
Lift as much of yellow specks from the egg whites in your bowl as you can and then start beating it, adding little sugar at a time.
Even after beating long enough if you do not see the anti-gravity feature of the meringue, just let your bowl sit undisturbed for some time (maybe half an hour).
Once you are back, you should see a foam-like surface on the bowl.
Scoop the foam up carefully with a spoon (don't dig too deep, else the liquid might come in too) and now hold the spoon upside down.
If the foam doesn't fall off, yippee, there you have your meringue!!
Collect as much of this foam as you can(remember to check for the anti-gravity feature) and add it to your cream mixture (in case of tiramisu), very gently mixing it in.
You will find that the cream slowly thickens.
Ofcourse, this method will not produce as much meringue as expected out of x number of eggs, but, it does come in handy.
There's no cream in a meringue. And I don't really understand how a foam substitutes for one. Can you clarify your answer please? Is this actually a method for recovering a meringue or is it just what it sounds like, some way of reusing the failed attempt?
I have done this too. Just whipping what you can whip and scoop out the stiff peaks.
Well I have had a little contamination from a broken yolk on two occasions but both times pressed on and had no problem getting the mix stiff enough in a normal timescale and the end product was perfect. I was making pavlova. So in my mind I have disproved the old wives tale that even minute amounts of yolk contamination make a foam impossible to sustain. I think the sugar beaten in stabilizes it strongly.
A speck of yolk shouldn't matter but more than that you should start over because you'll be disappointed in the final result I speak from decades of baking
It does matter!! I had this problem and I whipped and whipped and would not form anything. I didn’t have more that 3 drops of yolk!!
Honestly it doesn't really matter. If you want to separate the yolk, then you should break the egg and then slowly tip the yolk between the two shell halves. The other way is a bit more messy; first rule wash your hands. Then break the egg. Tip it into your hand and then roll it between your hands the white will filter out between your fingers. I have found that the best thing is to have 2 bowls, one for whites and one for yolks. This way if things get messed up then you won't ruin a whole meal.
If you are going to beat the egg whites to peaks, a teeny tiny bit of yolk wont spoil the effort IF you add 1/4 tsp of cream of tartar. This is my experience.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.033751 | 2012-05-12T09:05:37 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23727",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Cerberus",
"Dink Yurko",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Jacqueline Hager",
"Mien",
"O_O",
"Spammer",
"Sudix",
"aaguillon",
"akhmeteli",
"ale",
"eholmann",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132915",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53789",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53793",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94990",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97450",
"mach128x",
"nico",
"nora burghardt",
"rumtscho",
"user3067860",
"z5h"
],
"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
} |
16482 | DIY Finishing Salt (Maldon, Fleur de Sel)
I've found links here and here on making finishing salts, but this isn't the kind I'm talking about. These are just mixtures of salt and some flavoring.
I'm referring to salts like Maldon Sea Salt and Fleur de Sel. I know that these have (purportedly) minerals that make the salt taste richer. Back when I was working in a kitchen, I was taught that part of what makes these nicer is that they're large crystals that dissolve slowly on the tongue (instead of nearly-instantly like your run-of-the-mill Morton's).
So basically, I want to try making my own large salt crystal flakes. Maybe I'll use kosher salt instead of iodized salt, but the goal is to get large crystals that look like this, or even larger.
Finally, the questions:
Has anyone done this before?
What should I keep in mind?
What should I look out for?
How can I maximize crystal size?
Is there any overlap with growing crystals in general?
I have to wonder as to the purpose of doing this. Salt is one of the cheapest cooking ingredients and even up-market sea salts and rock salts are not really a big expense. It seems like allot of effort to make something that will never be as good as the real sea salts (lacking those minerals you mentioned.)
It's something I'd like to try, as I'm skeptical how much of a difference those minerals make in the flavor. Morton's Kosher Salt is about 10 dollars for 3 pounds. Maldon sea salt is about 16 dollars for one pound. The actual dollar difference may not be significant, but if it can be done, I may prefer this as a substitute.
It's not an answer to your question, but if you're still interested in the idea, you might find this of interest: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45952/can-you-candy-salt-experiment-results
A simple way to get "more" out of your salt, is to start with BIG crystals, and coat them gently in oil before sprinkling them over the food. That way they do not melt on contact with the food as they are protected from the water by the film of oil , and add a awesome crunchy texture to the serving.
Technically I think that your question is more chemistry related and not directly cooking related.
I can give you a few hints no what you can do to get crystals, but a chemist should be able to give you a lot better advice.
First, making the salt water solution:
Get distilled or at least demineralized water. You do not want to
add random minerals that are dissolved in water to your salt :)
Make a saturated solution of salt-water at a high temperature ...
something like 90-95C (~194-203F). The idea is that at higher
temperatures you get more of the salt dissolved in the water more
easily.
Keep the salt solution at that high temperature (well covered to
reduce evaporation) for some time to make sure that any undissolved
salt has settled to the bottom. You are interested only in the salt
in the solution.
Take only the saltwater without any undissolved salt. Until and
including this step, the solution should be best keep at the same
temperature. If you have to move the solution, at least make sure
that the thing that you are moving it into is not cold.
OK, now it is time to make the crystals:
Crystals grow. If they grow too fast or are disturbed (thermally
or mechanically) they fall apart and end up being smaller. This is
why when you make ice cream you churn the ice constantly (mechanical
disturbing the formation of possibly ice crystals) or chill it with
liquid nitrogen (thermally shocking the crystals and make them break
apart). What you get are very small crystals if you disturb them.
Crystals grow when they are "forced out of solution" - that is, when
the concentration of the salt in water is higher than the solubility
of salt in water at that specific conditions. Pressure is one of the
factors, but we will just ignore it completely. The factors that you
can work with are Temperature and concentration (just remove
water from the solution by evaporation)
To get BIG crystals, you have to let them grow slowly.
So, what you need to do is to cool the solution very slowly
AND/OR
Evaporate the water out of solution very slowly (take care not to
get dust in the solution during this procedure :) )
Unfortunately this is all the advice that I can give you now. Be aware that crystals are delicate and you might need a few attempts until you get the desired result. As a fun fact, there exist conditions where you will actually get a BIG salt Cube aka, a single salt Crystal by doing this :) . Cool indeed , but not very useful for cooking :)
Awesome answer overall :) I want to give this a few days to see if anyone can chime in with experience about crystallizing salt specifically, to address some specifics like you mentioned about distilled water. I wonder, for instance, if brita-filtered water would be sufficient to be unnoticeable. My theory with this entire question is that the extra 'minerals' in fleur de sel and maldon sea salt don't actually lend to a much greater experience.
Also a couple of other points: 1. excellent point about the oil. Dissolution makes perfect sense, but hadn't really occurred to me (though every time I used a finishing salt in the kitchen, it was over something already topped with a fine oil). 2. I wonder if total dissolution of the salt is necessary. Random grains in the liquid could act as nucleation points to hasten crystallization? 3. From what I've read about the industrial fine-sea-salt business, they grow crystals in large sheet pans, producing huge sheets of salt. The final product is broken up before packaging
Isn't all cooking just a form of applied chemistry? ;-)
I'm not a chemistry expert, but I wouldn't think a brita would be sufficient. A brita works by trapping fine particles in the enormous surface area of the charcoal particles with all their nooks and crannies in the filter. Dissolved salts would seem to just flow with the water. In chemistry classes, we used "deionized" water, which had been filtered by exposure to surfaces specifically designed to pull out dissolve salts, lest those salts interfere with our experiments.
I boiled 2 cups of regular sea salt to completely dissolve in 1 cup water then put it in a flat tray in the dehydrator on the jerky setting - the next day I did have a load of big crackly crystals and some dust.
I'm pretty late to the party but I have found that evaporating at temps as high as 140 degrees Fahrenheit will give pretty nice crystals. I am still looking for cheap, easy ways to consistently maintain lower temps, my target from some reading I have done is about 110 degrees Farenheit. I got 140 with the simmer burner on my range heating a water bath and the saline suspended in that. Also going to try the fresh air when summer comes and such temps are there for the asking.
I've done this a couple of times now using sunlight alone, which took about a day on a Bangkok day (35 C throughout the day). I might try it again with a fan, as airflow would cool the overall body of water, but might make evaporation happen faster. One thing to look out for when using fresh air is that you might get bugs in your salt. I suppose some kind of mesh cover would help with that.
If you live near the sea, you could copy the methods used industrially to make sea salt. Simply collect some sea water and spread it over a wide flattish pan in the sun to evaporate, repeat again and again until a decent layer of salt builds up. To do this you do need to live somewhere hot, with plenty sun, near the sea.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.034518 | 2011-07-29T05:09:36 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16482",
"authors": [
"Andre",
"Denise",
"ESultanik",
"Ecko",
"Eric Hu",
"GKS1",
"Garg",
"Jolenealaska",
"Jonathan",
"Rincewind42",
"Stéphane",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35132",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35136",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86965",
"user35128"
],
"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
} |
16413 | How can I determine fat content in beef?
I'm looking to determine with as much accuracy as possible (without buying specialized equipment) the fat percentage of ground beef. Is anyone aware of a method that will get me reasonably close?
I found some ideas over here but I'm not confident that any of them are terribly accurate (save the one with the calorimeter.)
http://ask.metafilter.com/152910/A-way-to-test-the-fat-content-of-minceground-beef-at-home
What's the end result? How do you intend to cook it? Taco meat, burgers??
I'm not planning on reusing the meat after the experiment. I buy ground beef from a local farmer and the fat content isn't labeled. I'd like to test a little bit to get an idea of what I'm eating.
I'd also like to compare pre-cooking fat content and post-cooking fat content for several different cooking methods.
The metafilter people seem to say that you can melt the fat, separate and weigh. But this is a bad idea, because when you heat the meat, it also loses water (suet melts in the 45°-50°C range, beef proteins start denaturing and expeling water at 50°C). You'll have to go through density. Maybe electirc resistance, but this will be harder.
@rumtscho: Rendering and weighing the fat should work, the water loss doesn't matter. You just need to collect all the fat, which would be fairly easy using a fat separator after boiling it.
@derobert Good point. Of course, it will be imprecise, because both the separation of fat from meat and water from fat will be incomplete. But home measurement of a density plus judging the "proper" density of non-fatty tissue is imprecise too, so I don't know which result will be better. (How much of a piece of dead meat should be protein, how much water? Sure there are average numbers available, but the actual ones depend on the animal part, butchering method and possibly the overall fitness of the animal).
I can try each of the methods on grocery store bought meat (of known fat content) and see how they compare. If you add the methods as answers to this post, I can upvote and add comments with my results after I have a chance to do it. Thanks for all the help!
The grocery store meats will likely be higher fat than the package claims. At least in the US, 80% means that 20% of it was fat trimmings, but the rest isn't necessarily all lean.
Weigh the ground meat before starting to determine its total weight.
Render as much fat as possible in the ground meat by boiling or simmering.
Use a fat separator to separate off the fat
Allow the fat to dry (or dry it by gently bringing to >100°C/212°F, beware splattering).
Weigh the amount of fat rendered.
Fat percentage is 100 × (fat weight) ÷ (total weight).
Alternative method: Ask farmer which primal cut the meat is ground from. Look up answer in table. :-P
The instrument sold to markets to determine % fat apparently (from operation manual) renders a known volume of ground beef into a known diameter vial and measures the thickness of the fat layer floating above the water with a gauge that is calibrated in fat percentage.
This instrument would not account for added water (which presumably takes up some of the raw meat volume) but could certainly include a factor to account for the unrendered fat by adding the known percentage of residual fat to the measured percentage in the vial.
Any ideas for how to approximate this without the specialized instrument?
A method of approximation that i use would just be looking at the amount of white and red colours.
Good mince would have a lot of red, and very little white, and bad mince, has a very little red.
"Red" is the meat itself, and "white" is the fat, and the colours in between are stuff like cartilage.
Using approximation, you can just estimate the amount of fat in your mince.
I'm really looking for a method that will get me within a few percent of the actual amount.
Building on this, you could make a perspex grid say 10 cms square, divided into 1 cms squares. Place over the meat, and count the squares that are mostly white fat and take this as the percentage fat. You'll need to calibrate this, but if you're looking for a quick and dirty method without complicated equipment it may work. Sorry, no ideas about testing post-cooking - but if you know (or can measure) what's gone in and what you've added/lost you should be there.
Many years ago I worked at McDonalds. That was over 40 years ago, back when we cut, washed and cooked our french fries each day, even mixed our own 'secret sauce' (1000 island dressing with catsup stirred in). What applies here is the burger patties were supplied fresh from a local butcher. Each new batch, 2 or 3 times a week had to be tested by the manager for fat content and possibly other tests. He used a small vial or test tube and some chemicals for the test. I don't know what was used but I'm sure this test is still available somewhere.
Buy several ratios types from the store (90/10, 80/20, etc). Weigh out equal portions of each including your own. Render out the fat of each portion for the same amount of cook time. Drain the fat, measure, and compare. Whichever one from the store is closest to yours likely also has the closest ratio. Use that going forward.
Going forward? That assumes the farmer will always sell the asker the same ground primal cut. It's more likely this will be a procedure that the asker will have to redo for every batch bought, and buying multiple pounds of beef from the grocery to use for calibration will likely end up exceedingly wasteful and expensive.
I am trying to determine the same. The problem with rendering out the fat is; Some fat stays behind with the meat if you are just browning the meat for use.I I am curious because sometimes I buy meat and a lot more fat is rendered out than what I usually experience. Normally, If I use a 90/10 and brown the meat very little comes out. I may even need to use a little bit to facilitate the browning. If I use a 80/20 grind, there is some fat that would need to be removed before proceeding with the recipe. This experience tell me that 10% of the weight of the meat is fat that does not render out, so if you get a 10% rendering, your fat content would be 10% (which stays with the meat) plus the 10% that is rendered out. The example I gave would be an 80/20 ground beef.
If the processor adds water to the beef (via ice chips), my method would yield a lower percentage of fat that it is in reality. For example, your meat composition is actually 70% meat, 15%fat and 15% ice chips (added water). When you render it, the added water is not counted, so yu are left with the meat and fat. off leaving meat and fat. Doing the math, what was sold as 15% fat is in reality over 21% fat. Barely allowed to be called ground beef.
To determine the percentage lean of meat:
NOTE: This method would certainly get you close, but is completely uncomplicated.
Published data:
Density of lean beef (from info by link below) is 0.96 grams/milliliter
1 US cup contains 240 milliliters
For 1 US cup of lean beef, the expected weight value would be 0.96 g/ml x 240ml
the result would be 230.4 grams.
To calculate percentage lean: (actual weight, grams)/(expected weight, grams) x 100 or
(actual weight, grams)/(230.4 grams) x 100
Example:
1cup sample of ground beef weighs 220 grams so,
220g/230.4g x 100 = 95.4 percent lean and 9.5 percent fat
http://www.fao.org/3/ap815e/ap815e.pdf
I'm confused about what you're suggesting. Why would the fat not also contribute to the total weight?
I would think that you'd need to find the balance point where the fat percentage contributes the correct amount of weight to achieve the recorded result. But it would also be better to work off a more reliable volume. "one cup" is difficult to measure unless it's ground meat (so you have issues with packing it to remove all of the air). It might be better to use something like a 4cm cube( 64mL, so 61.44 grams would be 100% lean).
Tallow is 216.62g/250mL, so 0.86648 density, or 55.455 g/64mL cube. (I'm not saying this density approach wouldn't work, but it's going to be a slightly more complex formula)
And I just re-read the question and noticed they are dealing with ground beef ... which means voids. So you'd probably want to measure out your beef by displacement (and stirring to eliminate trapped air bubbles), and then subtract out the weight of the liquid used.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.035230 | 2011-07-26T13:14:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16413",
"authors": [
"Aluthren",
"Cameron Ford",
"Chris Breish",
"Dave Mateer",
"Hua",
"IntrepidDude",
"Joe",
"OldSchool",
"Rikon",
"Roddy of the Frozen Peas",
"Sneftel",
"Stuart",
"Tony Lehr",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133892",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34944",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6848",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7347",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87687",
"logophobe",
"rumtscho",
"user35053"
],
"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
} |
17207 | How to make my meatballs more solid
I've been following a recipe for meatballs but they are far too loose for putting on the bbq. I thought I could maybe put them in the fridge before cooking them, or brown them in a pan before putting them on the bbq - I was wondering, does anyone have any idea of how to make them a bit more solid? or any better way of making meatballs / keftedes?
The recipe is here : http://www.meatwave.com/blog/keftedes-grilled-greek-meatballs-recipe
This is a recipe for keftedes alright but keftedes are not supposed to be bbqed. They are floured and fried.
a few tips here
I noticed that the beef was "80% lean", try to go with little bit fatter beef like "60% lean". This sounds strange, but I would try to beat up (or stir) the minced beef before mixing with other ingredients. When you beat or stir the beef, you will notice the fat will create a gel texture that helps to stick the beef better.
I would also separate the egg yolks and egg white. I would put the egg yolk in 1st with all the ingredients and put the egg white last. Egg White on its own will also help you to stick the minced beef better.
Lastly, if it still doesn't work, try to lightly apply flour on each meat balls before cooking. The flour will help sealing the juice inside the meat balls, which the meat balls will stick together better
If you decide to use the flour trick, add that before the eggs, otherwise you'll just end up with crusty meatballs that fall apart.
+1 to the idea of beating the minced beef as it sounds like what you're looking for is similar to a sausage texture and this is done in sausage making.
I'm using a very similar recipe, and usually when they're too soft, it's because the soaked bread still had too much liquid in it. Step 1 of the recipe says:
...squeeze the excess liquid out.
I've found this to be a vitally important step.
If it still doesn't work, try adding one or two tablespoons of breadcrumbs.
I don't think you need to add anything more to the recipe if you manipulate each meatball more. You're probably not giving the proteins in the muscle fibers the opportunity to be introduced to and bond with one another.
Also, you can cook the meatballs in a pan made for a grill -- there are several models, with wild price variations, that have holes throughout. These are generally intended for grilling vegetables, but can obviously be adapted for other uses.
I add ground pork (around 30%) to my meatballs to create a more solid meatball. And don't over add bread crumbs, too much of a good thing can make it fall apart. Sometimes, I add Italian sausage in place of straight pork.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.035926 | 2011-08-28T08:01:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17207",
"authors": [
"AaronN",
"Aaronut",
"Becky",
"Johnny Wayne Mitchell",
"charisis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36947",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36954",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7087"
],
"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
} |
31907 | Can I do anything to make my gas oven better?
I have an old gas oven at home which is generally pretty rubbish at most things. The temperature in the oven is wildly off compared to what the dial says it should be; there are hot/cold spots throughout; the top temperature is adequate for most of my needs, but on occasion I've wanted a really hot oven and it's never been able to get there.
Is there anything I can do to make my oven better? How can I hack it? I've just bought a probe to use with my digital thermometer and the oven, but I was wondering if anyone could recommend anything else? I've considered the following options, but unsure if they are good ideas or not:
Putting a fan in the over to help circulate the air around.
Getting a pizza stone to put in the bottom of the over to keep heat when opening the door
** edit **
I would replace the thing but my kitchen is really small so I'm stuck with having to buy a very narrow oven which severely reduces the selection I can choose from.
I don't know if there are after market convection fans for ovens; you certainly can put in a pizza stone (or unglazed quarry tiles) to increase the thermal mass within the oven. That will help somewhat with heat loss when you open the door, but not with hot and cold spots.
A fan in a gas oven could make it unsafe in unxpected ways, the original designer of the equipment could have made any number of assumptions about certain areas of the oven being heated or not heated in a certain way, or about pressure/gas flow...
I think you may reach the point of diminishing returns if you try and fix your oven because there's lots that could be going wrong. It could be that your oven design is just bad, in which case you can't fix it anyway. It could be a faulty temperature sensor, or a bad gas valve, or a faulty burner. Your gas supply pressure could be inconsistent. By the time you replace all these you'll have spent more than a new oven would cost.
I'd first clean it really well. Get all the dust and gunk out and see if that helps. Then you should see if you can find a pro who can have a look at it, test the gas supply, see if there's any quick wins.
One suggestion I'd make would be to post this on the diy stack exchange forum, the home improvement site. As this is more a question about mechanics and repair you're likely to get a better answer there.
I would suggest adding some mass to your oven but not in the form of a pizza stone but rather in the form of a 1/4inch thick piece of steel. This not only will hold the heat well but you can make killer pizza that way too.
Also, does your oven have a broiler? If so I would say see if that can help heat it further. On some models you have independent control of the broiler and can run the oven and the broiler at the same time.
I've done that; bottom heat to max then broiler which is not thermostatic
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.036193 | 2013-02-14T11:21:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/31907",
"authors": [
"BSmart",
"Belovan",
"Demi Semi Remi",
"Michael Huff",
"Pat Sommer",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73346",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73347",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73350",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73379",
"knx",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
18868 | Is raffinose broken down into its component sugars when cooked?
Raffinose is a sugar found in legumes that is indigestible by humans. Which is great, because I'm looking for a sweetener that 1) won't raise blood sugar and 2) doesn't have a bitter aftertaste and isn't carcinogenic or whatever else. The question I have is: Does raffinose break down during cooking? If heat can decompose it into other sugars then it's useless for my purposes.
Related Meta post.
In most cooked foods, it will break down.
Raffinose has a melting point of 80°C and decomposes at 118°C. So if you keep the food below 118°C, you will be OK. You can sweeten your tea with it, or use it in a custard (the big sugar molecules will interfere somewhat with the setting of the custard, but I can't predict if the effect will be noticeable at all). Applications involving simmering water should be safe, if the solution consists of water mostly. However, if you use large amounts of raffinose (e.g. you are trying to make a jam), the boiling point of the solution can be much higher than the boiling point of water.
As for baking, the raffinose will definitely decompose in the outer layers of the baked good, but this could be a very small part of the whole. The core of a properly baked cake should stay much lower than 118°C. Small items like cookies will be more problematic.
When making a substitution, you have to consider that in some recipes, sugar is more than just a sweetener. For example, I don't know if you can cream butter with raffinose the way you can do it with table sugar, and without creaming, you can't make proper cookies. Another example would be pectin: high methoxyl pectin (the one used for jams) requires high sugar concentration for gelling, so you probably can't substitute raffinose there (unless you heat it enough, because one of its decomposition products is sucrose).
Another thing to consider before eating lots of raffinose is that it is indigestible for humans and gets degraded by gut bacteria in the intestines, producing large amounts of gas - it has the same effect as eating lots of beans, for exactly the same reason.
The source for the boiling and decomposition point of raffinose is the material safety data sheet for raffinose.
For a few years between around 2004 and 2007, a number of Korean and Japanese companies started started emphasizing products sweetened with various industrially isolated oligosaccharides, which is the family of sugars that raffinose belongs to. I believe the sources commonly extracted from included soybeans and other beans, based on the information from Chinese, Korean and Japanese manufacturers I was in contact with at the time. I even ran into one Korean beverage producer that went so far as to switch from sucrose to oligosaccharides in all of their products, although I recently spotted their products at Trader Joe's and that made me realize they've since either liberalized or backtracked on that decision.
http://www.foodnavigator.com/Science-Nutrition/Novel-oligosaccharides-as-sweeteners-for-food-beverages (which has a couple of annoying interstitial and/or intrusive ads; I don't have any influence over their content, but my apologies nonetheless) seems to indicate that certain new commercially produced oligosaccharides are stable in a fairly narrow temperature and PH range, so I suspect the answer to your question is "it depends." Raffinose is apparently still a frequent subject of study, though it seems like the question you have should be reasonably well answered by now; I'm not a chemist, so I can't parse much from the research summaries I'm able to locate. But I suspect that whatever happened, the isolate oligosaccharide products turned out not to be a panacea, or at least the marketing story turned out to be inadequate to sufficiently drive sales.
http://www.jafra.gr.jp/eng/origo.html indicates that raffinose can be extracted from (some form of) beets for use as a sweetener.
In any event, there's a chance you may be able to find oligosaccharide syrup or maybe even a crystalline form if you look hard enough, and it appears, from what little I'm able to glean, that it's fairly stable, and probably not going to break down in cooking. But I suspect that, like most sugar substitutes, simply replacing your sugar consumption with an alternative sweetener won't bring about meaningful health benefits; nearly every "healthy" sweetener has some undesirable side effects when consumed in large quantities.
Personally, I have a strong bias against any attempt to treat food as some sort of medicine, and my experience is that food manufacturers have little interest in making you healthier (but they do have interest in profiting based on your motivation to be healthy), so I wouldn't put too much stock in the idea that oligosaccharides, or anything else, are a meaningfully healthier alternative to sucrose. There are probably better ways to improve your health than by relying on food technology, and consuming moderate amounts of sweeteners of any type is probably more beneficial than replacing heavy consumption of sucrose with heavy consumption of the alternative sweetener of the month. But there certainly have been efforts to commercialize oligosaccharides for the health food market, and it's probable that there's at least some data to support the notion that oligosaccharides have some health benefits of some kind.
I currently eat no sucrose and the only other sugars I get are from fruits and vegetables and such. I definitely agree that eating a ton of a substitute isn't really a good idea, I'm just looking for the very occasional use. Thanks for the info!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.036469 | 2011-11-10T02:46:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18868",
"authors": [
"DebraMN",
"Matthew Read",
"Rhys",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40889",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4152",
"johnnydee"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
29429 | Is there a way to heat a precooked ham in a 425 degree oven?
Is it possible to protect a precooked ham while heating in an over hot oven?
For example is it possible to heat a precooked while cooking a turkey at 425 by say wrapping it in a double layer of foil, or placing it in a pan of water, etc?
425° F is so hot that it will surely burn over-do the outside of a ham before the inside will get warm. However, you can slice the ham then warm it for about 10 minutes. Slicing it will allow the whole slice to get warm, while not over-cooking the outside.
I did end up slicing the ham and tossing it in the oven protected by heavy duty aluminum foil. Though my two large pans ended up in there for longer, the overall result was well heated ham that was not overly dried out.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.036908 | 2012-12-24T17:01:21 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29429",
"authors": [
"A. Max",
"AlbertEngelB",
"AnnaJuist",
"Cynthia Mann",
"EricJM",
"Joshua Drake",
"Matt Hoffman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68402",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68404",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69058",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9172"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
42853 | Mix a cake in a bag
I saw a recipe on the web (via reddit) of someone making cupcakes in a sandwich bag, and then piping it out by snipping off the corners. The main reason was to save washing up (and in my case lack of a mixing bowl!)
I was looking to make cakes somewhat like these which are also piped from a bag.
The thing is I can't find the recipe for the original cake-in-a-bag, and I was concerned there would be something I was missing if I were to simply mix the second recipe in a bag. What do I need to change if I want to jump straight to mixing the ingredients in a bag?
Kids do this in school groups or camps etc. to save on washing up and to preserve hygiene
Never had to use a special recipe before, just measure out the ingredients for what will fit comfortably in the bag
We use this for making bread, and even ice cream!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.037036 | 2014-03-19T07:38:56 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42853",
"authors": [
"Anodita Singh Rajavat",
"Krishna",
"Spammer",
"Terry",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100166",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100174"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
55674 | How do I make sure spice mixes don't make my curry grainy?
I'm making a curry, with an unknown dry mix of spices (smells remind me of cumin, turmeric and cinnamon) in the form of a powder.
When I've used it before though it's ended up grainy.
Have I been using to much spice mix? It have I not cooked the mix enough? How can I reduce the grainy texture?
Are the spices well-ground? Are you sure the spice mix is what made your curry gritty?
Do you recall what volume of spice you used? How many portions was the final meal?
When did you add the spices? Dumping them in at the end is much less pleasant than cooking them in the oil at the beginning of the recipe.
I make a homemade enchilada sauce that calls for 4TB of chili powder for 2C of chicken stock. I make my own chili powder by grinding dried chilis in a coffee grinder that I use for spices. I make sure that the powder is finely ground. To make sure the final product is not grainy, I cook the sauce for at least 25-30 minutes at a bare simmer, whisking every couple minutes. The end result is a reduced sauce that is silky and creamy without the graininess. Even though your powder may seem fine in texture, you might try running through your spice grinder and add some extra cooking and whisking time.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.037155 | 2015-03-13T19:48:57 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55674",
"authors": [
"Ambria Dawson",
"Ben Cram",
"Brenda Cobb",
"Catija",
"Debbie Weber",
"Derpy",
"Joe",
"Minouris",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132300",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
123854 | Do I need to render the fat from the edge of a steak if I'm cooking it in a George Foreman type grill?
I'm familiar with rendering the edge fat of a piece of meat, but I don't know if that's necessary if I'm cooking it in a George Foreman type grill, with plates either side.
Obviously it depends on the cut and the amount of fat, but how do I know when it needs separate rendering before grilling?
You can always trim off the fat instead of eating it. Trying to cook the edge would defeat the convenience of that style of appliance
@Joe I can use the grill like a traditional griddle which is still more convenient for me. But if I know how much fat would be rendered just by putting it in the grill, without trimming/separate rendering that would be handy.
Steak cooks relatively quickly. You are not going to get much rendering. (Maybe you are not using the term correctly? Rendering is slowing cooking so that most of the fat liquefies...generally not what you are after when cooking a steak). So, it depends on your personal preference of how much fat you like on your grilled steak (some of this also depends on the steak quality and fat content). As @Joe points out, trimming some or most fat before cooking is a good option. Searing the edges and sides on the grill or flat top, is really just for coloring, light crisping, or charring, rather than for rendering. In a steak preparation, one is either going to eat that fat or trim it off while eating, depending on your preference. On the other hand, for example, when cooking duck breast, one generally wants the fat between the skin and meat to render out.
Perhaps rendering isn't the right term. I want the fat to not be chewy basically.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.037416 | 2023-04-09T12:03:35 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123854",
"authors": [
"AncientSwordRage",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9223"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
54516 | Why "Yeast Extract"
I'm having dinner at a popular burger joint, and the have their house seasoning on the table. It includes "Yeast Extract". What would be the reason to include this in a season?
Yeast extracts provide umami, so it's a flavor enhancer. In the burger joint context, I imagine you might think it makes things taste a bit more meaty.
The most famous yeast products are things like marmite and vegemite, but it doesn't have to be that intense. And since it's pretty easy to produce and can be dried into a powder, it's a common ingredient. You've probably had it in all kinds of commercially produced food without even knowing it.
Yeast extract contains a high content of glutamic acid, which, together with salt, forms MSG - hence the Umami taste. It's a flavour enhancer.
As MSG has been the focus of many health / nutrition scares and blamed for "everything" from cancer to obesity, using yeast extract allows a manufacturer to avoid writing "MSG" and still have it in the food. -> Even the claims "no MSG added", "no artificial flavors" or "all natural flavours" are valid.
I don't think this is correct. The FDA explicitly bans "No MSG added" claims for glutamate extracts. See https://www.fda.gov/food/food-additives-petitions/questions-and-answers-monosodium-glutamate-msg "While FDA requires that these products be listed on the ingredient panel, the agency does not require the label to also specify that they naturally contain MSG. However, foods with any ingredient that naturally contains MSG cannot claim “No MSG” or “No added MSG” on their packaging. MSG also cannot be listed as “spices and flavoring.”"
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.037598 | 2015-02-07T23:54:34 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54516",
"authors": [
"Anne Wells",
"Becky 93",
"Jackson Township Roofing",
"Pauline Hall",
"Toni Cruz",
"Walter",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9764",
"octern"
],
"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
} |
109975 | Avocado hard and grey inside
I had a batch of avocados from the supermarket, as I normally do.
I often have 3-5 days before they're past the point of being edible.
This batch was not more that 2 days old, and three out of five looked like the avocado below (this is probably the best of the bad bunch), despite being firm.
In fact I felt like I was being a little cheeky and risking opening an unripe avocado.
Is the greyness from damage or disease?
I tasted one, and rather that tasting over or under ripe it was just bland.
In my experience, avocados with this behavior are normally picked too early. Although all avocados are picked early in commercial settings because of transit to market timing, when they are picked TOO early they begin to mature as "seeds" before they actually ripen. The flesh becomes fiberous, rather than soft, as the seed prepares to germinate. Alas, I've never been able to tell if this will happen before buying them.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.037781 | 2020-07-31T20:31:49 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109975",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
110329 | Cheese like slime on potato, but no pinkness
I had some potatoes in the back of a cupboard, and one solitary potato has sort of disintegrated into a cheesy yellow slime.
The skin looks mostly intact, and the slime is sticky exactly like melted cheese. I looked up potato slime, and the only similar ailment was pink slime, but there's no pink here.
They were not old enough for any other signs of rot.
I've washed the other potatoes, and will monitor them.
What happened to that one potato.
Yuuuuuuuuuuuuuck!
It rotted - that's about all you can say from this. Most likely a bacterial rot rather than a fungal rot. If you bought them recently, it was probably already rotting.
This is a form of soft rot, which is a common disease of potatoes world-wide, and can even destroy whole crops in the field. There are a range of bacteria that cause these rots, but Pectobacterium is a common genus for this form of rot.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.037882 | 2020-08-21T23:53:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110329",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
60468 | How to solve under-baked cookie centers?
I've made 3 batches of this recipe for "The Best Soft Chocolate Chip Cookies" but I can't figure out how to keep them soft and have them fully baked.
I baked the batches at 350 degrees with the following variations:
Exactly like the recipe, baked 10 minutes. Under-baked centers.
Made with browned butter. Baked 16 minutes. Fully cooked centers, but not soft.
Made with browned butter and refrigerated dough. Baked 13 minutes. Slightly under-baked centers.
Any suggestions? I'm not attached to the recipe, so if someone wants to recommend a totally different one, I'm listening.
Have you checked your oven temperature with an oven thermometer? It's possible that your oven is cool.
"refrigerated dough" is really common advice in cookies, have you tried more time variations from refrigerated?
@Catija - I think my oven does run cool. Is this why the outsides are finishing before the insides do?
I'm pretty sure that underbaked centers and browning exteriors is a sign your oven is running hot, but I'm not certain.
@rumtscho - I have not. Having seen/touched all the variations, I don't think 16-minute cookies from refrigerated dough would be any softer than the room-temp dough 16-minute cookies.
I agree with @Catija completely. Your oven may be running too hot. If the outside of the cookie is 'cooking' more quickly, or sooner than the middle, then your oven is too hot. Trying backing the temperature down 30-40F and see how you fair. Going to a hotter oven, would exacerbate the situation, since the outside would be crunchy and set, while the inside raw.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.037995 | 2015-09-03T03:02:57 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/60468",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Craig Elwood",
"Jenny Fuller",
"John",
"Lauren Bell",
"Scott Hayes-Watkins",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144745",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144746",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6631",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
15939 | Can I make this bread recipe gluten free?
My fiance has celiac disease and so I have been trying to get better at baking gluten-free lately. I have made the following recipe many times and it is soooo delicious; I was wondering if someone more knowledgeable than myself can help me with the proper conversions to make the recipe gluten free? The recipe is found here, but I have also copied it below. My initial thoughts are trading the bread flour and whole wheat flour for a mixture of buckwheat and garfava flour with maybe 2 tsp of xantham gum. Thank you for any help!
Ingredients
Night Before:
* 1/3 cup bread flour
* 1/3 cup whole wheat flour
* 1/3 cup lukewarm water
* 1/8 teaspoon instant yeast
Soaker:
* 1/4 cup toasted cracked wheat
* 1/4 cup water
Day of:
* 2 cups bread flour
* 2/3 cup whole wheat flour
* 1 cup lukewarm water
* 1 1/2 teaspoon salt
* 1/2 teaspoon instant yeast
* 1 cup roasted potatoes and onions
Method
The night before you want to make this bread add all the "night before" ingredients
together and mix till smooth. Cover with plastic wrap and leave on the counter for
12-16 hours. In a separate bowl combine the "soaker" ingredients together and cover
with plastic wrap and leave on the counter for 12-16 hours. In the morning chop a few
potatoes and place in a baking dish. Cut about a half a onion and mix with the
potatoes. Add a few tablespoons of olive oil and some thyme roast in the oven till
golden brown. Cool before using in the bread. Prep all the ingredients you will need
ahead. This will help to make things move faster. In a large bowl add the "night
before" mixture, the soaker, water, salt and instant yeast. Mix together. Add whole
wheat flour and have the bread flour. Mix till the batter is smooth and well blended.
Allow to sit uncovered for 15 minutes. Sprinkle some of the flour onto a flat surface
and pour out the dough. Top with some more flour and begin to knead slowly adding in
the rest of the flour. Add a little at a time till the dough is smooth and elastic.
Plus, a little on the sticky side. You will need to knead the dough for about 8 - 10
minutes. Take the dough and flatten it out a little. Add the roasted potatoes and
onions to the top of the dough. Now, knead in the potatoes into the dough. Knead till
the potatoes and onions are well incorporated. Add a little olive oil to a bowl and
place the dough into the bowl. Cover the dough with plastic wrap and allow to rest
till double in bulk. Pour out the dough onto a flat surface. Cut dough in half and
shape each piece into a ball. Sprinkle some cornmeal onto parchment paper. Place the
pieces of dough on top and dust with a little whole wheat flour. Cover with plastic
wrap and allow to rest for 1 hour. Remove the plastic wrap and score the top of the
bread with a sharp knife. Place into a preheated 440 degree oven with a baking stone
or on a cookie sheet. Create some steam by placing a cast iron pan on the bottom of
the oven the same time that you turn on the oven. Once you place the breads into the
oven pour about a cup of boiling water into the hot pan and close the door. Bake for
30 -35 minutes or till when tapped on the bottom of the loaf it sounds hollow.
Gluten free bread recipes are hard to get right, and maybe won't function with kneading per hand (there was a question about non-rising gluten free bread yesterday). You are much better off with an existing gluten-free bread recipe. Pick one which you know to be good, and prepare the dough as usual. Follow the recipe which is described here from the "Take the dough and flatten it out a little" sentence on, using your known good gluten-free dough instead of the one described here.
I don't know what would be the best substitute for the soaked wheat, experiment with soaked grains or myabe something else which gives a slight crunch (sunflower seeds, almond pieces - don't soak these).
Thank you for the advice. I sort of expected that this probably wouldn't work, but it might be worth one or two experiments. I do have a pretty good GF bread recipe so I'm going to give it a shot!
It is possible that it will work, but the risk to get something inedible is high. A high hydration dough is only possible with gluten anyway (I converted this in my head, so maybe it isn't that high a hydration, but it looks like a very soft dough). When you know from the start that you can't duplicate the taste of the bread part, there is no sense in too much experiments. It is the potato, onion and soaker part that makes the recipe special, so combining it with a good gluten-free dough is probably your best bet.
I think you are right. The bread is good, but the potato and onion is what really makes it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.038428 | 2011-07-04T16:27:16 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15939",
"authors": [
"A B",
"Ankit Sharma",
"FreeAsInBeer",
"golliher",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33924",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6665",
"rumtscho",
"user33920"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
21703 | Recipe generator for randomized meal planning
has anyone of you ever tried a randomized week long meal planner for dieting ?
If you have read the 4 hour body delegating the cycle to an alogrithmen makes a lot of sense in my opinion. I'm happy for any suggestions for a 80 % solution.
Honestly, I'm just to lazy to think about the whole
leftovers - buy - cook - eat cycle. I end up munching instead leftovers all the time. So I like to try something new - randomization since flipping coin decisions are fun, why should meal planning not be.
My criteria , 15 min max, low carbs and cheap.
I want title, picture, ingredients and prep guidlines. The ingredients I like to aggregate to a grocery list. If possible serving and shopping sizes are also available as additional constraints - I don't like leftovers (I would munch them).
Preferably there is some kind of API for this :).
Tks for suggestions.
Just pay somebody else to plan for you ;) That's what we do. Very cheap per year.
Sorry, we don't support product recommendations here, nor questions on health or dieting.
And if their sample menus are typical, they should be labeled something like "quick and easy." Heavy on processed ingredients and light on veggies.
You could start with Gourmet Recipe Manager and if your Pythonish skills are good enough you can easily add a plugin to randomly select recipes :)
Why not list out the recipes yourself, say onto cards or something, and then randomly draw them - by pulling cards from the box, or by numbering them and rolling dice, or whatever. Then build the week's shopping list from the list of meals. If each meal is balanced there's no need to write code to optimize for the week. And since you have free will, if you pull 3 meals in a row that are really similar (meatloaf, hamburgers, shepherds pie) you are free to swap Tuesday and Friday, or to toss one back and draw again.
If you plan to eat leftovers roughly half the time, don't draw 7 meals for a week, draw 4. In our house, certain meals have "official" leftover dishes that are made from them. You could just write that on the card: "make leftovers into pulled pork sandwiches the next day."
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.038787 | 2012-02-24T22:48:19 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21703",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Carey Gregory",
"Ghost Echo",
"Kristen",
"Stephen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48193",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"nico",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
21916 | How to replace water in meat (chicken, beef) with another liquid?
Is there a non-destructive way to replace water in meat such as chicken or beef, with another liquid (e.g. lemon juice)?
I'm not sure what you mean - do you mean the cell plasma in the muscle cells of meat?
Just the water component of the cell plasma. I don't want to lose nutritions in the process.
Out of curiosity... why?
No, there isn't. And you're probably not actually asking the question you mean to ask.
The first problem is that, to a first approximation, lemon juice is water—approximately 92%. Chicken breast is approximately 64% water, so even if you could remove that 64% water and replace it with lemon juice, you'd get chicken with 59% water and 5% sugar and other lemon juice components. It's rather silly to remove all the water, when your end result is to reduce it a small amount.
The second problem is that the chemistry inside the cells in the meat depends on that water. Removing it would destroy the meat—the cells would all collapse and likely eject their contents, proteins would be denatured in weird ways or broken apart, etc. Even beef jerky, which you'd think of as dry, is approx. 23% water. Flour is approx. 12%. Dried rice, 10%. You're asking for drier.
Likely, what you're actually trying to do—at least, if you're cooking, not performing chemistry experiments—is get lemon flavor into your chicken. In which case, obvious ways are marinade, flavor injectors, and squeezing it on after cooking the chicken.
(BTW: You can find water content of foods by either using the USDA nutrient database, or asking Wolfram Alpha)
I'm no expert (at all!), but I would go about this by first dehydrating the meat then rehydrating with the desired liquid. I would dehydrate the meat in a dehydrator or if you don't have one a low oven. A dehydrator would be better as it would remove a higher percentage of water content but an oven would do. I would then soak the meat in the desired liquid although 2 things could go wrong here: the meat losing its texture (likely) and not soaking up all the liquid just it's water content. This is the best I can of but I hope it helps.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.038993 | 2012-03-02T10:15:49 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21916",
"authors": [
"Mansour",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9340",
"rumtscho",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
45029 | Fresh salmon that was frozen after: till when can it still be eaten raw
I always buy fresh salmon filet, cut it into pieces and put it in the freezer.
I usually take a frozen piece cut it and eat it raw.
My question is: for how long can a frozen salmon filet (frozen after being fresh) still be eaten raw without the need to cook it?
As explained in How long can I store a food in the pantry, refrigerator, or freezer?, frozen food is safe indefinitely.
That being said, raw salmon that has simply been stored in your freezer for a while is not safe to consume without cooking. Not after 1 month, not after 1 week, not after 1 day. Fresh salmon needs to be cooked.
"Sashimi-grade fish" needs to be frozen at significantly lower temperatures than most home freezers are normally set at, and lower than many are actually capable of. Unless you can guarantee that it has been consistently lower than -20° C for 7 days or -35° C for 15 hours, you shouldn't eat it raw. Either buy sashimi-grade salmon from a reputable source, or order it prepared at a reputable restaurant.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.039185 | 2014-06-20T23:31:14 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45029",
"authors": [
"Amanda Hittenmiller",
"Edward",
"Ganit",
"Juanita Beach",
"Shaakira",
"Veronica Peterson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107090",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107094",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107095",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107096"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
22182 | Substituting cream of tartar in turkish delights?
I decided that my Sunday project would be trying making some rosewater Turkish Delights... I have all of the ingredients but cream of tartar. What could I substitute it with? Or can I leave it out completely?
I was thinking of lemon juice, but I am not sure about the proportions.
Also, would lemon juice go well with rosewater? I would say so, but rosewater is not something I use very often.
You've certainly got the right idea - cream of tartar is nothing more than an acidifier and so any acid can be used as a substitute. It combines with water to create tartaric acid.
Two important characteristics of cream of tartar are that it is (a) dry and (b) mostly flavourless. Vinegar, lemon juice, etc. are all wet and add some flavour of their own.
The substitution ratio most often cited for baking is 3:1 - that is 3 tsp vinegar or lemon juice for every 1 tsp cream of tartar. Don't use the 1:1 ratio typically given for egg whites (meringue) - the whole point of this in candy is to actually lower the pH, not just stabilize a foam. Again, pay close attention to how much liquid you're adding, and if it's significant, adjust the water content accordingly.
(Note: Technically, lemon juice would normally have a lower pH than 5% white vinegar, but the actual pH of these is so variable that it usually ends up being pointless to worry about it. Consistency is one of the advantages of using cream of tartar.)
You could also use citric acid or ascorbic acid (vitamin C). Citric acid is far more concentrated than lemon juice, you would only need to use 1/4 (25%) of the amount of lemon juice. That ends up being about 3/4 tsp citric acid for 1 tsp cream of tartar. It's a much closer substitution and doesn't change the flavour much. I believe that ascorbic acid is the same. Both are normally sold in anhydrous (powder) form, similar to cream of tartar.
All that being said, cream of tartar really isn't hard to find, it's sold in the spice section of any grocery store. One little tin will probably last you many years, so just buy one next time.
Thanks, I will try with the lemon juice and get some cream of tartar for next time! The extra water will not be a problem, the recipe I have calls for 1 tsp cream of tartar and 500 ml water. I doubt a few teaspoon of lemon juice will make any difference at all, also because there is 1 hour of simmering...
Just as a follow-up, lemon seems to have worked quite well. I think they still need to dry up a tad, but they're yummy!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.039306 | 2012-03-11T14:41:33 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22182",
"authors": [
"FredrikD",
"dmitchell",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49693",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"nico",
"quetzalcoatl",
"titan"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
15580 | Make spring rolls in advance
I'm making some spring rolls for a party on Friday. As I will not be able to make them the same day I was wondering what the best option would be. I will have the possibility of frying them directly at the place, but making them there would not probably be feasable.
What would you advice me to do?
make the rolls the night before, then freeze them and fry them the next day
make the rolls the night before, keep them in the fridge and fry them the next day
make and fry the rolls the night before. Reheat them (in the oven?) the next day (this sounds quite bad to me)
I think I will have some with pork, some with shrimp and some with veggies only.
Thanks
I think the best choice is number 2, get them all wrapped up and ready to go, cover them tightly and pop them in the fridge.
3 is possible but you risk them going soggy. They'll be fresher if you fry them on the day.
I've done the rolls, kept them in the fridge with some kitchen wrap on top and they were perfect!
Glad to hear it!
I've done number two before, but typically the morning of, not actually overnight.
Even that short in advance, the wrapper will start to get sticky and gummy, so you have to be careful about how you store them.
I think the last time I did it, I rolled them in cornstarch before storing long term, but I can't recall if I still had any problems. (I only tend to do it about once per year, not often enough to perfect the technique ... I think I also put something above them in the container (waxed paper?) so that there was less air to condense in the container)
I think I may actually try to do a few tomorrow and leave them overnight in the fridge to test the thing!
@nico : good plan ... if you're in a dry area, you might not see as much condensation, but it might be worth putting a paper towel down underneath, or similar.
@nico - did you test this, if so, what were your findings?
@DaveRook: yes, solution #2 worked perfectly!
If you make them the night before and freeze them, make sure that they are separated by a liner so they will not stick together. Freezing them will dry the wrapper and will assist in making the wrapper crispier a little longer than if you were to do item 2.
I am not sure how long your commute will be, but do not let your lumpia thaw. It will take the wrapper soggy.
When you are ready to fry, make sure nobody is allergic to peanuts if you are using peanut oil. Otherwise start with a high temperature, your lumpier will bring the temp down--so do not overcrowd them. Lastly, beware of those who sample while you cook. You will end up with zero on your platter when you are done. Good luck.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.039517 | 2011-06-18T14:49:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15580",
"authors": [
"Al Swilling",
"Cassie",
"Dave",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Joe",
"Rhapsody",
"Shamir Colloff",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33024",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33028",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"lsm",
"nico"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
17891 | Is there an alternative wrap for spring rolls other than rice paper?
I've been making spring rolls (the deep-fried variety) for some time now, and they are really good, but I've noticed some Asian restaurants use something else for wrapping them than the generic, translucent 'rice paper' I get at the store. Theirs are often smoother, yellowish and opaque, like in this photo from Wikipedia. A new book on Thai cuisine I got just recently also has them looking like that in the pohotos and it mentions some mysterious "spring roll wads" which I've yet to come across in any store in my country. Anyways, what is it exactly, can I make some of my own and if so, how?
EDIT: Also, does the preparation of the rolls differ any when using an alternative wrapper, or can I just deep-fry them just the same?
I didn't know rice paper rolls could be deep fried. I've always used them for "fresh rolls", like this: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42177/can-lettuce-wraps-be-less-messy/42245#42245 Now I am going to have to try frying them.
The non-rice paper rolls are probably made with wheat flour instead of rice flour, so they should be just as sturdy and stand up to deep frying as well or better than rice paper, which has always been fairly delicate and hard to work with in my limited experience.
Here is an image of flour egg roll wrappers in their uncooked state:
Thanks. Would you happen to know how to make these?
Here is a recipe I found that seems very similar to the recipe I remember watching my uncle make: http://chinesefood.about.com/od/dimsumeggrolls/r/eggrollwraps.htm
Makes me wish I had me an uncle who made spring rolls. :) Although I have to admit mine managed to stun me with his way of making "potato pancakes" by cutting potatoes into thin slices which he then put on the hot iron top of an old coal stove. Tasted surprisingly well too! :D
Basically, they're pasta. If you have a pasta roller, that works great for making egg-roll wrappers.
I usually prepare my spring roll warps fresh.
Use
2 cups of multipurpose flour (maida)
a pinch of salt
one egg
some water
Mix the above ingredients well to make a soft dough.
Let the dough rest for about 30 mins.
Make small balls of the dough and then roll them out into thin wraps.
Roast these wraps on a hot pan till very slightly brown.
Now you can use these wraps for your spring rolls and deep fry them.
These wraps get really crispy on deep frying.
You can also store these wraps in the refrigerator freezer and whenever you wish to use them first roast them slightly and then use. They stay good in the freezer for 8-10 days.
The recipe sounds good, but for wrapping, well-developed gluten produces better results. I would recommend adding two kneading steps, one before and one after resting - this will probably improve the texture (unless you are opposed to some additional cheapness).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.039769 | 2011-09-20T19:32:41 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17891",
"authors": [
"Jolenealaska",
"Katey HW",
"Mr Natural",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70991",
"neuviemeporte",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
81332 | Yeast Nutritional Values
Like most food products yeasts are labeled with nutritional values for calories, carbs, etc.
When yeast is 'activated' it is said to be 'reproducing' (or making more yeast). So, my question is,
"If I start with a tablespoon of yeast in bread, does the nutritional value change as the yeast grows?"
.and if so
Is there a good scale for knowing by how much?
Are the nutritional values of the other ingredients (sugars) altered by by being consumed by the yeasts?
Are you asking if the nutritional value of the bread changes, or the yeast itself?
Effectively both. If the value of the yeast changes with the growth and if that then effects the bread, or is there a balance of some sort where as sugars are consumed by the yeast and the growing yeast 'offset' each other.
Well, it's a vanishingly small amount of sugar lost to the CO2. Nevertheless, from first principles, I would say that the answer is definitely yes: the nutritional value of the yeast-plus-bread food complex will change as the yeast consumes the sugar. All metabolic activity comes at the cost of energy, and while the nutritional values of the other ingredients will not, from first principles, be altered merely by being consumed into a yeast cell, once inside the yeast cell, they will be broken down by metabolic activity; and in the case of sugars, the metabolic byproduct of sugar is CO2, the gas which causes bread to rise.
Thus, one rough measure of how much CO2 has been produced would be to measure the volume of dough at the beginning of yeast activation, before and after any punching-down of the dough, and then at the end. Once getting those measurements, you'd take the total increase in volume over the total baking process, assume that that volume is equivalent to the volume of pure CO2 produced inside the bread, and then calculate what number of moles of CO2 would be required to take up such a volume at the relevant temperatures measured. You'd then calculate the number of moles of sugar that needed to be fermented (not fully-metabolized) in order to produce that much CO2, and convert the moles likely first to dry weight and then to calories, and voila! You have your number, specifically (according to the below comments) 3.75g of sugar per liter of CO2.
One caveat about this measure (beyond merely its internal assumptions about CO2 volume) is that it assumes the yeasts are primarily using glucose/fructose as a power source. The reality is that the metabolism of unicellular organisms is complicated, and there may be other compounds other than these in there. However, these minor metabolic side-effects will be even smaller components of the nutritional loss than that of the sugar, negligible in scope.
I feel like you might want to lead with the fact that it's pretty much nothing. It might also be nice to have at least a rough number for how vanishingly small. I don't think the OP was expecting to be asked to do calculations. Looks like it's pretty close to 1 gram of glucose per liter of CO2 produced at 20C room temperature?
Or actually, I think 3.75 grams of sugar per liter of CO2. Previous comment said 6 mol CO2 per mol of sugar, but that's for full metabolism. Yeast is just fermenting, and only makes 2 mol CO2 per mol of sugar. (And this is true for glucose and fructose. How much of each it consumes depends on the type of yeast. I'm not sure what typical bread yeast does, but I think most yeast prefers glucose.)
@Jefromi Edited, both the lead-in you mentioned, and to include mention of fermentation.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.040114 | 2017-05-01T14:19:11 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81332",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Cos Callis",
"GdD",
"Jacob Stai",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42078",
"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
} |
86694 | How does "Infra-red" frying work?
After many delightful meals at a friends home, made by "frying a turkey in an infrared fryer" I decided to get one for myself, specifically the "Big Easy" from CharBroil. Empirically I can see that this 'works' (and quite well) but I'm not sure I understand "How" it works. You have an outer heating space and an inner cooking chamber. Ok, so this heats the food, but what is not clear to me is:
How is this "Infrared" (a spectrum of light below 'red')?
For that matter, how does it qualify as "frying", to my eyes it looks more like baking .
More like roasting. (One style of) Peking duck is done in a very similar way: direct heat radiation. Traditionally against flame but in this case, electric heating. Infrared is just light whose frequency is a little lower that we human beings can not see. Property wise it's almost identical to visible light.
Infrared refers to the region of the electromagnetic spectrum comprised by wavelengths of about 1 and 100 microns. As you said it lies just aside the reddish part of the visible spectrum (called visible based on our vision) and usually revealed by sensors based on semiconductors.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum
This invisibility is due to the fact that the energy carried by IR radiation comes in photons or quanta (think of them as small packets or specks of energy which gets involved in absorption / emissions / and other phenomena as indivisible entities) whose size does not fit with the electronic transitions responsible for what we call colours.
Their energy is less and correspond to molecular vibrations and rotations.
Temperature is - microscopically - the motion of particles. The energy carried by IR get absorbed by the food molecular vibrations and rotations and by concomitant collisions get transformed in linear motion too. I.e. the molecules move faster (this happens independently of the way heat is given).The final result is a higher T so that reactions and processes can happen).
The main difference with respect of other cooking is that it works, in principle, even in vacuum. No medium is needed to transfer heat (note that this applies to microwave cooking as well). No convection, conduction but just radiation.
As with microwave oven, the cooking is rather smooth and homogeneous all within the food.
As pointed out in the above comment, this cooking is more a sort of roasting or grilling from above. Note that these two types of cooking are basically IR based.
Every body (in physics sense) emits radiation by virtue of its temperature. All the time that cooking substantially involves a big luminous object, there is IR radiation at work (electrical grill from above, barbecue, roasting via a flame, ...).
Differences and peculiarities of each are due to the concomitance of more than one heating mechanism, like thermal conduction by metallic part, warm air, steam, etc. as well as the presence of a second component (water or oil are not merely media but can be absorbed and/or contribute to taste).
Indeed, from a mechanicistical point of view, the most apart from IR cooking are boiling and frying , which I would say are almost totally based on thermal conduction (convection carries heat to the whole body of fluid then the food is heated by contact).
Still, I do not doubt that your IR fried food resemble that fried in fats. Likely it is moderately crispy all over, more healthy, just a bit less tasty.
(Additional note. Visible and shorter wavelength radiations (x rays) do carry energy, too. Even more, each photon has a high energy than a IR one. It is just that they are primarily involved in higher energy processes at first. They heat up a body after some sort of decay processes that again result in an overall faster motion of particles).
How is the heating smooth and homogenous within the food? It seems the radiation would only penetrate a short distance and have to conduct in from there. Do you mean that the heating is even across the surface, with no hot spots?
@Sobachatina. Good point. Right that from every radiatively heated point conduction takes place, too. At least if a temperature gradient is there. I will add "rather" before "smooth and homogeneous" that was meant in comparison to cooking in oil or on a surface. However IR radiation has quite a big penetration depth in organic materials. That is why some (para)medical heating device (those in sauna and beauty center) are IR elements rather than radiator. Heat goes smooth and deep in to the muscles with no burning of the sjkin. MW is even more penetrating. It depends however on composition
@Sobachatima. More on the core: heating on a hot surface is due to collision between the atoms of the pan and the molecules of the food. In IR and MW the energy is in the electromagnetic field, so the latter can propagate through and exponentially decay with deep. Heat is how this energy finally manifest itself. Vis light get reflected - and in part absorbed within mm of our body. IR radiation is mostly absorbed and penetrates to cm extent. Look at white light trough your finger. You will see your nail is red.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.040416 | 2017-12-25T21:38:21 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86694",
"authors": [
"Alchimista",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59209",
"user3528438"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
83662 | Cleaning out a smell
Trying to clean out the spice cabinet and I want to re-purpose a shaker from a chili powder based mix to a cinnamon-sugar (it's made principally of plastic but has wire mesh screen). After a couple of washings the smell of chili powder is still pretty evident. How can I clean out that smell.
You could try baking soda. It is well known for absorbing odors, especially in plastic.
Try some hydrogen peroxide. A lot of colors and odors can be removed with peroxide.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.040814 | 2017-08-12T17:24:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83662",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
25146 | Why do my teriyaki steaks come out hard and dry?
I have tried to make Teriyaki steaks (beef) and they come out dry and hard. They have been marinated with the Teriyaki sauce as instructed by various recipes but in the end the steak has taste but no juicy texture and they are hard to chew. I have tasted in a restaurant a Temaki corn/cone that had sliced Teriyaki beef steak in it which was splendid. I am trying to achieve that. I have tried frying and grilling but both come out hard. Marinating for 2-3hours each time.
What could I be doing wrong?
Which cut of beef did you use? Also, how hot (how done) did you cook the steaks?
@derobert, I used the standard UK frying steaks. Thin sliced cuts. I had them for about 8min.
@Vass how high was the heat? High heat for 8 minutes on a really thin steak sounds quite long to me.
Any number of things can go wrong.
Is your flesh cut correctly, that is, against the grain? Hint: if you see a string, it's cut with the grain and will affect tenderness.
Has your flesh properly aged? Enzymes in the meat dissolve the tissue, making it naturally tender. 21 Days is recommended.
You marinade too long. 15-30 minutes is recommended here for your cuts.
You cook the meat too long. A thin slice should be fried on high heat for a short time.
Restaurants get better meat. Fact of life.
Edit: Basic sauté method.
Heat the pan. The pan is hot when a drop of water becomes steam instantly.
Add some oil and heat it. It should become very hot very quick. Look for wrinkles on the surface.
Add the meat.
When you see a drop of 'blood' (that's plasma) flip the meat.
Retire the meat.
[Optional]
Add cold liquid to pan (could be the marinade), clean the bottom of the pan.
Lower the heat and make a pan sauce.
Add the meat to the sauce for a minute and serve.
I am not familiar with "standard UK frying steaks", but at least here, anything I'd call "standard" is not aged at all, and is not supposed to be. It is cut from young animals who haven't had much movement, and while uniform and bland, it is not tough despite the lack of aging. So, point 2 is optional.
@rumtscho, me neither, but good point.
UK 'frying steak' is thin - about 1/8"/5mm thick. It needs about a minute either side. 8 minutes and you've got shoe leather.
Might there be sugar, a lot of sugar, in that marinade (you don't specify what kind of teriyaki sauce you used, maybe a recipe/product that was meant as a serving sauce not a marinade)? Frying through a layer of what is essentially syrup on high heat can go royally wrong, you are creating caramel or even burnt sugar on the surface of the food, and once sugar turns relatively dry it will do its best to pull moisture from everything around it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.040887 | 2012-07-20T15:11:57 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25146",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"ElendilTheTall",
"John Nyquist",
"JohnAp",
"Paul Jeffs",
"Vass",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57480",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57538",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8804",
"jacqui",
"markbruns",
"rackandboneman",
"rfusca",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
34237 | What are possible substitutes for pineapple in sweet and sour pork/chicken?
Most recipes for sweet and sour pork/chicken I see include pineapple example.
But what if someone does not like pineapple?
What are candidate substitutes?
Do they necessarily need to be fruits?
What purpose/taste-component does the pineapple serve?
Does the person in question generally like sweet and sour pork/chicken? If so, you probably don't need a substitute. Very often, people who don't like a particular ingredient actually like things that contain it, especially if it's something like this, where it's not apparent in the final dish.
@Cascabel, the only thing I know is that one of the things they dislike is pineapple. I would like to make sweet and sour pork if possible cause I like it.
Honestly, if no one had told me, I wouldn't have known pineapples were in sweet and sour sauce.
@Vass Well, we obviously don't know how much they dislike it, but... as Jay said, most people don't even know it's in there if they've eaten it. On top of that, one of the main reasons a lot of people dislike pineapple is the texture, so if it's pureed, it may be a nonissue. Whether or not you can get away with it depends on your friend! (My favorite example is serving a pureed sauce containing onions to someone who hates onions.)
Tart cherries work well if you have a tree. Otherwise they can be hard to come by outside of heavily syruped cans.
The recipe title kind of answers the question--it is the sweet, and some of the sour. Pineapple also has a good firmness. Note that all of the below is speculation, as this is a most unusual substitution request, so I haven't tried any of this.
Fruit will best serve the role of both tart and sour, so almost every reasonable substitute is going to be fruit.
You have indicated you don't like the flavor of pineapple, which for your goal, is probably good as nothing else will provide that distinctive flavor. While my first choice would be to not make this recipe, where you don't enjoy one of the signature ingredients, if you do, then you want something that:
Has a good body and mouth feel the way pineapple does, even after the pureeing called for in the cited recipe
A floral, complex flavor
Something sweet and tart
In the recipe you cite, the pineapple is canned, so you are not losing its enzymatic action, as the enzymes in the pineapple were deactivated by the heat during the canning process.
What comes first to my mind is mango, perhaps with a mixture of lime and orange juice to replace the acidity of the pineapple juice, and maybe a touch of sugar to balance the flavor. You will have to find the right balance, depending on your particular fruit--you may want extra acidity from lemon juice, even, or perhaps extra sugar. I would use something that adds complexity like brown sugar or turbadino depending on where you live if it is needed.
If you try this, however, you will be inventing essentially a new dish, and will have to work out how long to cook the mixture.
Another more radical choice would be canned peaches, perhaps using some of their syrup for sweetness, and again, lemon or lime juice mixed with orange juice for the acidity. This will probably be even more divergent, but peaches have a good floral complexity, and with enough lemon juice, you should be able to find the sweet/sour balance. Of course, this would be far from authentic.
Mango would provide some enzymatic action too, unless it's also canned.
I'd suggest tinned mandarins/tangerines.
@PeterTaylor With the cooking method in the recipe given, the enzymes in the mango would be deactivated.
To my mind the pineapple serves two purposes - to provide (some of) the sweetness of the dish, and to provide an interesting texture.
Adding some orange juice works well for the sweet flavour, but pieces of orange would not be the right texture. I find slices of water chestnut and bamboo shoot give a good texture combination to replace the pineapple chunks.
Canned lychee works really well, it is sweet, slightly floral and has a distinct texture that stays relatively firm during cooking.
There is a KAPOW (technical term for zowee) factor to the pineapple that really can't be duplicated.
Canned mandarin slice work well too, but they don't stand up to heat very well, need to be added at the very end.
The juice from both work well in the sweet component for a sweet and sour sauce.
Canned Mandarin Oranges might work for some recipes that are cold or room temperature. Once cut the have a similar texture & the juice is similar to pineapple juice and that would probably work in most recipes.
From personal experience of not having canned/fresh pineapples in the kitchen, I just used a bit of lemon juice and an orange cut into large chunks.
Chinese plum sweet & sour mix is one of my favorites. You can find recipes online. Also mango with a dose of red cane rum in it, but made about the same as plum. Use sweet, ripe to slightly overripe mangoes.
Peaches- apricots- oranges or juice- pineapple juice instead of chunks-
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.041185 | 2013-05-21T23:25:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34237",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Cloudzzz",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Jay",
"Katy Jayne",
"Linda Sims",
"Mack",
"Peter Taylor",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Suncat2000",
"Vass",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79687",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79689",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79702",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8804",
"thecreamyhighs"
],
"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
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.