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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
36391 | Why do some recipes require or insist on the use of a wok over the use of a skillet / pan?
I have an electric stove. Many of the recipes from my Asian cuisine book call for a Wok to be used rather than a typical flat based pan. Why is there so much stress on the type of pan when the purpose is to heat the ingredients? What different effect to the food is brought by the fact that the Wok has less surface area contact with the stove surface and that it has a cone like shape? I could understand the reason if it is because someone works with a fire / gas stove.
I can imagine a type of layering of ingredients where the amount of ingredients differs in quantity eg. meat and carrots at the bottom and cabbage on top and that these must cook at different temperatures. Are there recipes such as this? or are there different reasons for this?
Since I am a bit confused I offer anyone to edit this question to be more concise to inspire answers describing why a wok may be better for certain recipes
There are a couple of reasons, traditional and some functional:
The home cultures where these recipes are indigenous use a wok, so many recipe authors go the same way
Woks are usually made out of carbon steel, and are poor conductors of heat. This means that the strongest heat from the concentrated heat source is in the center/bottom of the wok. As you go up the sides, the level of heat decreases.
This permits staging ingredients up the sides of the wok to stay warm or cook slowly, while the ingredients at the center of the wok are being cooked intensely.
In practice, the real issue with woks is that they are properly used over a very intense heat source. This permits the stir fry technique, and its unique wok hei flavor to develop in the food. Note that it is this intense heat (and the carbonization of the seasoning layer on the wok) that actually create wok hei, not the shape of the wok itself.
Western home cooking equipment usually cannot get hot enough to do this, whether you use a wok or a flat bottomed skillet. Still, over a standard electric burner or even a home style gas burner, using a flat bottom skillet may in fact let you get better heat transfer into the food, and come closer to genuine stir frying than you could with a round-bottomed wok.
Even for dishes that suggest you push food up the sides of the walk, you can use a skillet if you choose: you cook the food in stages, removing it from the pan instead of pushing it up the sides. Combine the ingredients the end to marry and finish cooking, much as when they are tossed together in wok-based cooking.
@SAJ12SAJ, so for example with sweet and sour chicken, I could cook the chicken in the wok and then push up the chicken to the sides while I make the sauce in the bottom?
@Vass Classically, yes.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.041615 | 2013-08-29T00:15:43 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36391",
"authors": [
"Marleen Schilt",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Strandtasche",
"Vass",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85396",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8804",
"minnie",
"undefined"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
37237 | Why does the beef in Goulash need to be floured and brown before cooking?
In most recipes example from BBC, in making a Goulash, a step is to brown/fry lightly the beef in flour before the stewing steps. Why is this done?
Since the beef will be in a liquid it can't be to prevent drying. Is it to keep the form and texture of the beef?
If you fry without the flour what difference is made?
Flouring the beef does two things:
It facilitates the development of a crust on the outside of the meat that is brown and flavorful;
It contributes to the development of the sauce, as the starch will dissolve off of the meat into the sauce, where it will swell at about 180 F, helping to thicken the sauce.
In this particular recipe, the flour is the only source of thickening, so it is being used for both purposes, but mostly for the second, where it is essentially creating a roux as your brown the beef, because you are also cooking the flour in the olive oil. In this recipe, omitting it would give you a much thinner sauce.
thanks. I have that link to the BBC recipe in the question.
Sorry, missed that.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.041889 | 2013-09-30T14:14:00 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37237",
"authors": [
"Ananya singh",
"Best Review Review",
"Cary Wang",
"David Dublanc",
"Deepak Tatyaji Ahire",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Vass",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87517",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87518",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87519",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87520",
"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
} |
12339 | home-made smoker
Well it's winter where I live, which means that I haven't been able to cook outside for quite a while and I'm starting to miss the taste. So I was thinking of building an indoor oven smoker. I think I've seen them on tv before. So here are my thoughts, any suggestions would be great!
I'm going to get a disposable alumimum tray a few inches deep. Put soaked wood-chips in the bottom, put a metal cooking rack on top of that, and cover the whole thing with foil leaving a little uncovered in the corner to vent. I'll throw the whole thing in the stove at a low temp, maybe 200).
Has anyone tried anything like this before? Does anyone see anyproblems with my plan? If it matters I'm planning on cooking a brisket.
I just read your profile and FYI, if you want your accounts merged, please flag one of your posts for moderator attention and ask for it (preferably along with a link to the old account).
I would think that you'd end up baking the item, not smoking it. You need to get enough heat to the wood chips to get them to smoulder, without directly heating the item to be smoked.
All of the times I've seen people on cooking shows attempt to rig up a smoker like you descibe, they've done it stove top, not in the oven, and it tended to be in a pan a little heavier duty than a disposable aluminum tray -- it looked more like a deep hotel pan to me, and I don't think they vented it 'til they were done.
...
That being said, I still occassionally grill outside in the winter. Okay, I admit, it's usually because the power's out, but I did it last weekend as a favor to my neighbor so he could serve steaks to his wife and mother-in-law for the day before Valentine's day ... in that case, it was actually fairly warm (maybe 45-50°F), but I've also done it when we've been buried in snow and ice.
The important thing about winter grilling is to keep the lid down, and not check on things too often. For long and slow cooking (I think I was trying to finish a stew), I've rigged up things to insulate the grill ... although, I managed to cook one of my leather welding aprons last year.
But for cold smoking ... you're all set ... you can get get insulation blankets for your smoker, and then you just need to keep the fire going in the hot box.
A hotel pan is the common professional way to do it. You put a the wood chips in a deep hotel pan and the food in a shallower perforated hotel pan inside the deeper on, seal the top with plastic wrap & foil, and go to it.
In order to create smoke, you need to raise the wood chips to the temperature at which primary (but not secondary) combustion occurs. A very good explanation of how wood burns is here.
Primary combustion happens when the wood is hot enough that gases are released, but not hot enough that all of the contents of those gases completely combust. This material that is combustible (just at a higher temperature) and is released from the wood is smoke, and that's what you want to get released from the wood chips in order to smoke something.
Wood doesn't begin this process until about 540 degrees fahrenheit (282 Celsius) so unless you heat the wood to this temperature you're going to get basically no smoke at all. This won't happen in a 200 degree oven - actually, it would probably be hard for it to happen in an oven at all - and even if you did have your oven hot enough, you'd likely end up overcooking your food long before it absorbed enough smoke.
So since the wood chips need to be quite hot, and the temperature around the food needs to be significantly cooler, in order to smoke something you really need a way to create this large temperature difference while making the smoke travel from the hot wood chips to the cool food. This is why most smokers have some sort of separate burning chamber that produces smoke but doesn't directly heat the meat and thus allows the cooler temperature. This is also why you put the wood chips directly on or over the heat source when smoking on a grill.
Joe mentions that smoking can be done on the stovetop, and this makes sense since you could place the wood chips directly on the bottom of a pan and thus heat them very hot, but put the food higher up (maybe even let some cool air in) in order to keep it at a much lower temperature.
Any other way that you could achieve this high temperature differential could be used to smoke food - for example, you could set up a separate smoking box with a duct (you might need a fan depending on your setup) running into your oven - maybe you could heat this on the stove, or have it outside. If you had an exposed element at the bottom of an electric oven, you might be able to set a little box of woodchips on or right next to that to get it hot enough (you may destroy the element though...). If it's a gas stove, perhaps there's a way you could put the chips directly on or under the flame in order to get the high temperature. If you turn your oven on to around the temperature you would smoke at, you could check the surface temperature of your oven in various places with a IR thermometer and see if there were any extra hot places. These might be good places to put your wood chips. And as an aside, you'll probably want a fire extinguisher handy for most of these just in case.
On soaking the wood chips - The main reason to soak woodchips before smoking is to avoid full combustion. To produce smoke, wood needs to combust inefficiently, and one way to do this is to make sure its temperature stays below ~1100 degrees fahrenheit. The water helps with this because it takes a huge amount of energy to boil off water which must be done before the temperature can get above 212F (the water towards the inside of the chips boils and cools the outside of the chips as they combust - so you'll still have water in the woodchip while the outside is smoking). In order to make it easier to achieve smoke faster, you might want to try not soaking the chips so they get to primary combustion faster, but then limit their combustion in other ways to ensure that they don't produce enough heat through their own combustion to achieve secondary combustion (no smoke). You could do this by regularly spraying the chips with water after they begin smoking, or by limiting the supply of oxygen to the woodchips - the latter might be achievable if you rig up something like a smoking box on the stove with a duct into the oven with vents you can close.
One more note, you're going to end up with a lot of smoke inside, and you really don't want to be breathing this (carbon monoxide, among other things), so please make sure you have a lot of ventilation going on when you try this. And maybe a carbon monoxide detector nearby to be safe.
Edit - Wikipedia mentions in the Wood Smoke section of the Smoking page that the best smoke is produced by wood between 570 and 750 degrees fahrenheit.
if you go over to Instructables.com and search for "smoker", i think you'll find one made out of a flower pot or two. i read about one there and it's been on my "to-do" list forever. : )
My guess is they're probably making something similar to Alton Brown's - you can watch him build one on YouTube here and read details and get a parts list here - franko, this has also been on my to-do list for at least a year or two!
+1 had never seen that site before, am now more than a bit in love with it, thanks!
you're welcome, @boxed-dinners! careful, though... it's a dangerously fun site. if you're anything like me, soon you will have more projects than you know what to do with. : )
I made a flower pot smoker from Alton Brown's instructions once. It worked fairly well. It was difficult for the little hot plate to maintain the target temps but the meat turned out ok. It didn't last very long though. I think I should have used a better hot plate.
You will find if you look up tea smoking recipes, you can get a great smoking without wood chips(it uses rice,tea ,spices etc) which is great for indoor smoking. Use a wok with foil in the bottom, cake rack for meat and cover again foil so don't smoke out the house.
It doesn't need the heat intensity that wood chips need.
Thanks to DHayes and the above. I'm using my stove top smoker as linked above for the first time. It only lets a little smoke escape. Like the side stream of of a cigarette but more pleasant. My stove vent eats that up and my kitchen did not get the least smokey. It's too early in the cooking to say how well it smokes but I have a good feeling about this. I found it on Amazon for a little over 40 bucks. Now that the active smoking is done I'm transferring the ribs to the oven at 225 f for a couple hours then taking them out onto another foil lined pan to brush on the sauce. Good luck and happy smoking. :)
Be sure to update us as to how the finished product turned out.
You might want to consider using a stovetop smoker. Here is one particular version, I'm not sure if there are any other manufacturers out there. Essentially the wood chips get direct contact with the stovetop heat, and so they can start smoking. From what I have heard regarding them (anecdote from an owner on another forum), it more or less stays sealed so smoke isn't filling the house.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.042063 | 2011-02-18T13:29:10 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12339",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Amir",
"JoshGreen1",
"MOHSIN ALI",
"RwwL",
"Sobachatina",
"SourDoh",
"Timothy West",
"boxed-dinners",
"dallenr",
"franko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25406",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25408",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"meiissa",
"stephennmcdonald"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
10758 | delaying moldy bread
I always keep bread around, home-made or otherwise. Is there a way to keep it from molding, or at least delay the process?
I've tried the fridge with some success (extra day or two), but I don't like my bread that cold to eat.
I've tried zip-top bags with no success (seems to mold faster).
Bread-box didn't seem to make any difference in time.
Thanks
related (if you're making your own, but some answers mention storage) : Is there anything I can add to homemage bread to preserve it
See also http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/61/what-are-the-pros-and-cons-of-storing-bread-in-various-locations (almost a dupe).
My family eats a lot of bread. I bake six loaves at a time once or twice a week.
We freeze in plastic shopping bags all but two of them. When one loaf is eaten it is replaced from the freezer and the new loaf is allowed to thaw at room temperature.
Freezing is the only way I've found to reliably keep homemade bread for any length of time. Around here bread will mold within 3 or 4 days. I have had bread that was frozen for a month with no ill effect.
I find frozen bread alright for toast, but can't stand it defrosted, as with most freezing it affects the texture - the crumb alters. With wholemeal (brown) bread it is not so bad, but with a soft white loaf the difference is significant.
@Orbling - I routinely thaw homemade sandwich breach (part wheat or white), French bread, and other rustic breads. I don't have the problem you describe. I freeze them wrapped in foil, always sliced for sandwich bread but both ways for others.
@justkt: Most people I know do so, my parents included - I've just never liked the result. Mind you, I never eat commercial sliced bread either. French bread was always fine, used to freeze that long ago.
I've been using Bread Bags (variation on Green Bags, not sure which came first) with some reasonable success. I'm sure there are other brands and sites to buy them from. I normally just grab them at the grocery store/BB&B. I only remember the details from the green bags, but they have lining that absorbs chemicals that are released by vegetables to slow down decay. I assume the bread bags use something similar, helping to control humidity as well.
We also slice then freeze bread, getting out slices as needed, throwing them in toaster to reheat.
I slice and freeze. Sometimes I also freeze a whole loaf in foil and then thaw it in a warm oven. It's the only foolproof way to keep bread fresh-ish.
You can always let it dry out / go stale by keeping it in a paper bag, or something that'll allow moisture to escape ... the paper bag will slow down the process, but not stop it entirely.
Then, when it goes bad, it can at least be used for croutons, french toast, etc., or even resuscitated in the oven.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.042927 | 2011-01-05T17:44:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10758",
"authors": [
"Amit Agarwal",
"Brian Roach",
"Joe",
"K. Pothukuchi",
"Nancy",
"Orbling",
"guest",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"justkt",
"user22048"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
11453 | What is room temp Butter
Many of my baking recipes call for room temp butter. In general this just means butter soft enough to be creamed with sugar, but is this a specific temp range? My kitchen stays cold enough in winter that butter doesn't really soften (and hot enough in summer that it would be liquid), but I can keep a small section of it at a constent temp, but what should it be set for?
Thanks
Generally speaking, I don't think that most recipe creators measure the butter's temperature when creating/testing a recipe. They just know that it is "soft enough" as you said. I don't think you should be enforcing any temperature on yourself. Instead, if the butter easily creams/beats, I think you're good.
Also see the answers to this question. (http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11216/how-to-prepare-butter-for-baking-when-time-is-limited)
I, too, have the same problem - namely that in the winter we keep the house cool, and the butter is hard, etc..
In restaurants, I will microwave butter to get it to 'room' temperature when needed, but you must do it in short bursts, or parts will melt. Micro for 10-20 sec., then pause a minute, then do it again. As with any softening technique, the critical thing is that you don't want it to liquify in most cases, as it will lose the emulsion properties that make butter so awesome.
I would suggest approximately 21 degrees Celsius is a good start, or thereabouts.
Too much colder and indeed the butter will be hard enough to not cream well.
Warmer, within reason, should be fine, but yes - you don't want a puddle.
In theory, you could expect that to mean between 64 and 80 degrees F, which is about the normal comfort range of people. So it's a pretty wide band--if you can get your temperature anywhere in there you should be fine. Of course the lower you go the firmer the butter, and vice-versa. In the winter there's not much you can do if your house is cold, but in the summer a butter bell will generally keep the butter from getting too soft, even if things are fairly warm.
sometimes I put the butter on/near the oven if something's baking.. just takes 10 or so, but some does melt at the bottom edges
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.043210 | 2011-01-25T14:16:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11453",
"authors": [
"Chad",
"Ivan Verges",
"Martha F.",
"Vadim Gremyachev",
"attomos",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23529",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23530",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"nnenna",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
10336 | Fire side cooking
Last week we had a pretty strong winter storm which knocked out our power. We have an electric stove which of course puts a cramp in cooking. However i do have a fire place and cast iron, so i tried cooking with the fire. Haveing never done this before I decided a stew would be easiest. So i chucked a bunch of stuff in the dutch oven, put it close to the fire and let it sit for hours. In the end it needed a long time to be done (5 hoursish) but it turned out ok.
Anyway, does anyone have some suggestions as to the type of food that might led itself well to cooking on actual fire? we get a lot of storms and we loose power for days at a time.
Thanks
There's always the old camping stand-by: Hot dogs on a stick
yeah, marshmellows were my first thought, and hot dogs a quick second, but then i thought...'I should be able to do better than a hot-dog' so we had those for lunch the next day.
Anything that you'd normally do on a grill.
As long as you have a dutch oven and are planning on using it, look for camping recipes for dutch ovens. Usually when camping the suggestion is to put a certain number of coals under the dutch oven and a certain number on top to basically simulate oven-like conditions. You can make warm breakfasts and warm dinners this way. You can even bake bread and other baked goods in a dutch oven (Irish soda bread works very well in one).
Other options for cooking in the fire include wrapping food in foil packets. For example you can wrap up salmon with seasonings or a packet of beef and vegetables. Foil packet dinners will be quicker and easier than most dutch oven dinners but the heat control is not as precise.
Another option if you want to invest in some gear is to get a pie iron. A pie iron is basically two sandwich bread shaped pans that clamp together. You can get one in cast iron, which will hold up longest. Using a pie iron you can make cake, cornbread, and all sorts of warm things sandwiched between toast.
Finally if you have some sort of grate that goes over your fire you can also attempt foods similar to grilling.
With your existing tools you can make some fine meals. With a few more purchases you can make enough food variety to keep you happy for an entire winter of power outages - on the dinner front at least.
The important thing for foil packet cooking is cutting items to the correct size -- you don't want the meat overcooking while the potatoes still need another 20 min of cooking.
I recommend Native Cree Bannock Bread.
Cooked over a fire on a stick. It's incredible with a little jam or honey.
It's not bad on a cooking stone either, but I personally prefer roasting on a stick. Putting it in the fire and the smoke is really adds to the flavor.
Below is a recipe that is close to what I use. I don't like putting in raisins in, we add some dark brown sugar instead, usually about a cup to a cup and a half. honey can be used too.
Authentic Native Cree Bannock Bread
Gotta try that....
Most fireplace used as stove tops effectively emulate a slow cooker. If the top heat dispersion grill can be removed you may have a medium heat stove top
The general rule should be to keep it simple. Don't forget, if you're without power, you don't want something that is heavy in preparation and/or cleanup.
I've always liked cooking in foil packs when using an open fire. It's simple, requires little to no babysitting, and cleanup is a snap. Form ground beef into a patty, add some cut up potatoes, onions, and carrots, seal it in foil, and toss it in your fire. It usually takes about 20-30 minutes to finish cooking. It is not haute cuisine by any means, but it is a tasty balanced meal that can be prepared in primitive conditions.
For dessert, cut the top off an apple, then cut out the core. Fill the cavity with butter, cinnamon, and sugar, put the top back on (wrapping it TIGHT in the foil), and throw that into the fire for about 15 minutes. That's always been one of my favorites.
Do yourself a favor and pick up a copy of the Boy Scout Handbook. You'll find lots of options for campfire cooking that you can adapt to your fireplace, options which are very prep and cleanup-friendly.
When you are without power you also might be bored enough to want something time consuming to keep you entertained and busy. It's person-dependent.
having been a boyscot I'm filimar with the foil-packets... we used to call them 'skunks', since they really stunk if the foil broke in the fire. - but great idea about the apple
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.043440 | 2010-12-20T13:45:41 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10336",
"authors": [
"Chris Cudmore",
"Joe",
"Mirza Dobric",
"P4ul",
"Pareeeee",
"RolandTumble",
"TFD",
"boxed-dinners",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21097",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"iDev",
"justkt"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
20762 | Distinguishing the size of tablecloths when folded?
Has anyone figured out a clever system for distinguishing the size of a tablecloth when folded? Our dining room table is extendable with several leaves, so we have plain white tablecloths of three sizes. When the cloths are folded, they all look alike. So every time we entertain, we spend several minutes unfolding and re-folding until we find a tablecloth of the right size. An annoying waste of time.
Organizing them by shelf (in the closet) doesn't work because they invariably get moved around by whoever does the laundry that week. Personally I'd like to write a big "1", "2", or "3" on each cloth in indelible black marker, but my wife objects for some reason. :-)
Looking for a simple, out-of-the-box idea. Thanks.
Have you tried clamping something on the fold which faces the closet front? Different colors of binder clips? Attaching a small pin with a picture? A safety pin with a color label dangling from it?
This isn't really a cooking question so much as a general storage question... a tablecloth isn't even a cooking accessory so much as an eating accessory.
Dan, questions here should pertain to cooking. Please see this meta topic.
I had read the meta topic in advance and consider a table to be "cooking equipment." But we can reasonably disagree on this. No hard feelings.
I would fold them into a different shape that reflects the size of the cloth. For example, if you were to do a flag fold, the smallest triangle should be the smallest table cloth.
+1 on the clever idea of the flag fold and how the size of the triangle will be smaller. Although it will probably take longer to flag fold it each time.
Weigh them. The heaviest is the largest cloth. N.B. this assumes they're all made of the same weight of cloth.
Do they have tags? Write 1, 2, and 3 (or S, M, and L) on the tag, and fold so the tag is accessible.
Keep them in the same order on the shelf.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.043828 | 2012-01-25T01:57:44 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20762",
"authors": [
"Angelo",
"DanB",
"Jay",
"Lunari",
"Tina",
"Yamikuronue",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45658",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8855",
"rumtscho",
"user45680"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
25949 | How long will ground beef stay good after being frozen?
How long will beef be good after being frozen? My boyfriend has ground beef in the freezer that has been there for almost a year. Is it still safe to cook?
From Freezing and Food Safety published by the United States Department of Agriculture:
Is Frozen Food Safe?
Food stored constantly at 0 °F (-18 °C) will always be safe. Only the quality suffers with lengthy freezer storage. Freezing keeps food safe by slowing the movement of molecules, causing microbes to enter a dormant stage. Freezing preserves food for extended periods because it prevents the growth of microorganisms that cause both food spoilage and foodborne illness.
Does Freezing Destroy Bacteria & Parasites?
Freezing to 0 °F (-18 °C) inactivates any microbes — bacteria, yeasts and molds — present in food. Once thawed, however, these microbes can again become active, multiplying under the right conditions to levels that can lead to foodborne illness. Since they will then grow at about the same rate as microorganisms on fresh food, you must handle thawed items as you would any perishable food.
Trichina and other parasites can be destroyed by sub-zero freezing temperatures. However, very strict government-supervised conditions must be met. Home freezing cannot be relied upon to destroy trichina. Thorough cooking, however, will destroy all parasites.
Freshness & Quality
Freshness and quality at the time of freezing affect the condition of frozen foods. If frozen at peak quality, thawed foods emerge tasting better than foods frozen near the end of their useful life. So freeze items you won't use quickly sooner rather than later. Store all foods at 0° F (-18 °C) or lower to retain vitamin content, color,
Can microbes grow at temperatures above 0 °F but below 32 °F, e.g. 20 °F?
It depends on two factors:
How it was packaged prior to freezing. I have gotten 1 pound blocks of ground beef from my butcher, which are vacuum sealed before flash-freezing in shrink-wrap. I have pulled these from the freezer over a year later and found them to be perfectly fine. On the other hand, if it is typical grocery store Styrofoam tray wrapped in cellophane then 4 months is about the outside limit before freezer burnt beyond usefulness.
Fat Content, those packages I got from the butcher where better than 90/10 (more like 93/7). Fat can go rancid, even while frozen (though it does take much longer, I suspect this is part of what @ElendilTheTall was referring to as "properly" bad.) The higher the fat content the faster it can go bad.
If after thawing you are not confident of its safety then yes, throw it out. A fresh pound of ground beef is much less expensive than a trip to the ER for food poisoning.
The USDA recommends four months. It won't be unsafe after that time per se, but it will very likely be freezer burned, giving it a weird and unpleasant texture.
Eventually it will go 'properly' bad - I don't think I'd risk food poisoning over a few bucks worth of ground beef. Throw it out and buy fresh.
The beef may taste terrible after spending a year or two in the freezer, but it will still be as edible as the day it was placed in freezer.
I had ground beef in the freezer for one year in a Zip Lock bag and it is in perfect condition. Don't through out food unnecessarily if it has been kept frozen.
We are hunters and we make our own hamburger, and wrap it our self's . I found a package of hamburger from 2014 and it was still good. It did not lose any of its flavor. If you wrap it in freezer paper or vacuum seal it. It will stay good a long time.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.044048 | 2012-09-02T19:10:53 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25949",
"authors": [
"Brian",
"GJ.Baker",
"Julia Polanco",
"N4v",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69583"
],
"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
} |
39481 | Best apples for apple pie
I am making an apple pie for the first time this Thanksgiving. I was wondering what the best apple was for apple pie. There are so many to choose from.
If you happen to have some Red-seeded Citron watermelons hanging around, and the determination to cut them up and seed them, they're really excellent in mock apple desserts (with citric acid, brown sugar, nutmeg, and cinnamon): the flesh—not the rinds. Great firm texture. Nice apple-like flavor (not without the mock apple ingredients). Very easy melons to grow. The fruits can keep for over a year (so, they'll be around for the holidays).
Some of this is a matter of opinion, as you must decide what type of apple pie you like. Do you want one with discernable applie slices, or one where the filling becomes somewhat like apple sauce?
Kenji Alt of Serious Eats has done an in depth review of 10 commonly available apples (at least in the US), and his conclusion is:
[...] the best ones in the running are the Golden Delicious and the
Braeburn. They're the ones I use for all of my baking purposes.
Still, I suggest reading his review, and drawing your own conclusion.
He also shares that the level of acidity an apple has correlates with how long it takes to brown when cut and exposed to air--the slower the browning, the more acid. Those apples with the most acid tend to produce the firmest cooked product, as the acid helps keep the pectin from breaking down.
Interesting - having a McIntosh tree means most of my pies use those, and I don't think I've ever tried Golden Delicious (when I have to buy apples, it's usually Braeburns or Jonathans). I think any non-mealy apple would be fine.
Having found this question on the Stack Overflow blog - I feel compelled to add a UK perspective.
Looking at Kenji Alt's list of apples, I find there are only probably three on there I've ever seen in the UK.
Here they are in what I would consider worst to best order...
Golden Delicious - there was a massive influx of these cardboard/floury-flavoured apples in the 80s & 90s, now thankfully diminished. They don't taste of much raw, so cooked they're just going to be filler. They also turn to mush when cooked.
Gala - a modern twist on an old English favourite. Great to eat raw, but they don't cook well. Too sweet & perhaps a little 'cidery' for pie. They remind me of Cox's orange pippin, but are apparently not closely related.
Granny Smith - just enough punch to cook with, tart raw, but floury when cooked.
But there's one very serious candidate missing from that list & from all other answers here.
Bramley [or to give it its full title Bramley's Seedling - this is the British cooking apple. Almost too tart & crisp to eat raw [though it has its adherents] & also comes in sizes big enough to make a pie from a single apple, this is absolutely the staple of the British apple pie.
Even Wikipedia calls it "the most important cooking apple in England and Wales"
Maybe US apple pie is aiming for a different flavour or texture profile than the UK - I've never had apple pie in the US - but if you can get hold of these [they are apparently available, if in limited supply, on the North American continent] then be sure to give them a try.
Granny Smith is the standard go-to. I think the best pies use a combination of apples. Alton Brown likes a combination of Granny Smith, Honeycrisp, Braeburn and Golden Delicious.
I love Granny Smith and Honeycrisp for out-of-hand eating, so I often have those on hand when I get a hankering for baking. A combination of those two apples do make for a great pie.
The secret is 3 different types of apples. Keeps every bite different & your taste buds will thank you.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.044351 | 2013-11-16T01:48:54 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39481",
"authors": [
"AMD Engineering spam",
"Brōtsyorfuzthrāx",
"Front End Dude ",
"Inondle",
"Land Registry Online spam",
"arne",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91645",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91650",
"user5561"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
58244 | How to cut peanut brittle
I would like to be able to cut peanut brittle into neat squares. Everything I have tried does not result in a 'neat, straight cut', a quick Google search shows some very expensive 'industrial' machinery...but nothing for the 'home'.
Any good techniques for how to cut peanut brittle would be appreciated. I would also like a technique that would work after chocolate has been melted on top, although I could add the chocolate after the squares are cut.
Chocolate instead of the brittle mixture or in addition to?
Chocolate on top of peanut brittle (so 'in addition to')
I can't say for certain, but I'd probably try scoring it while it's not 100% set, letting it firm up, then breaking it ... then coating it in chocolate. Option #2 is a band saw. (although, it might gum up the saw)
A hack saw maybe.
I actually thought about a jig saw...as I haven't got a band saw.
I doubt that any of the "cutting while hot" techniques will work. The sugar portion is really sticky, and peanuts tend to be brittle. The commercial Lance Peanut Bars are definitely cut while cold with some sort of saw toothed implement.
Try using a finely serrated knife (I'm thinking like a dollar store steak knife). Move the knife back and forth many times, but apply little to no downward pressure that could cause the peanut brittle to fracture.
They're sometimes labeled as 'micro serrated'. (and it'll slice through frozen spinach, and still cut tomatoes after going through a can!)
Here is a rolling cutter. its an effective way of cutting the peanut brittle. I also agree you have to cut it while its still warmish. This is how I would do it: bring the brittle to flat table. Add into steel frame, Roll the brittle out, with rolling pin. Until the level is even with the height of the steel frame. Remove steel frame and cut with rolling cutter in to desired size. Also note if you recipe is wrong or anything with your cooking procedure, it might be an added reason to not cutting it perfectly.
And also. Roast your peanuts for about 15 min on 140 degrees in the oven. This softens the peanuts and would make it easier to cut.
Can you provide a link for this item please?
I added one that would be easier to buy. Just a simple pizza cutter. www.biggreenegg.com. If your intrested in the rolling cutter i found it on www.tcfsales.com.
I think your best bet would be to try and cut it while it's still hot and hasn't set all the way. Once it cools completely, it's crystalline form is more likely to shatter than cut. For an example, see the strips in this pepita brittle recipe http://smittenkitchen.com/blog/2008/11/pepita-brittle/
As for the chocolate, I would add it after cutting and letting it cool/harden all the way.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.044818 | 2015-06-15T02:53:43 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58244",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Christie Snyder",
"Cos Callis",
"GdD",
"Geneva Carter",
"Joe",
"Kadee Smiles",
"Karen Cruz",
"MaxW",
"Niki Brooks",
"Pork Chop",
"Sierra Hayes",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138758",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138828",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142944",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"joshua baines",
"s s"
],
"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
} |
20800 | Quinoa in a Rice Cooker?
I’ve recently discovered the loveliness of Quinoa, and the joy of buying it in bulk at Costco, so I’ll be making a lot of it in the near future. I’m wondering if I can use my rice cooker to make the Quinoa. Has anybody done this? Does the ‘fuzzy’ logic in the machine prevent it from doing anything other than cooking rice and steaming veggies? I hope not, but I also don’t want to ruin a good kitchen tool finding out either. Thanks!
I've cooked white rice, brown rice, wild rice, whole Oat Groats (2 brown rice cycles + a little extra water on cycle two) , rye groats, Khorasan wheat (kamut), barley, Spelt, and numerous other seeds in my fuzzy logic rice cooker, but never Quinoa. It seems to me the white Quinoa seed benefits from a short cook time, and a long post-cooking expansion time. A rice cooker doesn't do that very well. The red Quinoa I can also get is tougher, and might like being cooked like brown rice.
That said, I haven't tried it. It's certainly possible that your rice cooker could make passable Quinoa.
I suggest you give it a try on a small batch. If you like the result, post that here, and I'll try it too.
Oh I like the idea of barley and spelt- great idea.
did it last night- worked out fine. I used a 2 parts liquid to 1 part quinoa. I may reduces that to 1 3/4 liquid to I part quinoa.
Rice cookers are quite versatile and cooking Quinoa would not ruin the rice cooker if you do indeed want to experiment.
A rice cooker works because there is a springloaded thermal sensor plate at the bottom of where the metal pot sits(only if it is automatic. Some rice cookers have a switch to flip to go into the heating process). This will then start the heating process to boil to water. Because boiling water do not rise above 100 degree Celsius, the sensor can tell if there is still water left in the cooker. Once the sensor reads higher than 100 degree Celsius, this means the water has all boiled away. At this point the rice cooker goes into a sitting phase where the steam will continue to cook the rice and the rice is allowed to expand.
With this knowledge, we know that the main problem you would come across when cooking Quinoa in your rice cooker is getting the correct ratio of water to Quinoa grains. If you use the same amount of water you use for cooking rice, the Quinoa might turn out softer than desirable.
Take a look at this link: http://glutenfreegoddess.blogspot.com/2009/01/how-to-cook-quinoa-super-easy-way.html. It provides some information in regards to cooking Quinoa in a rice cooker. It seems to suggest 2-1 water to Quinoa grain ratio (which is typically what I use for rice too).
I have cooked Quinoa in a rice cooker and it came out fine. The only thing I might add is to stir the contents once or twice while it is cooking. because when did it it must have bubbled up a little because there was some Quinoa stuck to the sides of the rice cooker.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.045336 | 2012-01-26T15:16:33 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20800",
"authors": [
"Laura Brown",
"Matthew Kottwitz",
"OneGypsyTraveler",
"PeterB",
"Twysted Y",
"boxed-dinners",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45775",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45789",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45796",
"user45775"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
25527 | What can I do with lots of plain sweetened yogurt?
I have a several gallons of yogurt intended for smoothies. So far I have been eating it over fruit and in various types of shakes. I've also made some frozen yogurt.
What else I can make, be it sweet or savory?
uh, make smoothies.
Where do you live?
I like to spice up Yogurt with Garlic. For 200ml of Yogurt, take about two tea-spoons of olive oil, one crushed garlic clove, a pinch of salt, pepper to taste. Let it steep for at least an hour. Then use it to dip in slices of Baguette or grilled meat.
I like doing this as well but the OP said the yogurt is sweetened. I think the sweetness wouldn't work with garlic.
Oh, does "intended for smoothies" mean it is already sweetened? Then again, he adds "be it sweet or savory". Anyway, this kind of question just asks for suggestions, so no answer is really wrong :)
The "sweetened" was in the title. I don't think your answer is "wrong" I just personally wouldn't prefer it with sweetened yogurt.
facepalm How could I overlook that? You are right of course. Sweet yogurt and garlic won't go well together.
@JuergenHartelt It did get me thinking though, maybe I could do a sweeter curry style sauce with it. I didn't have a chance to try it though.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.045608 | 2012-08-07T00:19:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25527",
"authors": [
"Brian",
"Cos Callis",
"Cynthia",
"Henry Grover",
"Juergen Hartelt",
"L.C",
"Randy McDermott",
"Sobachatina",
"V.Ramarao",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58462",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58463",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58464",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58470",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"indrani sen"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
12425 | How to reduce bitterness of Basil?
I had some fresh Basil which was going dry, so I decided to make it into a sour cream dip (don't ask me why I didn't think of making a simple pesto before I added the sour cream).. The final product (sour cream, basil, salt and pepper) which I then blitz into a dip like consistency, has a bitter and slightly astringent after-taste from the basil..
So I am wondering what caused that.. Was it the basil itself? Did I use the wrong parts of the basil (both leaves and stems)? Or was it the ingredients? And how can I avoid it?
And the 2nd question is how can I reduce this bitterness now?
I have noticed that basil changes its taste as it ages, but not as to get bitter. On the other side, I like a bitter taste, so I often overlook (overtaste?) bitter notes to which other people show a strong reaction. Try getting some fresh basil and comparing the taste/aroma of the fresh and the old one, maybe it is really just the aging difference you perceive as unpleasant. I regularly use the stems when I have fresh basil.
Generally speaking, you cannot deceive your brain to not perceive bitterness (unlike sourness, which is counteracted by sweetness - the pH value of Coca Cola (2.6) is lower than that of tomato juice (4.1), but the soft drink is perceived as sweet, not sour). But if you mix it with another basic taste, the combination might feel much better than the pure bitter taste. The other strategy would be to just dilute with something bland, in order to reduce the bitterness intensity. Most adults actually like some bitterness if it is not too intense. The third option would be to use something with a very strong flavour to mask everything, e.g. add lots of raw onions and/or garlic, or just make it so hot you don't actually pick up much of a taste. I am not a fan of this solution, but your mileage may vary.
As for a taste combination, which taste should you pick? Strangely, people tend to think that a sweet taste is well suited to somehow "mask" bitterness, which I cannot confirm. For me, both tastes, bitter and sweet, stay there, and one doesn't mask the other, they just create a specifically unharmonious combination. In my experience, bitter + sour is a much better combination (think grapefruit, cranberries, or tonic water) which can even allow for a small amount of sweetness, without making it clash. But it is also good to make a combination of bitter + salty taste. While umami can be combined with bitter too, it doesn't diminish the unpleasant sensation of the too bitter.
As for your specific problem, I often eat basil dips, only I tend to base them on feta cheese. I sometimes add sour cream or other dairy products, but usually less sour cream than cheese. I think that it will be a good solution for your problem, as it will both complement the bitterness with a strong salty taste, and dilute the bitterness concentration as you will be using lots of it. I also almost always add lemon juice (should help for the bitterness too) and a dash of olive oil (which shouldn't affect the taste, only the aroma). Another ingredient which does well in a basil dip are green or blonde olives, if their salt level is not too high.
For a basil dip, I usually throw everything in a bowl and smooth it with the immersion blender. If you aren't sure that you'll like the taste, try tasting a spoon of your current dip with a small piece of feta and/or an olive before committing more ingredients to something you'll ultimately throw out.
I personally don't use the stems directly, and I suspect that might've been your problem.
As for bitter flavors ... salt will help to mask bitterness (it's considered a 'competitor' against bitterness, not an enhancer), but it's frequently paired with sugar and/or an alternate flavoring to further hide the bitterness.
Actually the best way to get rid of the bitterness starts at the plant: cut out the flowers and buds as they form. It makes a huge difference.
I noticed the smell and taste of my basil changed when the green beginning of the flowers started. I made pesto with the leaves and it tasted bitter. We simply added some lemon juice and it fixed it right up.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.045759 | 2011-02-21T08:05:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12425",
"authors": [
"Albert Altarovici",
"ChrisDevo",
"goldilocks",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25585",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25586",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25592"
],
"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
} |
15937 | Is there a special Wasabi paste/powder I should use when I'm making Wasabi ice-cream?
A friend of mine once made Wasabi Ice-cream. I remember she was saying she had used some special 'Wasabi Powder' Unfortunately I can't reach her, and I wanna try to make this Wasabi Ice-cream at home..
I am wondering if it's anything special I should consider when using Wasabi to make ice-cream (wondering about the cream curdling, etc) or can I just use the standard Wasabi (or horse raddish) paste I get in the Asian section of the supermarket?
To my knowledge wasabi paste is just wasabi powder that has had the water added to it by the factory. So if you are looking at paste vs powder I would go powder. The question to me would be to make it a paste before you add it to your ice cream base or to add the powder directly to the ice cream base. I would venture to say you should be just fine adding the powder directly to the ice cream base.
Now, for the ugly truth. Pretty much all you wasabi powder sold in the US or Japan for that mater isn't really wasabi(or contains very little wasabi). It is horseradish, that is colored green and has some sort of mustard or turmeric added. And really not what I would want to try in an ice cream. Plus the flavor of the pastes are not like fresh (even with horseradish).
If I were doing an ice cream, I would want to stay away from the powder all together. I would visit my local specialty food market or online specialty market and see if I could source real wasabi. But cost might be prohibitive for you as it is very expensive. Next the good news is, there are some powders out there that are actually dried ground wasabi powder such as this one at "The Spice House". It was most likely something like this that your friend used if she did use a powder.
Anyway, I hope this is helpful to you. And good luck.
Thanks for that.. I will try to see how I can get some real Wasabi.. You're right, it's better that way..
Paste would probably work better than powdered, as the powder is likely to clump and settle and cause a less-homogeneous product
Hmm... I don't have an ice-cream maker.. So I'll be stirring manually.. I guess it will be even more critical then.. :)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.046096 | 2011-07-04T15:15:11 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15937",
"authors": [
"Arjun Govind",
"Arnold",
"Beardminator",
"Greg",
"John",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33914",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33915",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33940",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34361",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4283",
"notthetup"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
14451 | Best way to measure Spaghetti/Linguini portions?
What's the best way to measure how much Spaghetti/Linguini is 1-portion. I know there are tools which basically measures the diameter of the bundle of dry spaghetti. But are there simpler tricks which don't require any tools?
Well, one obvious answer is to look at the number of portions in the box. (This is found in the nutrition information.) Then divide the amount in the box by the number of portions.
I just pulled down a box of linguine from my shelf. One pound yields eight 2 oz. portions. Which means all you have to do is divide in half three times. It won't be exact, but you'll get pretty close.
(To get exact, you could always count the number of noodles then divide by eight. But that's WAY too much work.)
Italians weigh it and it's really the only fail-safe way. Using a kitchen scale with a big bowl on top should work for just about any pasta shape. 40g for a small portion, 100g for a big plate full. Cooked volume will depend on the type of pasta, but with spaghetti for example about 55g of dry will produce about 1 cup of cooked spaghetti.
This agrees with @Martha: 2oz = about 57g and 1 cup cooked sounds like a reasonable serving size. Even if I would eat more :-)
Italian "weighing" in: all Italian households I've ever visited weigh the pasta using a scale.
Italians do use weight because in Italy there isn't a measure of capacity used in cooking that is similar to the American cup; if an Italian recipe makes a reference to "1 cup of milk," it's not referring to an exact quantity.
@kiamlaluno, how would you measure spaghetti or other hard pasta in a cup? :-) True you don't often find measuring cups in Italy but that's for a good reason. Weight is a far more accurate measure than volume.
@Ranieri, thanks "weighing in". Groaner of a pun too :-)
@Todd Chaffee You don't find those measuring cups because Italians are not used to think in volume units; it is not because we are smarter. I have some American cooking books, and none of them reports a single weight. The weight is then not constant as there are some foods that are subject to weight changes.
To say it all, if you go in an Italian house, you will not probably see people measuring their spaghetti using a scale, if not in the case they are following a diet.
@kiamlaluno, I lived in Italy for 5 years, and Italians are smarter about cooking. US cooks often have trouble with baking because volume measurement of flour is so inaccurate. The few professional cooks I know in the US use weight to measure. This article gives some interesting info about how people measure food around the world. BTW, check your American cook books for ounces (oz). For non-liquids, such as butter, that is a weight. For liquids it's volume! Crazy.
Te làset lé de seghetà a tiràm en gìr :-)
@Todd Chaffee I live in Italy since I was born 41 years ago. I can assure you it's not a matter of do something the smarter way; it's just a matter of habits. As far I can see, there are pros and cons using the weight or the volume.
@Todd Chaffee That's the wrong dialect: I speak Eastern Lombard, not Western Lombard. :-) Te la desmeted de ciapam en giro?
Actually, I have seen a novelty measuring cup (in an Italian gift-shop, but I'm not positive it was italian-made) that had levels for all the traditional short pasta shapes (penne, farfalle, etc.). Given the variations in packing density, not to mention the difference in sizes between manufacturers, this is a very crude method at best to estimate pasta quantity.
Oh boy!! Did I just trigger off the weight vs. volume battle??..
@ntt, realized after I answered this that you asked for a simple method without tools. Which is why I voted @Martha's answer up :-)
@Todd Yup. I agree.. I will choose hers.. :) Thanks for all the knowledge.. :)
Standard plastic bottle... Cola or else ≈ 1 portion :)
I have a Joseph Joseph spaghetti measurer. It looks like a camera aperture and measures up to 4 servings.
For spaghetti or other pastas with a small cross sectional area:
hold a bunch of dry pasta in one hand and a beer bottle top in the other
fit the end of the spaghetti bunch into the beer bottle top
this amount is a small-medium sized portion for 1 person
...although like Todd Chaffee said, I would eat more :)
Count them! 100 spaghettis are a good portion (100g circa) for 1 person. As for linguine, since they're a bit thicker I would go with 75 of them.
One quick, simple way is to use the cap from a spice container that you would buy at the supermarket, and probably have a half dozen or so in your cupboard.
I was wondering the same thing, and then I thought about it and this is the way that I do it...
One cup of cooked spaghetti noodles is one portion. One plate or half of 2-cup bowl is about 1 cup or 125g of spaghetti noodles. Unless you really are hungry you probably cannot eat more than 2 whole portions.
fyi... 1 portion of noodles is about 200 calories.
Welcome mckinneykev - I believe the original question was asking about dry pasta although it doesn't specify. Your method will work for cooked noodles.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.046317 | 2011-05-01T09:52:39 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14451",
"authors": [
"Debbie M.",
"Hazel Bowden",
"Spammer",
"Todd Chaffee",
"avpaderno",
"drxzcl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97912",
"notthetup"
],
"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
} |
15432 | At what point is water considered "at a boil?"
Lots of recipes call for waiting for the water to come "to a boil." However I have never been sure when that is. From my viewpoint it could be at three different points:
First start to see small air bubbles coming up from the bottom of the pan
When the surface of the water is noticeably disturbed by the bubbles
When it is a full on raging torrent of activity
Depending on the amount of water used, these three points could be several minutes apart from each other, which will affect the cooking time.
If the recipe doesn't specify a temperature for the water, then I'd say either (1) the "boiling point" doesn't really matter very much, or, more likely, (2) the recipe was written poorly and you should find another ;-)
There are very few cases where it really matters. As a rule of thumb, simmer when you don't want what you are cooking to be jostled around (poaching an egg), and use a rolling boil when you do (to keep pasta separated). Otherwise, don't worry.
By definition, 1 is a simmer (once the bubbles form a steady stream), 2 is a boil, and 3 is a "roiling boil."
So recipes are calling for #2 unless otherwise stated?
Yes, that is correct.
Remember that the "boiling point" (the temperature at which water boils) of water is significantly different based on altitude and mineral contents. Boiling an egg for 2 minutes in Colorado Springs yields a significantly different result than at the top of Pike's Peak.
One important note is that while bringing water to a boil, there is first a point where a bunch of little bubbles form on the bottom of the pot. These initial bubbles are dissolved air coming out of solution as the water heats. This is not the same as a simmer, The apparent difference between a simmer and air coming out of solution is that in a simmer, the bubbles will continually form and rise towards the surface instead of sitting on the bottom. The initial bubbles will occur at much lower temperatures, and long before the water simmers/boils.
So, to add to BobMcGee's answer, 0 is bubbles forming on the bottom - not a simmer, 1 - small bubbles rising towards the surface is a simmer, 2 is a boil, 3 is a rolling boil.
Remember to use good judgement based on what you're actually cooking. Are the instructions to boil water for pasta, to add vinegar to water once it's boiling, or to heat something over the pot, for example? Even at 212 degrees Fahrenheit, most things you drop into boiling water will bring the temperature down dramatically. Sometimes this matters, and sometimes it doesn't. It depends on what you're making or trying to do with it!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.046715 | 2011-06-13T17:04:45 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15432",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Cos Callis",
"ESultanik",
"Jack B Nimble",
"Lexa",
"Nel",
"Paul Nash",
"Richard Herron",
"Sadia",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32678",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32681",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32693",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6399",
"michael",
"user367890"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
20101 | Lifting the lid on cooking rice - is it such a big deal?
I don't know about you, but some people I know will freak out if I lift up the lid on a pot of cooking rice to stir or check its done-ness. They say "you should never ever ever lift the lid". It is like a commandment.
Sure I can see that some steam will be released, and temperature lowered.
But is it such a problem to lift the lid once or twice when cooking rice?
Are there some consequences that I am overlooking?
This is a question that begs for an experiment.
@rfusca indeed! 2 pots of rice, side-by-side cooking, 3 lid-lifts of 5 seconds each versus 0 lift, blind taste test by 3 judges of diverse backgrounds. video documentation.
Oh this sounds like a good idea. Although I'm sure the blind taste test can be by any three people rather than people from diverse backgrounds. Or at least one from someone who normally eats rice and one from someone who doesn't normally eat rice. Unfortunately I dont have two pots of the exact same shape and color or else I was going to perform the test.
I am going to assume you are cooking the rice on a pot rather than in rice cooker. If you are cooking it in the rice cooker, you wouldn't need to lift the lid to check for done-ness. However if you are cooking in a rice cooker, the lid should not be immediately lifted off after it says it is done cooking. You need to let it sit for about 5-10 minutes so the steam can continue to cook.
If you are cooking in a pot, the main reason why you do not want to lift the lid is because you want a even cooking temperature throughout. Typically when you cook rice(once again I am going to assume just plain white rice), you start the water/rice mixture by boiling it on high until it comes to a boil. I do recommend stirring it at this point. But not after covering. Then you set it to very low and cover and let it simmer for about 15-20 minute or more depending on quantity. By doing this, you can evenly cook the rice throughout so that the rice isn't too overcooked on the bottom. If you continue to lift the lid, the temperature would drop, and the top would be less cooked than the bottom. So you would need to cook it longer for the top to be cooked while the bottom is being overcooked.
In addition, the steam that is escaping is the water that you put into the rice. thus when you lift the lid, the water is escaping and will result in the rice being dryer than optimal. If you want to add more water, this will slow the cooking process on top of it already being slowed by losing temperature when you lift the lid. This will result in slower cooked rice.
While this is a detailed and informative answer, it doesn't address the severity with which it affects the rice, or mention any easy-to-miss consequences.
The effects are negligible, assuming you are not lifting the lid for more than a few seconds. There is a lot of liquid water in the system, so heat loss will be barely measurable. Same goes for the amount of water exiting the system in the form of steam.
Opening it once or twice shouldn't be a problem, as long as you do it fairly quickly. I've had to do that before when cooking rice on the stove simply because it was foaming up too much due to the starch. That being said, I haven't had to check rice for doneness before. Jay's instructions for cooking rice are the same instructions I've used and it cooks the rice just fine. Lifting it too much will result in rice as Jay noted, but once or twice, very briefly, shouldn't be a big deal.
Ok, here we go....my mom was a total tyrant when it came to cooking rice properly. Yes, she is Japanese. Yes, from Japan. And yes, I'm one of those people who freak out when people lift the lid when it's cooking.
Here is how it was explained to me. I have subsequently tested the theory and found hard, empirical evidence on why lifting the lid is BAD.
I agree with Jay on all his points. But here is the main reason for not lifting the lid:
If the rice is still hard in the middle of the grain, lifting the lid will cause the temperature to drop. Once this happens, by the time the temperature rises back to equilibrium, you will have OVERCOOKED the outside of the individual grains, which will become mushy. Conversely, if you lift the lid and cook the rice for the normal amount of time, the center of the grain will be hard and UNDERCOOKED.
That's it.
Can we see your hard, empirical evidence?
This explanation makes perfect sense, but I agree with @mien, you left out the hard empirical evidence. I'll give you a head start: mush << 7.5, 8.9, ((good rice)) 14.8, 22.5 << hard
All you have to do is cook rice and try it both ways to see the difference. A significant amount of steam does escape if you check it and it does affect the resultant consistency of the rice, which affects the taste and enjoyment of it. If you don't care about that, hey, go nuts, but if you want it to turn out better/right, cook it at the specified time without lifting the lid, it's not rocket science.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.046986 | 2011-12-31T21:03:47 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20101",
"authors": [
"AED",
"BZN_DBer",
"Chris",
"Jay",
"Mars",
"Mien",
"Milos",
"crystal",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43947",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76780",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8387",
"kim3er",
"ma11hew28",
"matt jans",
"rfusca",
"ted.strauss"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
37249 | Smallest muffin size without losing the muffin top?
This is a question about the physics of muffins.
With a standard size muffin tray, when filled with batter, the heat and expansion causes the dough to spill over the edge and form the classic muffin top.
But with smaller and smaller tray sizes the amount of expansion will eventually just be a bump that does not spill over the sides.
What is the theoretical minimum muffin size, assuming standard muffin batter (no upping the baking powder).
would it be possible to make breakfast-cereal sized muffins?
Okay, I answered this, just for my own amusement, but you have to admit it is a silly question. Why are you asking? :-)
BTW, you would have to lower the baking powder, not raise it...
@SAJ14SAJ I confess, it is a silly question. Contrary to popular belief, silliness is its own reason. That and a fantasy about creating muffin cereal, which is also very silly.
I imagine almost any of the injection molded cereals like captain crunch, or the marshmallows from the one with the rabbit, could be molded into muffin shapes. But the texture would not be muffin-like.
Ya that wouldn't really count as muffins. But as your answer points out, tiny muffins would almost certainly have crunchy exteriors, making them more suitable as a breakfast cereal.
Now we have Zeno's Muffin Paradox...
First, you must assume a spherical muffin. This is a silly but fun question, so lets think about the limiting factors.
What if you could scale down everything (the pan, the size of the ingredients, the size of the gas cells, everything else) uniformly.
If that could be done, muffin tops would be a uniform phenomenon at any size.
So, what can we not scale down uniformly?
It seems to me that there are to major factors that cannot be uniformly scaled down in actual practice:
The cell-size of the starch matrix that is expanded by the leavening. It has a minimum size, and one would imagine that muffins must be macro-scaled compared to the cell size in order to work.
Since the cell size is visible as the grain in an actual muffin, the muffin has an internal structure on the order of millimeters, typically (I haven't baked muffins just now to measure their structure size) based on my best guess and recollection. This is taking into account some of the larger scale structures within the muffin, like bubbles, and that "grain" which is composed of even finer "grains".
So one limiting factor would be that the muffin would have to be several orders of magnitude larger than tenths of millimeters, say three orders of magnitude. That would bring the limiting size of muffin-topped muffins to about a centimeter across.
Heat penetration.
We can assume the rate of cooking in the muffin is proportional to the radius of the muffin at any given size, as a first order approximation, for any given temperature.
At some point, the muffin will either cook through before it can expand, or burn on the outside before it cooks through.
The problem with tiny baked goods is that they are outside any effective balance of temperatures. Either they cook through and start drying out without any good crust development, or the outside is overdone before the inside gets cooked.
The requirement for muffins is even more balanced: it has to heat the inside enough to trigger the oven spring from the leavening before the outside is set enough that it cannot expand, while still being able to cook all the way through, set the outside, and get decent crust development.
This is very hard to manage.
Practically, it is likely that the current mini-muffin pan size (a couple of centimeters across) is about as small as you can go without having to start taking drastic measures with the recipe. The main problem is heat management: getting good oven spring without the muffin setting too fast, while cooking it through, and yet having nice crust development on the outside.
You can have smaller baked goods, but they have a much simpler structure. They are called cookies. Most muffin batters would make an effective drop cookie, again probably down to about 2 cm. They would be essentially all muffin top.
For a look at some of these practical factors, see:
See also: How to adapt brownie recipe to cook well in a mini-muffin tin?
Mini-muffins indeed don't go over the edges quite as easily, in my experience!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.047496 | 2013-09-30T20:15:32 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37249",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Kenneth Chadwick",
"Rexistheone",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Solomon ",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87547",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87552",
"ted.strauss"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
20240 | Grilling duck - How can I get the fat?
I'm going to grill a whole duck tomorrow. I am going to steam the duck before so the fat will render off. When that's complete, I am going to have a pot full of duck fat and leftover water.
What's the best way to get the fat off? Refrigerate the water till the fat separates? Boil the pot until the water evaporates?
Refrigerate it and the fat will get on top of the water.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.047840 | 2012-01-08T05:05:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20240",
"authors": [
"David Rivers",
"Justin Shin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44337",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44345",
"manabreak"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
21587 | Homemade Pepper Sauce - Suggestion for a serving bottle
I'm planning on making a homemade pepper sauce that I saw on Serious Eats. The recipe is straight forward, but am concerned about the best way to 'serve' this sauce. I think the traditional way would be to have a tabasco-type bottle since that controls the amount that will come out (a drop at a time). Anyone have another suggestion? I would prefer to stay away from plastic squeeze bottles since the vinegar in the sauce could interact with the plastic.
Thanks
I go through a lot of hot sauce, and tend to just re-use old Tabasco bottles. The main choice you need to make is what size of orifice reducer do you need. I think that the best for most thin sauces is a glass bottle with the right size reducer. You know you've got the right size when one shake of the bottle dispenses about 1/4 of the amount of sauce that you want. That way a few shakes gets you all you need, but you don't risk overdoing it (a real problem with hot sauces). There are four common size ranges that you see in thin condiments:
"Tiny", like in standard Tabasco, Worcestershire sauce, Pepper-infused vinegar, etc. These are great for thin sauces, or sauces where you have used a strainer or a food mill to remove the solids. I like my sauces thin so they get into the cracks of the food, so I strain my sauces to remove the solids. The solids go into one jar to use as a chili paste, and the liquid goes into a bottle with a "tiny" orifice reducer.
"Medium", like in Chipotle Tabasco or other slightly thicker sauces. These sauces are still thin, but are chunkier or thicker than a truly liquid sauce. Medium reducers still require that the sauce be largely free of chunks, but if you are including tomato paste or thicker elements, you need a larger opening.
"No reducer", like in many Dave's Insanity sauces, or any sauce that has chunks or is truly goopy. By the time a sauce gets this thick, I actually prefer a squeeze bottle for precision.
Squeeze bottles, like Sriracha, are good for sauces that are less hot (dispensed in larger quantities), and thick enough to justify it. Most plastics are fine with an acidic sauce, but may not want to be stored quite as long.
You can order hot sauce bottles from a variety of sources, such as SKS Bottles, including with a variety of orifice reducers based on your desired sauce thickness. I prefer glass, and the small plastic reducers are meant for the acidic environment.
http://www.sks-bottle.com/340c/fin18aa.html
Depending on the heat level of your sauce of course.
You could make quite an impression on your guests.
Creative ideas, I like the syringe. ;)
Now I want to make some homemade pepper sauce just so I can use an old fashioned oil can to serve it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.047917 | 2012-02-21T20:36:16 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21587",
"authors": [
"JackKalish",
"Max57",
"Sam Ley",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47892",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9091"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
23553 | Does a granite pestel need to be re-grooved?
I have a granite Mortar-Pestle, which I use to grind spices and other stuff. I got it 2nd hand and I've been using it for a 3-4 months. I have noticed that the small radial groves on the grinding surface of the pestel are slowly disappearing.
Do I need to re-grove the pestle? If so how is it done? I can't seem to find any information about that on the internet.
Remember, if the stone is wearing out, you are eating the stone chips and dust. Dentists just LOVE that :-)
I have an alumina mortar and pestle ; they are very smooth and work well for grinding. They do produce small particles .
Just to clarify, the mortar is the bowl and the pestle is the rod. I haven't ever seen a grooved pestle, but the grooves on a mortar will wear off with use. The grooves are useful for holding seeds and the like in place while grinding, but they are not strictly necessary. Spices can actually be ground finer in a smooth mortar than they can with a grooved one since the particles can't get caught in the ridges, however the initial grinding and tapping may take slightly longer to get started as you chase things like seeds around the bowl a little. The rough surface of the granite alone is enough, just adjust your technique as it wears more.
OK. I will try to put a picture of grooves on the bottom of the pestel if I can find one..
Nice one. But this one seemed to have smaller and less deep radial groves outwards from the center of the pestle.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.048151 | 2012-05-03T09:28:33 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23553",
"authors": [
"1010011010",
"Carmen",
"TFD",
"blacksmith37",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53340",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60418",
"notthetup",
"user2663781",
"user53339"
],
"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
} |
28485 | How does adding baking soda to soaking beans/lentils reduce the gas they make you have?
I've heard a few times that adding a pinch of baking soda to the water you use to soak beans/lentils in, reduces the gas it makes you have. I've not do any measured experiments myself, but I have anecdotal evidence it does help. But what's the science behind it?
The actual action of soaking is what does most of the work.
Most legumes have complex oligosaccharides, a type of complex sugar. Digestion of this complex sugar is what causes flatulence. By soaking your beans will help remove some of this excess sugar. Be sure you discard the soaking water.
Though it is often said that adding baking soda helps I've yet to see any verifiable evidence that it would help. Also, don't forget that baking soda isn't tasteless, it could easily add a salty or soapy flavor to your once pristine beans.
Interesting. I do discard the soaking water and try to wash off the baking soda with fresh water as well..
Maybe the taste of soda make people discard the soaking water, together with the oligosaccharides…
Increasing ionic strength will help break down weak interactions between oligosaccharides and the bean. That'll make a bicarb soak more effective than plain water. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionic_strength Osmotic concentration also plays a similar role for uncharged carbs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osmotic_concentration
Summary: Baking soda is mostly used to soften the beans faster and decrease cooking time by increasing pH. In some scenarios, it has been shown to aid in breaking down gas-causing sugars as well. Higher concentrations of baking soda and/or pressure cooking may be needed to make this latter effect significant. In most cases, an increased soaking time will have a much greater impact on gas-causing sugars, so baking soda should perhaps be reserved for situations where preparation time is limited.
Baking soda isn't primarily added to reduce gas. As pointed out in previous responses, it can use its sodium ions to replace the magnesium in the cell walls of plants, resulting in faster softening. However, this can also be done with the addition of regular table salt.
The reason baking soda in particular is often added to bean recipes (either during soaking or during cooking itself) is that it makes the beans slightly alkaline, which increases the softening effect. As Harold McGee says in Food and Cooking, "Acidic cooking liquids slow the dissolving of cell-wall hemicelluloses and therefore the softening process, while alkaline cooking water has the reverse effect." He further recommends:
Baking soda at 0.5% (1 teaspoon/qt) can reduce the cooking time by
nearly 75%; it contains sodium and in addition is alkaline, which
facilitates the dissolving of the cell-wall hemicelluloses.... The
alkalinity of baking soda can give an unpleasantly slippery mouth feel
and soapy taste.
The softening of the cell walls will allow faster breakdown in some of the sugars with cause gas. Scientific research showed this effect of alkaline substances like baking soda on beans and legumes many decades ago, dating back at least to the early 1970s. Unfortunately, most of this research is only available in obscure food journals, but this free article gives a sense of common findings (here regarding Seker beans). As for the mechanism, they offer:
Ku et al. (1976) noted that soaking in the 0.5% sodium bicarbonate
solution might increase softening of the testa [seed coat] and cotyledons [interior of bean] that
could increase the sugars extraction.
Ultimately, the combination of an 18-hour soak in the baking soda solution followed by cooking in a pressure cooker achieved the highest reductions in gas-causing sugars (up to 70%). (Pressure cooking also destroys these sugars more effectively than conventional cooking. Also, note that, unlike McGee's advice, they rinsed the beans after soaking and used fresh water for cooking.)
While baking soda speeds cooking and can reduce flatulence, it also has negative impacts on nutrition. Ku et al. (cited above) noted protein destruction when cooking tripled when baking soda was added. But the more significant concern is B vitamins. Again from the Seker bean article:
[A]lkali condition may cause further destruction in the Vitamin B
contents, especially thiamin and riboflavin (Swaminathan, 1974).
Therefore tap water might be a good alternative to protect vitamins
and have a moderate decrease for the flatulence factors.
And actually, it's important to note that pressure cooking had a very significant impact on how effective the baking soda solution was. Assuming an 18-hour soak, the following reductions in gas-causing sugars were seen on average:
Plain water soak, pressure cooking: 51% reduction
Baking soda soak, pressure cooking: 69% reduction
Plain water soak, normal boiling: 48% reduction
Baking soda soak, normal boiling: 51% reduction
Baking soda thus barely had a significant effect in this study without pressure cooking. Other studies have also seen the effect of baking soda affected by cooking method, but elements such as soaking time may play a role as well. This study, for example, measured statistically significant decreases in gas-causing sugars due to baking soda in five other bean types under almost all types of preparation conditions (6-hour soak vs. 12-hour soak, soaking alone vs. boiling vs. pressure cooking, sprouting for 1-4 days, etc.). However, in almost all preparations the sugar contents were only decreased by a few percent with baking soda. (Even pressure cooking did not change this in most cases.) Only one sugar, raffinose, was reduced by more, in some types of beans achieving an additional 5-14% reduction with baking soda.
However, the important finding to take away from these studies is the relative importance of the various parameters. In order of effect, they are:
Length of soaking (or germination, for even greater effect)
Pressure cooking, instead of simmering
Adding baking soda
For almost all scenarios, it appears that soaking for an extra few hours, doing a 24-hour germination before cooking, or choosing to pressure cook beans will have far greater impacts than adding baking soda. Moreover, extended soaking or germination tend to actually release more nutrients from the beans as various enzymes break down indigestible substances, rather than destroying some of the nutrients as baking soda can. Other studies have suggested that long cooking will also break down gas-causing compounds more quickly than soaking could do. Thus, in some circumstances, an extended low simmer with no prior soaking might achieve a greater reduction than a brief soaking period with baking soda. (The baking soda might even be counterproductive in this case, since it would soften the beans faster and not allow a longer cooking period.)
In any case, most of these studies have assumed a rather significant amount of baking soda during soaking (generally around McGee's recommendation of 1 tsp/qt), since the pH must be increased significantly for the baking soda to have effects. Adding only a "pinch" may have only a negligible impact, particularly if the beans are only boiled and not pressure cooked.
Moral of the story (again): While baking soda does something in reducing gas, the effect is generally quite small. Use it primarily to speed up cooking or soften beans instead.
In addition to what rheone said, I have noticed that using baking soda kind of softens food. A characteristica example of this is
Use baking soda in green vegetables to keep them green after cooking is done
which isn't the best solution because just a minute is enough to miss it and eat a soup instead of green vegetables.
I have also noticed that if you use soda in your beans overnight, then you are easily able to peel them! The reason for this is that soda really softens them, beacause it interacts with peel in a way that it makes peel's pores bigger which makes easily for the oligosaccharides to move out, due to difference in concentration.
Baucause saccharides in general are long molecules we have to help them get out, so a good solution is to make room for them!
This has nothing to do with pores, but with sodium ions from salt or baking soda replacing calcium and magnesium ions in the outer "skin" of the bean.
WHY ADDING SODIUM BICARBONATE SOFTENS BEANS AND LENTILS:
The reason is that as beans age, there is dehydration (My Brazilian mom used to tell that the difference between an old crop bean (cheaper) and a new crop, is the as you fingernail pinch them, the older one is smaller than the new crop one's). Soaking with Sodium Bicarbonate in the cold water takes the Sodium Bicarbonate in intimate contact with the beans starches ,gelatinizing them, reducing the cooking time and making it a creamear beans. But, if you use recent crop beans and you keep the same cooking time with Sodium Bicarbonate, it will turn into a soup. HOW MUCH ENERGY COULD WE SAVE, REDUCING THE COOKING TIME!!!! My rich girl friend (buys only high priced beans, tells me she cooks it under 15 min. in a high pressure cooker...
I have found that if a cake recipe calls for Sodium Bicarbonate and Baking Powder, I get a better cake if I add the Sodium Bicarbonate+ liquids, whip blend it and them add the Baking Powder.
Good info but doesn't answer the question.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.048323 | 2012-11-18T06:22:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28485",
"authors": [
"Byers Fence",
"Christina Tsuchida",
"Cindy",
"Donna Dean",
"Jacek Konieczny",
"Jacob Scherber",
"Jo Letshela",
"Polar",
"Renee Hyde",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107054",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65758",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65760",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65763",
"notthetup",
"rumtscho",
"user65763"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
8179 | What's a good nondairy substitute for parmesan/grana padano as a salad-topper?
I'm making a salad that's quite bitter (endives, radicchio, arugula, with a lemon vinaigrette dressing). Normally this salad has peeled grana padano on top of it, which cuts the bitterness, but my co-diner can't have dairy (or gluten, sadly).
Any ideas for what I could add to a salad like this that would cut the bitterness similarly?
Thanks!
The main things that Parmesan cheese can add to a salad are fattiness and salt. The first thing that comes to mind for me is bacon. You could probably also make a yummy main dish salad (or hearty first course) by adding duck or a cured meat such as salami.
If you're not interested in adding meat, how about olives? Those would serve similar purposes. Other options might be marinated artichoke hearts or mushrooms. Just make sure you choose ones that aren't too tart, as they might add to the effect of the lemon vinaigrette.
I agree with Martha with the fat a salt being the required balancing element in a bitter salad but think with your delicate flavours bacon might over power. I think I'd add an air died ham like Serrano or Parma ham.
ooh, or perhaps pancetta?
See, that's where personal experience comes in. I don't eat bacon, since I keep kosher. So I was guessing on the bacon based on my analysis of what Parmesan could add. I think that if I were doing this, I'd add either duck or olives.
My sister's dairy-free out of necessity (milk allergy, not lactose intolerance) and she swears by a mixture of baker's yeast, breadcrumbs, garlic powder, and salt for Parmesan replacement, though obviously it's more akin to grated cheese than sliced cheese and thus might not be the texture you want.
Oops, I just re-read the question and realized that my answer won't work for the particular need mentioned in the questions, as bread crumbs are not okay for a gluten-free person. Sorry about that! (I'm going to leave the answer up for now in case others come to this q/a as a resources for more general parmesan substitutions.)
+1; I found this page while looking for a parmesan substitute, so thank you! If you're ever back on SE, I'd appreciate any additional detail regarding her mix.
@IntheBooleyHouse There are gluten-free breadcrumbs out there, so with careful shopping this could be eaten by a gluten-free person too :)
On endive salad, I like to cut bitterness with sumak, a spice commonly used in Turkey as a replacement for lemon juice.
As someone who is also dairy and gluten free, first off you can make gluten-free bread crumbs now, with some decent gluten free breads on the market (I've also found gf crumbs in high-end grocery stores). Second, I will often cut the bitterness with a high-quality olive oil (California Olive Ranch is sweeter), with a nice large-grain salt, and/or with balsamic vinegar which can add sweetness as well. Depending on the dish, mirin can also add sweetness. If you substitute with olives, try Graber olives or Castelveltrano (my favorite!). Or try avocado or a ripe heirloom tomato. Or both. Have fun and good luck!
Try shredded coconut. If the bitterness is still palpable, try salted coconut shreds (or salt them yourself by soaking in saline water).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.049036 | 2010-10-15T23:25:06 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8179",
"authors": [
"Erica",
"In the Booley House",
"Jon of All Trades",
"Liz W",
"Martha F.",
"Pierre-David Belanger",
"Richard Tasker",
"Sara Chipps",
"Sean Quinn",
"SunnyRed",
"Vulcan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149746",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16789",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16847",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16862",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16876",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2251",
"justkt",
"pnkfelix",
"xan"
],
"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
} |
37013 | How long will egg yolks keep?
I have one recipe that calls for several egg whites, and no egg yolks that I plan to make soon. I have other recipes that call for more yolks than whites (which I am not planning on using 'soon')...
How long will egg yolks 'keep' in the fridge?
(alternatively/additionally) Can yolks be frozen (for instance, in an ice cube tray) an preserved?
Egg yolks, optionally covered with water, and in a well sealed container should hold for about 2-3 days in refrigerator.
You may also freeze them, but they require treatment with sugar or salt to prevent the proteins from turning them rubbery, at ratio of about (per the Egg Board):
1/8 teaspoon salt OR
1 1/2 teaspoons sugar or corn syrup
per 1/4 cup of egg yolks (about 4 yolks).
Of course, you then have to adjust whatever recipe you use them upon thawing to account for the sugar or salt already mixed into the yolks.
See also: Still Tasty
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.049328 | 2013-09-22T22:45:25 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37013",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
11130 | Chicken in Tin Foil in the Oven: Any tips or advices on spices or wrapping?
[I'm an amateur that experiments.]
I recently realized I like chicken wrapped in tin foil after using salt, pepper and oregano on it, in 250C for up to 2 hours.
Also, I used sliced lemon on parts of it [during cooking].
However, I wonder if any other spices would be suitable and if any other wrapping would be better.
I heard the roumor that tin foil is unhealthy compared to cooking paper but I don't know if it's correct.
Can you make this question more specific? Tons of other spices and ways of flavoring chicken (glaze, marinade, brine, etc.) are good. There are many ways to bake chicken besides wrapped (in a covered casserole, in a dish, on a rack, etc.). The health of aluminum foil is a debated issue and all we can give you are studies back and forth.
If you're worried about the aluminum foil, you can always just use a covered casserole dish ... it might not hold all of the steam in, though. (there are methods, like mixing a pough of flour and water, then using that to seal the lid on the pot).
Also, if you're worried, I'd just consider not using acids, like lemon; aluminum pots and pans react to acids, and I'd only assume aluminum foil would to.
You could also switch to parchment paper, which is the original for cooking 'en papillote' (in paper).
But 'better' is subjective -- easier to clean up (aluminum foil wins, I think), cheap (maybe the casserole dish, as it's reusable), more impressive (probably the parchment paper).
As for spicing ... search for 'chicken en papillote' on any internet serch engine and you'll find lots of recipes.
Are you talking about wrapping chicken parts (as opposed to a whole bird) and cooking at 250c for 2 hours? I ask because that's a really high temperature to cook chicken parts for so long. They must be practically stewed and falling in shreds when you get done if that's what you're doing. Nothing wrong with that--it can be really nice--but if you aren't able to trap all the moisture in with the chicken you're going to get super-dry leathery chicken.
If that's your cooking method and you're not after dry, nasty chicken, you're best off sticking with foil. The pouch will be as close to airtight as you can get, and it's entirely moisture-proof.
250c is nearing the burning point of most parchment--maybe even exceeding it--especially for 2 hours' cooking time. You can still use it, but it will become dark brown and very brittle. It will likely not be good for holding moisture in, and you risk it falling to pieces in your food when you try to take it off.
A key ingredient to my oven-roasted chicken is tarragon. Goes well with some oregano and thyme.
A little more foreign in my area, but an equally good option is paprika, cooked alongside onions.
Not sure what you meant about foil being unhealthy. Maybe because it keeps all of the fats in? In the flavor sense, this is very good because the result is juicy and tender. Other cooking methods such as a rotisserie claim to let fats drain off, and some claim this makes it healthier.
Stuff with black pudding or haggis, wrap in parchment first, then tin foil, bake for 1 hour at 190c.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.049536 | 2011-01-17T10:34:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11130",
"authors": [
"Adonneus",
"Clive",
"Graeme Rennie",
"Steve",
"Trace H",
"blacksh33p",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136402",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22819",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22852",
"justkt"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
13652 | What will happen if you cook in a container that has traces from another day of cooking?
Basically the idea is you're bored of doing the dishes and you want to save time.
Is it unhealthy? Will the chemistry alter a lot?
Assume the container has been in the fridge [and what had in it isn't spoiled] and the traces are what remains if one quickly puts the remains out with a fork. The food recipe has been the same.
Are you talking about for cooking or for storage? For me they aren't often the same containers.
There is no food safety issue involved, but in most cases, there will be a problem with taste. I think that the most important factor is whether the recipe involves heating (in the container in question) or not.
If you must heat something in the container, don't reuse. Different parts of a heated recipe are added at different times (e.g. for a stew onions and tubers first, then meat, then fluid, then the delicate veggies, and herbs at the end). Having some pieces of the old vegetables at the bottom will interfere with that. Even if you don't have such a dish and are heating everything at once, you will cook the old food for the second time, overcooking it. It will taste bad, or even burnt - not only the old pieces, they will give their bad taste to the rest of the dish.
If you don't heat in the container, but only do some physical changes (mixing, whipping, blending), it will probably be mostly OK. Take care with dishes where the mixing order is important - if you made a soufflé mixture in a bowl, you cannot start another one in the unwashed bowl, because you have to beat the egg whites in a clean bowl. If you get impurities into the eggwhites before they are beaten, they won't aerate properly, even if mixing in the same stuff after they are stiff presents no problem. For a chemically leavened (baking powder or baking soda) batter, you cannot start the dry part in the bowl which contains moist batter traces. And if you made anything which ferments, you will have some overfermented fragments. I wouldn't do it with yeast containing recipes, but if you are making yoghurt, you can just see it as a part of your starter culture.
If your food doesn't belong to these exception categories, you are probably OK. Still, your food will get some off tastes. Even if you remove the last of the old food immediately before the new cooking process (and do you really start cooking just after you've eaten?), the old food will have left dried traces on the walls of the container. These will mix or dissolve into the new food. The drying alone will have given them an unpleasant texture. If we are talking pieces, or even worse, purées of fruits or vegetables, they will likely have oxidized as well. Anything which changes its taste with age (like fish) is better washed away.
So much for the downsides: not game-breaking, but they exist. On the other hand, I cannot see any big gains. Cooking gets much more utensils dirty than the container in which the food is stored/prepared. If you are already doing them in the sink, elbow-deep in soapy water, the marginal effort for rinsing an additional item is close to nothing. And if you have a dishwasher, I don't see any reason to not use it. Conclusion: there is no reason to do it, even though it won't poison you if you do.
Nothing, except maybe a trace of taste if it's something strong.
You probably shouldn't do this with frying pans, though; I think if there's anything stuck to the bottom it will make your oil taste burnt, especially things like garlic and onions.
Besides mixing flavors there isn't a problem with reusing a pan for a different dish right away. My cast iron pan is often used this way.
As for storage in the fridge; sure you could probably reuse the container after one day with little risk. Two days? Maybe. A week?
The point is that it is a bad precedent that will increase your risk of food poisoning. Are you going to label the container so you don't forget and reuse one that was already reused? Remember that bacteria is growing all the time even in the fridge. Reusing a dish that already had a chance to grow some colonies is going to give the next dish a head start on spoiling.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.049818 | 2011-04-01T12:42:27 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13652",
"authors": [
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
11131 | Problem with gummy-bears being too much like jelly
I've been trying a simple recipe I found on the internet, which is a simple recipe consisting mostly of gelatin.
The problem is that the end result is basically just a fruit-flavoured jelly (Jell-O?), rather than the more chewy gummy-bears (Haribo) style of jelly confectionery.
Can anyone suggest what I need to do to make them less springy and more chewy. It's all difficult to articulate!
Here's what I used for the first test-batch:
12 tbsp sugar
12/3 cup fruit juice
8 tbsp Golden Syrup
8 tbsp gelatin
soften the gelatin in 1/2 cup of cold water.
place sugar, syrup and the juice in a pan and gently heat until sugar dissolves.
Stir in the gelatin and stir until dissolved.
Pour into moulds and wait until set.
Thanks
Hmm, or am I going about it wrong, and should be starting with a soft-ball sugar recipe?
This question describes other gelling agents than gelatin that result in a much stiffer end product - might try subbing in one of those (such as agar-agar).
Be careful of substituting agar or any other "firm" gelling agent; you're likely to end up something closer to Turkish Delight and agar in particular has the property of syneresis (meaning that your gummy candies will dry up fast).
I can think of a few things that would alter the consistency of a gelatin candy/dessert:
First, it is very important to let the gelatin bloom. When it says to "soften" it in cold water, you need to let it sit there for a good 5 minutes or so until it has absorbed plenty of water and you can actually see a gel forming. Don't stir it at this point!
All gelatins are not created equal; you need to look at the bloom strength. I think the most common kind in supermarkets is Knox, which has a bloom strength of 225 and is usually what most gelatin recipes calls for. "Platinum" gelatin (normally sold in sheets) goes up to 260, "Gold" is generally around 200, "Silver" is 160, and "Bronze" can be as low as 125 - practically useless for this. If you managed to find powdered gelatin with a bloom strength of under 200, you would need to increase the quantity or else end up with jelly.
Although gelatin does not require particularly high temperatures to hydrate, you do need to heat the solution to at least 50° C before you set it. If you don't do this, it won't dissolve properly.
When using powdered gelatin, you're normally supposed to bloom and dissolve it in the same liquid. The recipe you have seems to call for chucking the bloomed gelatin directly into your syrup; this may be deliberate in order to produce some effect I'm not familiar with, but it sounds like an oversight to me. Instead I would heat the gelatin/water solution up to 50° C after blooming (as described above) and then add that to the syrup.
Finally, as Computerish says, make sure you're heating the syrup solution enough to get all the sugar dissolved, and you might even need to reduce it a little (let it simmer). The more you reduce it, the more viscous the syrup itself will become (at the extreme end turning into pure caramelized sugar, which is rock-hard). So if you're absolutely sure that you are using the gelatin correctly, this would be the next line to pursue. If the syrup is actually syrupy at room temperature then it should form great chewy gummies, but if it's watery then you're more likely to end up with Jell-O.
Great answer, thanks - I'll be giving this ago at the weekend.
Heh... I used to work for a large commercial gummy-bear manufacturer, and can tell you that, when fresh, they were quite springy. A day in the drying room, followed by a couple months in the warehouse / on the shelf waiting to be sold, and they lose that springiness. Frankly, they all taste stale to me now. So yeah, try leaving them uncovered in the fridge for a few days & see if they're not more to your liking.
BTW: candies like these are almost always formed in molds pressed into food starch. This is primarily done to allow easy removal (just dump and shake), but I suspect also works to absorb excess moisture (I've since learned it also hastens cooling and setting of the outside of the candies, which also improves handling). And the ones we sold had a mineral-oil glaze that kept them from sticking to each other in the package - this also altered the taste / mouth-feel somewhat.
"Frankly, they all taste stale to me now." yer old :)
I have been struggling with this for a while now, and I have finally made a batch that is JUST like store bought! It is a little more complicated and will require you to heat the sugar to 240 F (soft-ball stage)
1st part
1 Cup Sugar
3 Tbsp Water
3/4 Cup Corn Syrup
2nd part
1/2 cup water
7 packets (46 grams) Gelatin (I used knox)
14 grams fruit pectin
3rd part
1 1/4 tsp Citric powder
2 tsp water
Flavor, Color
Mix 1st part in pot, begin heating this to 240 degrees Fahrenheit (soft-ball stage) while you prepare the 2nd part.
In another pot, prepare 2nd part.
Add the water, sprinkle gelatin over the top evenly and allow the gelatin to absorb the water.
After 5-10 minutes begin heating the pot with the gelatin, not exceeding 170 degrees Fahrenheit, stirring until the gelatin is all melted and the liquid is smooth.
Slowly add fruit pectin to the gelatin mixture, stirring.
Once the sugar-syrup mix reaches 240 degrees, remove from heat and allow to cool down to about 212 degrees Fahrenheit.
Slowly pour the sugar-syrup over the gelatin-pectin, stirring to remove bubbles.
Add 3rd part, stirring until smooth.
(do not wait too long to pour into molds!)
Let sit in refridgerator until they are as tough as you want, but mine were a great consistency in about an hour or so! Enjoy!
Somebody tried to edit because they didn't have rep to comment, so I'll ask on their behalf: can you give more details about the flavor/color portion? (Presumably approximate quantity of the extract/coloring you use.)
I've been working on this problem over the last few months. I have recently tried adding cornflour to the mixture, so I would mix up a heaped teaspoon in a small amount of lemon juice until there were no lumps, and stir that into my still hot syrup/flavour/gelatin mix. This has given them much more of a chewy texture once dried out for a week or so. This was reverse engineered from some sweets I bought.
I spent some time getting the soft-ball sugar syrup right, and even when it was soft balled, once the chewies were out of the freezer, they were still springy like Jell-O (like @Shog9 said) and required drying for a week. I have dried them in a mixture of flour and icing sugar; however it should be possible to oven dry such mixtures at low temperatures.
UPDATE:
Don't put them in the freezer. This hugely extends the drying time. Let them dry on a top shelf or somewhere, probably for a week or two. This seems to give the required texture.
What has really worked for me is using 3/4 cup cold liquid (water, juice) slowly mix 6 or 7 packets of gelatin ( it doesn't really matter what type you use for this; into liquid do this in a sauce pan. This must be sprinkled in slowly while mixing the liquid. This will stem gelatin clumps and/ or bubbles. Let it sit for at least 10 min. It will be pretty clumpy and hard when you get back to it. Mix 1/3 Glucose ( not corn syrup or another variation, must be glucose) and 2/3 cup sugar. Depending on liquid used you may want to use. You may want less sugar if you use fruit juice. Once mixed turn on stove to low. Let the mixture melt slowly, mixing often, if you don't do this the mixture can burn. Once mixture is dissolved, take off heat. Mix in citric acid ( for taste). If you want all natural you may use a mixture of lemon juice and water for the liquid. This keeps the candy from tasting like straight up sugar. Mix in candy flavoring, not extract ( extracts have water in them this will affect the texture) lor-Ann or Wilton make great candy flavored. Pour into silicone molds. Put in freezer for an hour. Then you will have gummy candy. They can be stored in the fridge or in a cool dark place in a container. The more gelatin you use, the more rubbery the candy will be. It won't be exactly like store bought gummies, for the reasons above. Freshness contributes to a huge part of that. Depending on how much you would like to spend, gelatin can come in different blooming strengths. That can also help w/ the chewy issue. Gelatin sheets have a higher blooming strength. However, they cost more. I use good old gelatin you get at the store. Amazon has been really great for finding candy making ingredients. Also it's good to research the science behind it. It will help you to be able to experiment w/ different geling agents. One geling agent I don't recommend is agar agar it makes gummies gritty and has an aftertaste. Below is the link for detailed descriptions of what different geling agents can do a bit of confectionery geekry.
https://www.chefsteps.com/activities/confectionery-geekery
Hope this helps :).
It sounds like you've done a lot of homework and experimentation to achieve the best results, but I must ask: how much better are your homemade gummy bears, as compared to those sold in stores? I wouldn't think they're something that's worth the trouble to make from scratch, but they must be or else you wouldn't bother to try. I'd love your answer more if you described what makes them special.
Changing the gelling agent could help as justkt suggested. I suspect, however, that your problem is the temperature of the sugar. The recipe I have (from Chocolate and Confections, but I haven't actually tried this recipe) suggests heating the sugars to 275 F and then cooling to 242 F before adding the gelatin.
Since you are using juice and not a pre-made flavoring (+1 for that by the way), you might want to reduce the juice by about 50% in advance (cook it until it is half of its original weight and then let it cool again) and add it after the sugar has been cooked.
I like your idea of reducing the flavouring, I'll try that. I wasn't really heating the sugar at all, as I was following a recipe on the internet, but it seems they've never eaten gummy bears :) I'll swap to a "sugar" solution, and not a "jelly" solution, and see how I get on. This is my first forray into cooking - let alone hot sugar mallarkey :)
You must dehydrate them, as the professionals do in the drying room. I have a dehydrator and it works PERFECTLY to give them the firmness you are seeking.
I use a simple recipe as I like splenda/sugarfree gummies.
Ingredients:
½ cup water
¼ cup Crystal Light Powdered drink mix with Splenda
¼ cup gelatin (that’s equivalent to 4 packets of Knox)
1.Mix the powders together and add water.
2.Stir quickly into gelatin till it’s completely saturated
3.Microwave for about 1:15 min (micro times vary, you want to melt the gelatine without boiling, so keep an eye on it till you have yours figured out, it’ll foam a bit – that’s normal)
4.Remove from microwave and stir
5.Freeze until gelled (10-20 minutes, Knox seems to set quicker)
6.Cut it into squares and voila…yummy gummies!
For firmer gummies, dehydrate on low until they are as firm as you want. They can get very hard if you dry them too long.
Makes approx 5.2 oz of gummy candy, 100 calories total
These are great to snack on at work sitting at a computer!
Thanks for the recipe. They gelled well in the freezer, but "melted" in the dehydrator. Maybe they need to gel and dry a bit long before the dehydrator? I'll report back the second batch results.
I guess that you could add more flavored gelatin, but if you are worried about having a salty flavor( because you will if you use too many packs of unflavored gelatin and the gummies do not have enough flavor) then you could substitute the water or whatever liquid your using for fruit juice.
I ask you to read the answers already offered to this question, and then read yours.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.050178 | 2011-01-17T12:42:24 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11131",
"authors": [
"Cylindric",
"Dan Fego",
"ElmerCat",
"Erica",
"Jolenealaska",
"Malcolm Bourne",
"Robert C Edwards",
"Roger",
"bjb568",
"culinascience",
"ddtjon",
"helloPiers",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117977",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22821",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22822",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22833",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22837",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95587",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9904",
"justkt",
"sas08",
"user51889"
],
"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
} |
45593 | How to save spaghetti squash?
I plan on preparing two dishes this week that will each involve 1/2 of a spaghetti squash. In order for the second dish to be 'as fresh as possible' should I prepare the whole squash and save the second half, or save the second half (unprepared) and bake it when I prepare the second dish? (Time to prepare is not a concern). How should the second half be saved? (refrigerate, wrapped, ...?)
what is the second preparation? Knowing that would affect if we'd recommend making in advance or not.
I haven't specifically tried to save that variety of squash, but I've had good luck in general holding other varieties of winter squash for a few days by halving, sealing the cut side, and then refrigerating for. A few notes:
If you have a large enough knife, just make a single cut through it.
Either place it cut-side down on an appropriately sized dish with a flat bottom (eg, a casserole dish), or cover the cut side with plastic wrap ... (of plastic wrap, then set in the dish, so you don't accidentally knock off the plastic wrap in the next couple of days).
When it comes time to use the remaining half, if the cut surface is dry, shave a little off. Clean out the seed cavity when you're finally going to use it. (this allows you to scrape back down to moist flesh, and reduce evaporative loss)
How long you can hold it will likely be affected by things like how often you open your frdge. I've never tried putting in the crisper after wrapping (as I tend to have too much stuff in there already).
If you're looking to get the longest possible strands out of the squash, I think to need to cut it from stem to blossom end ... but that would increase the cut surface area. If that isn't a goal, it's probably better to cut it across the stem-blossom axis.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.051101 | 2014-07-15T14:49:13 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45593",
"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
} |
25265 | Steaks look light brown aren't charing
I'm cooking steaks in a stainless steel pan. It's never getting hot enough to cook steaks and char them it's charring in a few places then starts to basically boil and lightly brown the meat which tastes bad and looks bad.
I should probably be using a cast iron pan which is thicker that can hold the heat longer. The steaks are about an inch or so thick not very thick. I'd like to get them charred on the outside and medium rare on the inside mainly on the rare side so they are still red, not brownish.
Any advice on a good type of pan for cooking steaks over a gas stove?
Thanks
I think you answered your own question with the first sentence of your second paragraph.
I have made steak with a stainless steel pan and I haven't any issues achieving browning. Yes, a cast iron pan would be better, but a good stainless steel pan can work too.
Here is my technique (I am also using gas):
Heat pan without anything in it.
When it's hot enough, I add the oil to coat the bottom.
Then add the meat to sear both sides. I usually finish the whole thing in the oven. (Make sure to check your pan is oven safe).
Depending on the size of the steak, sometimes I just finish it there, sometimes I finish it in the oven.
Other notes:
Make sure the pan is hot enough
If your stainless pan is really thin, you may still have an issue. If this is the case you may want to invest in another pan. Cast iron pans last for ever and can be had for cheap.
Make sure your steaks are at room temperature. Take them out of the fridge 30 minutes prior to cooking.
Remove any moisture from the surface prior to cooking. You don't want to have to heat the water first (steaming the meat), and then browning. You want it to brown right away.
Edit: to add the info suggested by jalbee and Henrik
Yes it's pretty thin and old. I have another steak, tomorrow i'll get it really hot to try and get both sides seared and will finish it in the oven to see how it turns out.
Make sure your pan is all metal... And if it's really thin, you may still have an issue.
I'd also mention that your steaks need to have as little surface moisture on them as possible. Use paper towels and pat them off right before they go on.
And make sure your meat is at room temperature. Take your steak out of the fridge at least 30 minutes before cooking it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.051521 | 2012-07-26T01:12:39 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25265",
"authors": [
"Anagio",
"Bren",
"Harshada K",
"Henrik Söderlund",
"Jan",
"albert",
"baka",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57784",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57785",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9406",
"jalbee",
"talon8",
"user2052578"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
23818 | Homemade Golden Ginger Ale
I recently made some homemade ginger ale. It was good, but it really tasted more like ginger beer. I was hoping for a flavor that tasted a bit more like golden ginger ale, sort of like Red Rock. It has a strong ginger flavor and a bite. What could I add (or how much more ginger should I add) to or what should I change in homemade ginger ale to get this "bite" and stronger ginger flavor?
You may consider asking this on homebrew.stackexchange.com as it relates to brewing (albeit not all that alcoholic). They are pretty knowledgeable about all things yeast and fermentation.
Red Rock may not be using just ginger flavorings. They probably have a very complex recipe with various flavors and of course only the company will know what those flavors are. Adding more ginger may give it more "bite", but not match their flavor exactly.
see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/23279/6279
If you want a stronger flavor, and more bite, add more ginger. I make a dark, spicy ginger beer. I do not use yeast, but rather force carbonate. I don't know the exact quantities of ingredients used, I just make to taste each time.
Below is my ingredient list:
Fresh grated ginger
Peppercorns
Molasses
Cane sugar
Fresh squeezed lemon (added after the mixture has cooled)
Molasses: Give the brew a thicker taste and darker caramel color, leave it out if you want it milder.
Ginger: Fresh ginger is key, don't use the powdered stuff. The more ginger you add, the spicier and more bitter it will be. You may need to increase the sugar content a bit too.
Lemon: This adds a nice zing.
Peppercorns: It may sound a little bit odd, but the peppercorns go very nicely with the ginger and lemon. Just add these to taste when you throw in the ginger.
I've also experimented with different types of sugars like Maple Syrup and Palm Sugar. Those each impart different flavors and may be worth trying too.
Can you give rough estimated quantities or percentages of the ingredients? I would like to make this, but my wild and ignorant guess at quantities is: .5 kilo ginger, .5 kilo peppercorns, 1 gram molasses, 1 gram sugar, and 10 liters of lemon juice. :p
@Wulfhart: 10l lemon juice + 1 gram molasses sounds just right :D
Thanks for the help! I'll be trying out your suggestions this week--eager to see how the peppercorns and molasses change the flavor.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.051762 | 2012-05-17T22:52:38 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23818",
"authors": [
"Chris C",
"Cos Callis",
"Ron",
"Sandeep",
"Wulfhart",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54031",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54032",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54033",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9474",
"nico",
"ramblinjan",
"vvs krishna"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
22941 | Proper grind and measurement for a pour over coffee maker
I've seen different sets of instructions from different sources, and experimentation has had mixed results.
Right now I have about a level scoop of coffee for every 4 ounces of coffee and this results in a fairly good-tasting brew for a medium grind, but the strength leaves something to be desired. When I have a finer grind for anything larger than a six-ounce cup, the coffee clogs, even when following suggestions to stir the mixture while I pour. I have a "single-cup" pour over coffee maker.
Should I be using a different grind, different measurements, only pour up to six ounces at a time, or some combination?
'medium grind' doesn't really tell us anything, unfortunately. You should aim for a grind size that gives you optimal extraction time - I'm not sure what you should aim for here though, since I'm not a pour-over kind of guy. If a finer grind clogs the filter, you should probably just add some more coffee. Using medium or lightly roasted 'artisan coffee' means you need to use more coffee than an italian 'burnt-coffee' roast.
To me, the best thing about the pour-over method is that you can experiment without wasting much.
A few more details about your equipment would help. How big is your "level scoop," what shape are your filters and are you using paper filters? I make mine with a simple plastic #2 cone filter holder and paper filters and don't have any issues with clogging with about 2 Tbsp of beans.
Are you using a proper grinder or one of the whirling blade style? The blade-type can do a decent fine grind, but you can't get a consistent medium or coarse grind unless you have a burr grinder.
Even a fairly cheap kitchen scale should be good enough to get a consistent amount of coffee, I'd start with 2 Tbsp (~ 10g) of beans for 6oz of water and adjust from there. Try more beans and see if a coarser grind gets rid of your clogging problem.
In general, a very fine grind combined with the extraction time you typically get in a pour-over will give you a bitter flavour. With the beans I've been buying recently, I use a fairly fine grind, but not as fine as I'd use for Espresso. Manufacturers of paper filters claim that they trap sediment which reduces bitterness.
I'm using a standard coffee scoop, so 2 tbsp. My grinder is a burr grinder. Good idea with the kitchen scale--I may try that.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.052080 | 2012-04-10T19:54:13 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22941",
"authors": [
"Liane763",
"Max",
"Terminal15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51799",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51800",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51801",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51805",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9474",
"michid",
"ramblinjan",
"user51799"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
22655 | Making Pepper-Flavored Vodka
I'm interested in infusing pepper flavor into vodka like in Naga Chili Vodka.
Are there any peppers I should specifically avoid and how should I infuse the flavor/spiciness? In addition, other than varying the types of peppers and number of peppers how can I control the spiciness? Is a higher proof of vodka recommended, and does the quality of the vodka matter in this case?
The controlling spiciness part of your question is essentially covered by this question: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15932/what-is-the-hottest-part-of-a-chili-chilli-chile-pepper
Not entirely covered, but partially. I'm also curious if certain methods of infusion cause a higher spice, etc., though the measurements of capsaicin could provide at least a theoretical maximum concentration.
From my limited (but successful) experience, here are some answers to your subjective questions:
Choose peppers whose flavor you do want
Avoid peppers whose flavor you do not like (I'd never infuse green bell pepper, blech!)
Choose a vodka you'd want to drink (if you like cheap vodka, use it, if you like expensive vodka, use that)
As far as the mechanics of making the infused vodka:
Chop the peppers up coarsely, drop into a glass jar with the vodka, taste every 12 hours until you get the flavor/heat you want, then strain the vodka.
The longer you infuse, the stronger/spicier the result.
If you're going more for flavor (less for heat) remove the seeds and pith
The proof of the vodka (80-100) will have little difference in the end result as far as the infused flavor goes. Everclear (190+ proof) will probably extract flavors faster, but do you want to drink it????
If, on the other hand, you are really just wanting to get the spiciest drink available, then don't bother infusing vodka, just google how to get/make capsaicin concentrate and use that directly. Then add directly to the drink of your choice.
I've not tried dried chilies, but I imagine a Chipotle infused vodka would make an awesome Bloody Mary.
+1, spot on. Some additional suggestions: leave your infusion in a cool, dark place. You'll get better depth of flavor with a combination of peppers rather than a single type.
Thank you. This is pretty much exactly what I was looking for.
Going along with the variety of peppers, throwing a few black peppercorns in will also add great depth of flavor to it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.052285 | 2012-03-30T01:05:18 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22655",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chanel Brown",
"Christopher Cashell",
"Doug",
"Hans",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2506",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51042",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9474",
"ramblinjan",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
20447 | Are recirculation extractor hoods good?
I am looking for a extractor hood, and I see that there exist ones with air recirculation, so a pipe to lead the smoke/greasy air away is not needed.
So I wonder, how good are these?
Can they really clean the smoke/greasy air they pull in?
I had one once. Utterly worthless. All they do is filter out large grease particles. The day you burn something on the stove is the day you'll wish you had an exhaust fan.
If you have a gas stove, you need a hood to send the exhaust outside. One that recirculates is not sufficient.
In my experience, the recirculator hoods work OK if you're not doing a lot of cooking. If you do, however, you'll end up with a nasty, greasy dusty coating on everything in your kitchen. I wouldn't bother with a recirculation hood if you ever cook things that involve grease or smoke. For someone who mostly heats up processed foods, it's probably good enough.
You hit spot on. It is a gas stove I have =)
Here, in Poland, it is perfectly normal to have a gas stove (very, if not the most, popular here) and no hood with external exhaust. In fact it may be impossible to legally install such hood in our kitchens.
Speaking as someone with a gas stove and no exhaust duct (apartment), Adam is absolutely correct. Anything we store high-up in the kitchen has to be cleaned with Goo Gone once a year.
With gas, not only do you have the grease, smoke, steam, and odors from cooking, you also have the combustion products of your stove. Depending on how cleanly your stove burns, there may be significant levels of carbon monoxide. Even if there aren't, your stove is still putting out significant amounts of carbon dioxide, so you want fresh air coming in to replace it.
This is all true, but in the case where the choice is: recirculating vs nothing at all, from experience, recirculating is better.
Burning gas produces noxious gases such as carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide that recirculating hoods do not remove.
Ducted hoods can be made quieter by locating the extractor fan at the far end of the ducting, away from the kitchen.
Recirculating hoods require regular replacement of their carbon filters, meaning expense. Ducted hoods don't have or require filters.
Because of the carbon filters in recirculating hoods they can not achieve the airflow ducted hoods can for equivalent motor sizes. If you're doing lots of frying or high heat wok cooking, your hood must be sufficiently capable or you will just get a horrible nasty grease film EVERYWHERE. This is indeed a fire hazard with under-spec'd extraction often being the cause of Chinese restaurants burning down.
@Alf Well, CO is (a) about the same density of air, it takes a while to settle, and only if the room is still; (b) is actually lighter than air at both NTP and STP; (c) the CO is also hot, further lowering density; (d) there is an air current pulling gases (all of them) up and out. Maybe you looked up CO₂ instead of CO by mistake?
In some kitchens external exhaust just cannot be done e.g. a flat in a block of flats, with shared ventilation shaft. In such case the choice is: recirculation hood or no hood at all. In such case the former may be better that nothing, as it catches at least a bit of the unwanted particles and odors, provided the filters are regularly replaced.
Depending on the brand/model you purchase you may not have to buy replacement filters, but instead clean them in the dishwasher and/or by baking them in oven.
I would be wary of baking them in the oven, but I have had good results with washing mine in the dishwasher.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.052525 | 2012-01-14T21:23:09 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20447",
"authors": [
"Adam Jaskiewicz",
"Carey Gregory",
"FuzzyChef",
"GeorgeKaf",
"Jacek Konieczny",
"Kent Jardine",
"Lumimoto",
"Quantaliinuxite",
"Sandra Schlichting",
"civitas",
"cuongle",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44897",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44924",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44935",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98748",
"razumny",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
16587 | Cedar Planks - Reusable Vs. Disposable
I want to buy some cedar planks for the first time to try some fun looking recipes. I was wondering if anyone has any experience with simple, disposable planks compared to the more expensive planks that claim to be reusable, e.g (Nature's Cuisine NC001 Large Cedar Oven Roasting Plank). Previous advice I've seen on cedar planks suggest you can only reuse them one or two times but I believe they were talking about the simplest planks, the ones you'd just buy at a hardware store.
Are you 100% sure that the planks in your hardware store never got treated with chemicals?
No, I ended up using simple planks purchased from a cooking store. Next time I buy planks I will look at hardware stores as I've heard other people mention them but obviously you want to be very careful they aren't treated.
The whole idea of using a cedar plank is to char the heck out of the bottom and produce lots of smoke and flavor. My roughly 1/4 inch planks are usually charred pretty well and I simply couldn't see using them a second time. At times, it seems that 1/8 inch or more of the bottom is gone.
If you find a good source for your planks, they should be pretty inexpensive so why push it? I found one of the best sources to be my supermarket right next to the fish counter. $3 - $4 / plank. Seems like a small price to pay when you are grilling a $30 piece of salmon on top of it.
There are also aromatic oils being released, these are gone pretty quickly once the heat is turned up, so they are one use items only if used as intended
Yeah I was thinking along those lines as well but more for environmental reasons didn't want to be using a plank every time if it made no difference. Thanks for the answer
Planks grow on trees :-) Use as many as you want, the worst thing that can happen is that people start planting more trees, oh how bad that would be!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.052851 | 2011-08-02T17:54:02 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16587",
"authors": [
"David Terei",
"GreenAsJade",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6918",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
45030 | Will cooking meat in a slow cooker longer than the recipe calls for have any adverse effects?
I have a recipe for slow cooker beef curry that calls for beef chunks, coconut milk, and red curry paste. It says to cook on low for 8 or so hours. Suppose that near the end of the 8 hours I suddenly have to go somewhere else for a few hours and can't take the food out of the slow cooker until I get back.
Will cooking the beef for 10, 12, or even 15+ hours degrade the quality of the finished dish? I've heard that the longer you cook meat the better it is - is this actually true, and if so is there a limit?
@rumtscho Nothing older, but here's a recent one that's very similar: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/44911/25059
@logophobe thank you, that's what I was thinking of. Unless there is one even older, but I don't think so.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.053019 | 2014-06-21T01:23:21 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45030",
"authors": [
"King Sun PCB Technology spam",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107091",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"logophobe",
"m00n Stache",
"rumtscho",
"spammer",
"user107093"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
18221 | How long does grease take to go bad/rancid when sitting out?
If I make a skillet full of bacon, how long can I leave the grease sitting out before it is unsafe/rancid? Is the answer different for ground beef grease?
Fat doesn't spoil like other foods. No bacteria can live in fat. Going rancid is a chemical reaction in which the fat molecules break down. So "leaving out" is not a problem.
The major factors in going rancid are light and air. The more light hits your fat, the sooner it goes rancid. Also, rancidity occurs when the fat is oxidized, meaning that if you prevent contact with air, your fat will last longer.
Both factors are minimized by transferring the fat to a tightly closed opaque container. With liquid oils, you use a dark colored bottle. As bottles are impractical for solid fat, just strain your grease into a jar, close it, and put it in a cupboard. The shelf life should be many months, probably more than a year.
Also, don't worry that you can get something nasty when the grease goes bad unnoticed. Rancid fat isn't a big safety risk, and ingesting it in small amounts is not problematic. If it stinks, throw it out. Before that, there is no problem eating it.
The above assumes pure, well-strained fat. Pieces of fried meat left over in the fat are a safety risk, even tiny ones.
Then what is so bad about rancid oils? If they can't infect you? Just it just taste unpleasant?
@Chloe yes exactly, people avoid them because they dont like the taste.
Actually, there is evidence of negative health effects in animal models, and there are also case reports of rancidity-caused illness in humans. See this article (citations included): http://nutritionnutsandbolts.com/2012/08/01/rancid-fat/
Grease makes an anaerobic environment —that is, that it lacks oxygen— and while that may prevent many types of bacteria from growing in it (Staph.,E. coli,etc.), Clostridia species (including the kind that causes botulism) are obligate anaerobes— they need to have an oxygen poor environment in which to live.
Now, will all that scalding grease allow bacteria to live in it? As more is collected, it mixes and rapidly cools when it melts the existing grease.
Although our grandmothers may have collected grease and kept reusing it, people used to die a lot younger "back in the day" as well, just saying.
When it comes to food handling, better safe than sorry. Once it cools, store it in the refrigerator where it will keep for up to a month without fear of bacterial overgrowth.
[source]
I've been using the same fish grease for 5 years....my mother did the same for even longer...and so did my grandmother who just turned 92. We're all in great health, no prescriptions. So skip all the talk, I'm living proof you can reuse over and over again.
Skip all what talk? The other answers provided insights in why exactly you can keep fat a very long time. That is what this forum is for. Nice of you to also add anectotal evidence, but it hardly makes the answers above superfluous.
@user36595 Richard ten Brink's comment is still spot-on: explaining why is a core part of an answer. Without that, this answer could just as easily be one person getting lucky as a solid fact. What if "why" is an important part of the answer? Maybe he's actually been keeping it in a dark, airtight container, and that's why it's working so well.
And he might also be in a colder climate (which would tend to have smaller windows, which means less light in the kitchen as well). It's also possible that there's something different about 'fish grease'. (I assume this is grease from frying fish, as other than the lion fish, fish doesn't get to be as fatty as other animals)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.053145 | 2011-10-06T02:58:27 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18221",
"authors": [
"Alexander Li",
"Cascabel",
"Chloe",
"Cindy Rawlings",
"Joe",
"Lana",
"Madilyn Patterson",
"Mike R",
"Richard ten Brink",
"Stew",
"donald graham",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139058",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149989",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39380",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9679",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
16692 | How do I make a brownie chip?
There were some oreo chips in the 100 calorie bags that were very good (they have since ruined the recipe) but I liked the taste/texture of them.
I want to figure out a way to get the same texture, with the flavor of a milk chocolate brownie. How do you get something that is very much like a cracker (not quite as flaky, but not soft and chewy). Think Cheez-it crunch, and milk chocolate brownie flavor......
I've tried spreading the same batter over a larger surface, but it never produces that crisp texture.
When I cook brownies, the first part to be eaten is always the crunchy edge (usually by me), I just want a way to make a whole brownie recipe more crunchy.
What do you have to do to get that?
I think what you would want to do is reduce the amount of fat in the recipe, as there is no way to get fat to dry out (well, except by using n-zorbit). Maybe use more cocoa powder and less chocolate, and skip or reduce any butter or other fats. Add more water or skim milk as needed to get a spreadable batter. Then proceed as you are currently doing, baking it as thin as possible. I would aim for a longer time at a lower temperature as that will produce more even baking, instead of only crisp at the edges.
Would leaving the baking soda (or baking powder) out work? Last week, I made a batch of molasses cookies, but forgot the baking soda, and (when cooked fairly thin) they seemed to have the texture/slight crunch you're looking for.
Have you tried making the brownies, then thinly slicing them and laying them out to dry either in a dehydrator or in a 180°F oven?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.053481 | 2011-08-07T14:43:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16692",
"authors": [
"Bono",
"Saoirse",
"Shalryn",
"beef",
"eugenevd",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43782"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
16746 | What herbs would be effective in Pizza dough?
I have had very good luck making pizza dough in my bread maker and have started adding some spices such as chilli flakes and italian seasoning in the dough itself. I can taste the heat from the chilli flakes, I dont really taste much from the Italian seasoning. Are there any other spices anyone recommends?
Herbs sprinkled on pulled and oiled dough usually work much better
@suhaim, Sorry, but this question as it stands isn't a good fit. It fails to meet the requirement of having an objective answer as worded. If you wanted to know why the chili flakes worked and the Italian seasonings didn't and let that inform your choices for other things to try, it would work much better.
Please also see the meta thread, Should "what can I add to X" questions be closed by default? which lists several options for rephrasing the question in a more constructive form. If you have some definable end result in mind that's more than just personal preference, that would be a good question to ask.
You could try flavoured oils instead; I have oregano and garlic infused olive oil (that I usually use on salads or on risotto).
If you insist on fresh/dried I'd try thyme and/or rosemary. Give them a good chopping/bashing before hand to release thier oils and flavour.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.053638 | 2011-08-09T08:07:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16746",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Ana",
"Stephen J. Bartek",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35729",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35740",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35858",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36052",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"jbosch",
"nlangerdev",
"sarge_smith"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
17401 | What are the 'natural flavors' in a fruit drink that contains no juice?
When a fruit (flavored) beverage says it contains all natural flavors but no juice, where is the flavor coming from? Is it possible there are man-made additives being thrown in that can be technically considered "natural"?
Better to take into account that different regulations may exist. Natural refers to the fact that the same molecule does exists in the natural realm. Plus, regulations might require that the molecule does come - through different procedures - from a real natural fruit or seed etc. Sometimes the difference is given by natural flavour and natural-identic. Artificial or synthetic flavours are those created by us, not naturally occurring. Anyway subtle differences might exist in different countries. EU recently updated the classification using a more operative approach, and referring to % comp.
Ok... I'm going to ruin your day with this. In orange juice for instance, the process of homaginization and storage kills the flavor of orange juice, so the industry has enlisted the help of the perfume industry to help them. Each orange juice company has basically a perfume of orange flavors that it uses from the peels and rinds and biproducts that it uses to try to recreate the taste of real orange juice... It's why every orange juice brand tastes slightly different even though they are all "fresh squeezed" (btw, they are technically fresh squeezed, they're just then stored :))
If you google "orange juice flavor packs" you can see what this is talking about. The flavor packs are incidentally made out of parts of the orange, so the fda has no problem with them (sadly).
http://consumerist.com/2011/07/oj-flavor-packs.html
So to directly answer your question, you can flavor something with fruit derived perfume and call it "natural flavors"
Here's a quote from the site:
Juice companies therefore hire flavor and fragrance companies, the same ones that formulate perfumes for Dior and Calvin Klein, to engineer flavor packs to add back to the juice to make it taste fresh. Flavor packs aren't listed as an ingredient on the label because technically they are derived from orange essence and oil. Yet those in the industry will tell you that the flavor packs, whether made for reconstituted or pasteurized orange juice, resemble nothing found in nature. The packs added to juice earmarked for the North American market tend to contain high amounts of ethyl butyrate, a chemical in the fragrance of fresh squeezed orange juice that, juice companies have discovered, Americans favor.
To be fair, many of us essentially use oils derived from oranges when we use orange zest, and orange extract and essential oil are reasonably common things in kitchens too. Those are pretty much the same kinds of things that are (hopefully) meant by "natural flavors". Sure, they select for the particular components of the fragrance they really care about, but... it's not that big a leap.
Agreed... I haven't stopped drinking oj because of this :)
Both natural and artificial flavors are "man-made", or manufactured. The difference is, essentially, in which chemicals are used in the process. For "natural" flavors, alcohol or oil extracted flavors are generally permitted, and heat or enzymes can be used to extract the flavors. For "artificial" flavors, solvents with a shorter history, created since the industrial age, and petroleum products may be involved. But either way, "flavors" are just chemicals, or mixes of chemicals. The rules that define the differences are fairly arbitrary. The same companies that make artificial flavors and fragrances make "natural" ones.
Once flavor compounds are discovered and isolated by flavor manufacturers, they can produce them using techniques considered natural or artificial. Some "natural" flavors may actually come from sources that don't match their namesakes; cherry, almond, peach, and apricot flavors are essentially made from the same source, as I recall, and different concentrations and contrasting items (including citric acid) affect your perception of the flavor. There's no guarantee that "natural" means "safer" or "healthier"; "natural" peach flavor may contain trace amounts of cyanide, for example, but "artificial" versions won't.
If something tastes juice-like but isn't "juice", chances are it has added citric acid (which is "natural", even though as an isolate, it, too is an industrial product), in addition to small quantities of flavor compounds, and sweeteners of some sort.
In home cooking, I've used citric acid to make some items taste brighter or more intense than they would otherwise, especially if I had some sort of fruit syrup that I considered too sweet for my purpose.
Incredibly helpful answer, thank you for taking the time to elaborate!
FDA seems to think otherwise. "Artificial flavor includes the substances listed in 172.515(b) and 182.60 of this chapter except where these are derived from natural sources.". I.e. a manufactured substance is artificial, because it is not derived from natural sources.
I think you're misunderstanding. "Derived" means "manufactured." A "natural flavor" is extracted, generally using heat, bacteria, enzymes, or alcohol; someone actively turns those "natural" products into concentrated isolates that can be used by food product companies. Just because it's a "natural flavor" doesn't mean it has very much to do with the fruit, animal product, spice that it was extracted from. The same New Jersey plants make it, regardless of whether the source is "natural" or "artificial."
@jasontrue this isnt quite the whole story either. If we are concerned about the labeling law, which seemingly would be what matters-consumer protection and broad industry enforcement- instead of just some street lingo that people are saying that's trendy today, then the law is that it has to be labeled artificial if it doesnt taste like what it comes from which is a huge difference, everytime you use orange citric acid to brighten something that has absolutely nothing to do with oranges like apple pie; and the orange zest is absolutely natural, the label has to say artificial flavor
It's worth noting a natural flavor must be labeled as an artificial flavor, even if it comes from natural sources, if it is added to a product to impart a flavor that isn't already present. https://www.thoughtco.com/difference-between-natural-and-artificial-flavors-607435
While they may employ scientists from the perfume industry, there's an important point missing here that might impact how you feel about flavor packs. As orange juice is heat processed, aroma and flavor compounds, which are volatiles (they evaporate easily, or are fat-soluble and don't stay in water based solutions well) are collected. These compounds are worth their weight in gold, basically. The orange juice right after pasteurization is pretty bland and terrible, but these volatiles are added back as a "flavor pack" to reincorporate the flavor and aroma of orange juice. and yes, the flavor packs are standardized (mixing of lots of different flavors and aromas to make sure none are really far off the ideal orange juice flavor/aroma combo), because there's a lot of variation in crops season to season because of weather, soil, other growing conditions, etc. Consumers wouldn't like it if their orange juice might be kind of good or kind of bland or flat or just different between cartons. So in my mind it's just separation of food components and then putting them back where they belong, but I come from a mindset that's kind of...pro-food processing. See below.
Source: I'm a junior level food science undergraduate student at a top ten university in the U.S. Orange juice is one of the products we talk about a lot, in terms of processing, food characteristics, and food safety. Pepisco (which owns Tropicana) is one of our primary industry connections and industry reps come talk to us about their products fairly frequently.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.053786 | 2011-09-01T23:34:56 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17401",
"authors": [
"Alchimista",
"Andyz Smith",
"Cascabel",
"JasonTrue",
"MSalters",
"Neurologist MD. Richard Smith",
"Pawan mishra",
"Rikon",
"Spammer",
"elfeck",
"fbrereto",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37378",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37379",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37380",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37399",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37400",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37404",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64452",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6791",
"jwfrench",
"megsmom",
"user38232"
],
"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
} |
23573 | Can I safely clean/eat harvested foods that have aphids on them?
So a friend of mine went to harvest some spinach and lettuce she planted, only to find lots of aphids. Assuming she can clear off the aphids is there anything preventing her from eating the produce? What's the proper method for cleaning that's sure to make it edible?
The aphids are much more of a problem for the remaining greens, assuming she didn't just harvest all of it at once. There's the gardening stackexchange if she needs some help with that side of things!
The best way to remove the aphids is to submerge the vegetables in cold water for at least 10 minutes. Then drain, rinse them off, and dry them. Salad spinners are perfect for this.
Once the aphids have been drowned and rinsed off, the greens are perfectly safe to eat. Actually, it should be safe to eat the aphids as well, it's just unappetizing.
Actually, aphids are totally edible. Depending on the plants they've been eating, they can range from slightly bitter to sweet. They could cause problems for your friend's remaining produce, though.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.054487 | 2012-05-04T03:12:20 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23573",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Joel",
"Queen Sashy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53395",
"user53390",
"user53391"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
12937 | Why is gnocchi a dumpling and not a noodle?
I've recently been told that gnocchi is technically a dumpling, not a noodle. What about it causes gnocchi to fall under the dumpling category?
And does this also apply to gnudi?
The primary difference between a dumpling and a noodle, besides shape, is leavening. Dumplings usually have either egg or baking powder to make them lighter.
There's considerable bleedover in terminology here. It's reminiscent of the difficulty of defining "chowder". You're always finding a counterexample. I wouldn't be surprised if someone came up with something called gnocchi, gnochs, gnocchetti, that has no leavening. I can think of two myself.
Gnocchetti alla romana are semolina "dumplings" sometimes leavened with egg, particularly when they contain spinach, but more often not. Gnocchetti sardi are dry pasta shapes that kind of look like thin potato gnocchi.
gnocchi don't have to contain eggs. nor do several other types of eastern european dumplings.
That is correct. See the third paragraph. As to eastern European dumplings, the question is specifically about gnocchi.
Noodles are thin and elongated.
Dumplings are not.
Both are unleavened dough cooked (frequently) in boiling water, but generally the distinction tends to fall along shape-based lines.
I'm sensing a regional language divide here. In the UK, noodle normally refers to Japanese/Chinese noodles. We might occasionally refer to spaghetti or tagliatelle as noodles, although it would not be normal. Anything not that shape, we would not. I get the impression that in the US, something like farfalle might be called a noodle.
@slim: You make an interesting observation about the divide over what is a 'noodle'. How would you categorize farfalle?
@fbrereto Farfalle is a type of pasta. In the UK, you'd refer to it as a "pasta shape" or more usually, just "pasta". Same goes for macaroni, rigatoni, penne, radiatore -- all those pastas that are not noodle shaped.
@Slim Although noodle would typically be applied to elongated pastas, it seems unlikely that in the US farfalle, manicotti, or macaroni, etc would be referred to as 'noodles'. It seems likelier that the catch-all 'spaghetti' would be used to refer to those non-noodles before 'noodle' would be. Pasta is definitely preferred in the US.
@mfg not sure whether you're in the US or not, but in my corner of the country, 'spaghetti' most certainly means only that specific shape of pasta, whereas 'noodles' is often used to refer to any shape of pasta.
@slim - it's really semantical to be honest. farfalle, orichette, rigatoni, etc are all 'noodles' semantically to me -- but again, if you think about it, they're all 'thin' doughs. rigatoni are extruded, but really, it's a flat sheet, then shaped. Same goes for all those noodles. Dumplings rarely consist of just flat dough (Southern chicken & dumplings not withstanding) -- if flat dough is involved, it has a filling (ravioli, potstickers, etc)
Perhaps because gnocchi is cooked in the same way to a dumpling, by boiling in something like hot water/stock or steamed.
As opposed to noodles, which are generally cooked by... boiling in water?
''Dumplings are cooked balls of dough. They are based on flour, potatoes, bread or matzoh, and may include meat, fish, or sweets. They may be cooked by boiling, steaming, simmering, frying, or baking. They may have a filling, or there may be other ingredients mixed into the dough. Dumplings may be sweet or spicy. They can be eaten by themselves, in soups or stews, with gravy, or in any other way. While some dumplings resemble solid water boiled doughs, such as gnocchi, others such as wontons resemble meatballs with a thin dough covering.''http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumpling
Possibly because they aren't normally dried out.
It's probably just 'one of those things' - I don't think there is an ISO committee of food naming
Sadly, there is ... TC 34 : "Standardization in the field of human and animal foodstuffs, covering the food chain from primary production to consumption, as well as animal and vegetable propagation materials, in particular, but not limited to, terminology, ... "
Gnocchi can have potatoes in them; I don't think noodles ever do.
But many dumplings don't have potatoes, and many noodles have something other than wheat.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.054630 | 2011-03-08T17:44:14 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12937",
"authors": [
"Abraxas",
"Cascabel",
"Joe",
"Lightness Races in Orbit",
"McGafter",
"Padma",
"Rich Armstrong",
"Rick",
"Tara",
"Will Tate",
"fbrereto",
"gregt",
"hamedmehryar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1664",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26758",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26760",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26768",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26769",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5193",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/725",
"mfg",
"nixy ",
"slim",
"tkone"
],
"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
} |
13855 | Egg Substitutions in a Quiche
I'd like to make a quiche this weekend (for the first time!), but I really want to reduce some of the fat and cholesterol due to health issues. Can I use an egg substitute (one of those that comes in a carton) instead of whole eggs in a quiche?
Rumtscho commented below that much of the fat in a quiche is from the crust. I often make crustless quiche -- pour the mixture into a pyrex dish, and bake until the center is solid rather than liquid, which will take well over an hour at 350 F. That way, you can control the fat content even more.
I used Egg Beaters to make the quiche in question - with a whole-wheat crust, low-fat cheese and using 1% milk. It came out great!
Ener-G and Bob's makes an Egg replacer that is used as a substitute in many dishes. I have not tried it in quiche specifically but it works well in other baking applications (it's not an egg substitute like Egg-Beaters, which would be another substitute).
If your primary aim is to reduce the fat, you might consider just using the whites of the egg and adding more savory ingredients to supplement the loss of the yolk flavoring. The actual body of the quiche will not suffer (the structure is due to the whites); it might throw off the ratios of how much [egg] yields how much [cake]. Also, you can omit or substitute the cheese for low-fat options, change the crust to a less fattening one (use vegetable shortening as opposed to lard), substitute butter for Earth Balance, etc.
Although I understand what Daniel is saying about it not tasting the same as a traditional quiche I disagree in that I think trying to look for alternative ways to have 'similar' recipes to those you need to avoid for health reasons is an excellent idea. I often cook a 'crustless' pizza in order to cut out the bread and you can do something similar to cut out the pastry of the quiche (as rumtscho said, this is the part that contains the most saturated fat). The recipes tend to require eggs, but you will be cutting out the pastry and it should have more of a 'quichey' taste. If you want to go even further and cut out the eggs you can use a vegan quiche recipe (although you will be compromising on the traditional taste).
An example of a crustless quiche that includes eggs is here- http://allrecipes.co.uk/recipe/1920/easy-mushroom-quiche.aspx
I make crustless quiche all the time, as I mentioned in my comment above. I just bake the filling in a Pyrex dish. Works wonderfully, and keeps well too. You can also lower fat by substituting some extra whites and low-fat cheese. I wouldn't look to eliminate all the fat, but you can experiment and find what works for you.
Not that I have made any, but I have eaten some - the Spanish make frittatas, which are like crustless quiche!
http://www.bbcgoodfood.com/search.do?keywords=frittata
Perhaps you should look into that -
Frittatas aren't the same as quiche -- they are essentially baked scrambled eggs with fillings. Quiche involves mixing milk or cream into the eggs to get more of a custard-type taste and mouth-feel.
If you're really worried about fat and cholesterol, you shouldn't be eating quiche, period. You might be able to make something that's low in fat, but it won't be a quiche anymore.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.054996 | 2011-04-08T00:42:39 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13855",
"authors": [
"Alison S",
"Candy",
"Jacob Bundgaard",
"Martha F.",
"Umur Kontacı",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29019",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3113"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
14219 | Ratatouille Strudel
We often have strudel for a vegetarian lunch option. Today's strudel was Ratatouille Strudel. What is strudel and what are the nutritional facts?
Strudel isn't a single dish, it is a family of dishes.
I think that the origin is actually from the Otoman empire, the Austrohungarians appropriated the dish when they shared a border (but don't have a source handy). It is still very popular on the Balkans. (Older fiction translations there don't say anything about "meat pies", they always talk of "meat strudels").
A strudel is defined by its dough. It is like laminated pastry without the laminating. The dough is made from a very simple recipe, often only just flour and water. It has no leavening at all. It is rolled out like pizza dough, but much longer, until the whole sheet is transparent (maybe 1/3 mm thick). You may hear that this is phylo dough, but in the West, I've only seen phylo sheets which were thicker than that, and they were dried.
The sheet is then filled with anything you want to have in it. In Germany, sweet kinds made with apple or cherries are most popular. On the Balkans, you have the sweet ones too, but it is more popular with pumpkin, almost never cherry. There are also savoury kinds there, especially with spinach or with a mixture of eggs and feta. But as you see with your Ratatouille, you can put practically any filling in it.
A thickish strip of filling is put on the sheet of dough, and it is rolled like a very large crepe (a sheet can reach 80 cm in diameter). The filled dough sheets can be laid in a rectangular pan parallel to each other, but it is more traditional to form a spiral from the first one and place it in the middle of a round pan, then add to the spiral with the second one, etc. Therefore the word "strudel", which means "maelstrom". It is baked, and it is cut along the radii of the spiral for serving.
I can't give you any nutritional information on strudel, because there isn't that much dough in it. The majority of calories will come from the filling, and I have no idea what was in yours. It won't be possible to define it even for the ratatouille itself, because there are lots of variations for that, too.
From what I know, strudel is from Hungary. There are different types of strudel, but my mother usually prepare apple strudel at home by mixing flour in her big and noisy Magimix 4200.Then she peels the apple, cuts it into pieces, and rolls the dough around the apple's slices. Well done strudel is just like a pastry.
A strudel is a type of German pastry where a filling (usually sweet, but can be savory) is wrapped in (puff) pastry. Nutritional facts greatly depend on the type of filling and the type of pastry used. This recipe has the breakdown for a version of ratatouille strudel, but your strudel might have different values.
It's not puff pastry. It's sort of similar, but not the same.
hence the parenthesis... I've seen it with both (although I suppose technically it's not a proper strudel in that case).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.055278 | 2011-04-21T17:42:39 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14219",
"authors": [
"Jeff May",
"Korneel Bouman",
"Mike Baranczak",
"Wex",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44404",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44721",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/941"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
112962 | Stop marzipan drying out during storage (eg. on Battenberg)
I bought a Battenberg cake and ate it over the course of a couple of weeks. To try and stop the marzipan wrapping drying out I stored it in clingfilm; however, after a week, the marzipan had still somewhat dried out and become more brittle. Am I missing a trick? Is there a better way to store it that will help keep it in its original state?
Chill it in the fridge for an hour or two (aids slicing) before you open it, then slice it all immediately.
Wrap each slice separately & freeze.
I'm not sure I'd want to eat 2-week-old sponge cake whether it was wrapped in marzipan or not, kept anywhere except a freezer. This type of product is only shelf-stable until it's opened, after that its life-span is short.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.055516 | 2020-12-03T16:11:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112962",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
86708 | Why do my weighing scales have ml and g?
My electric weighing scales allow me to set the weighing unit to various different units. 2 of the units are g (grams) and ml (milliliters). However, considering 1ml at sea level should weigh 1g (and this is borne out in the scales' value; 100ml of water also weighs 100g), is there any particular reason these 2 units of measurement are separate rather than a combined "g/ml" measure?
There are lots of people that doesn't know that. It's really cleaver. Think about it, "this scale can also measure water for you! " "Oh yeah it even has a ml mode, how convenient!"......
@user3528438 sounds like an answer to me.
Perhaps it also has a barometer built-in?
g/ml would be density and confusing
My scale also has this. My first thought was "ml of what?" and then I decided never to use that feature because it can't possibly work. But I'm curious as to what it's trying to accomplish.
@Erik Most water-based liquids, including, surprisingly, milk, are close enough to the same 1g/ml density as water that for small amounts this would be accurate enough.
Well as a chemist the densities of water and any watery liquid like milk will be very close to 1 gram per milliliter (g/ml) -- within a few percent. However corn oil would be off since it is about 0.90 g/ml. Lard seems to be about 0.87 g/ml. So be careful, but I'd guess that most ingredients in a recipe would work if within 10%.
The point is, aren't my scales just giving me the "grams" value for "ml"? It's not like they can detect the liquid being weighed.
Correct. The balance is weighing grams and just displaying that as milliliters assuming 1.00 gram per milliliter. The point is that the balance can't detect if you weighing water or oil. So for water the ml value will be good. For oil there will be about 10% too much.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.055613 | 2017-12-26T16:30:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86708",
"authors": [
"Erik",
"Jez",
"MaxW",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6999",
"jscs",
"paparazzo",
"user3528438"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
76296 | Is it OK to defrost chicken by running water over it?
I know that there's a risk of bacteria in any area where you defrost chicken, but what about the chicken itself? Will running water over it (unwrapped) reduce the taste or change the texture?
@Jez : If you have some zip-top bags, put it in those and squeeze all of the air out. (you can also submerge it in water to force the air out). Then see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/1435/67 ; http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/36999/67
I don't, which is why I asked about running water over it. :-)
The safety of this will be related to how long the meat is in the "danger zone". If the meat temperature is within 39 degrees to 140 degrees Fahrenheit, then it is in the danger zone and should not be kept at that temperature very long.
So temperature/safety wise you will be fine thawing with water. Running water over the chicken will not change the texture. In fact, it is recommended you brine the chicken in a salt water solution before cooking.
It is common to brine a bird in a water solution so I doubt the water can hurt it.
For speed I would place it in a like a dish pan covered with water and just run a small amount of water to displace the cooled water. You would get maximum water contact for maximum heat transfer. And you would better keep the skin under 40 while thawing out the center.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.055783 | 2016-12-09T19:21:58 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76296",
"authors": [
"Jez",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6999"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
44219 | Using cueritos (Pork Rinds) for ground beef
Can I use cueritos as my fat to make burger? I usually use pork fat but my butcher was out today so I bought 2 pounds of this delicious stuff.
Sure. You want to grind the cueritos with leaner meat to make a higher fat ground meat? There is no reason that wouldn't work. You might find it necessary to remove the very outer skin, but I'd try a small batch without taking that step. The grinding might eliminate any textural problems (or it might not, so try a little bit first).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.055915 | 2014-05-18T16:08:00 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44219",
"authors": [
"Mairead -sous chef-",
"Paul Le Surf",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103892",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103896",
"papgeo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
8965 | Which torch to buy for finishing sous vide meat? Butane or propane?
I have started cooking sous vide and am thinking of buying a torch to finish off the meat. I have seen stores selling little butane torches for creme brulees, but some have claimed they are not hot enough and I should use propane.
On the other hand, some have claimed that propane leaves a flavour in the meat that should be avoided.
Anyone tried both? Anyone uses the little butane torches? What kind of flavour does the propane impart?
Related (but not duplicate): Blowtorch - hardware store vs kitchen store. Is there a difference
I use Propane all the time. There are several factors as to why:
It is cheap, about 1/4 the price of butane.
It’s more readily available. You can buy a propane torch at many different stores for very cheap.
The torches typically put out a lot more heat. I’ve used both propane and butane, mostly for crème brulee, but other food as well. The butane torches put out such a focused small area of heat, that it would get uneven burning. Whereas with Propane, they often put out a much larger area of heat, making it easier to caramelize across the surface evenly.
As for the concern of it imparting propane flavor, I have had that happen, once, but I’ve also had that happen with butane. It’s all about flow control. If you have the dial turned up too high and it’s spewing out massive amounts of propane, plus hold the flame too close to the food, you MIGHT get then hint of propane. But if you have the torched dialed in to the proper settings, you really can’t beat the ease and convenience of “energy-efficient clean-burning propane gas”
+1 for a great answer and, if I could, +1 more for a king of the hill reference worked in! :)
What you describe regarding propane flavor is letting the torch run too "rich" - too much fuel compared to the oxygen, so it can't all burn off.
I've had a few issues with cooking torches I'd bought. Just went and got a 1600°C butane/propane mix torch from B&Q for £22 based on your answer. Thank you!
I agree with Nick's answer and also use a propane torch. I'll add, don't get a "cooking" torch (i.e. one designed specifically for the kitchen). They're expensive, have a smaller flame, and use a small gas container. It would be a huge pain to try and use for something large (like flank steak, a sous vide favorite). Instead, get a plumbers torch at Home Depot. I use a Bernzomatic which just screws a nozzle on to a blue gas cylinder. Much better and way cheaper than anything you'd get at Williams Sonoma.
All that said, I don't think that the propane torch does nearly as good a job as a screaming hot grill or pan (screaming be the operative word in either case as you want to sear the outside without cooking the inside). But a grill takes time and a pan that's hot enough kicks up a ton of splatter. The torch is definitely the most convenient, but unfortunately, it's not a silver bullet.
Here is a video showing uneven flame from a cheap tip. Video author also recommends Bernzomatic http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2Yb_0Qke4o
Dave Arnold's Searzall was invented specifically for use with sous vide cooking, and for the purpose of eliminating "torch taste." I have one and use it frequently. Having said that, depending on the cut of meat, sometimes the best tool for the job is a blistering hot cast iron pan. In the picture below, I am finishing a sous vide burger with the Searzall. ...uses propane...and is cool as hell.
What torch do you recommend with it? This one? http://www.amazon.com/Bernzomatic-TS8000-Intensity-Trigger-Start/dp/B0019CQL60/ref=pd_bxgy_k_img_y
@Jolenealaska yes, that is what Arnold recommends, along with a Coleman-type green propane canister. The short, stubby canister allows this whole thing to be stable when standing.
Check out this discussion here: http://forum.chefsteps.com/discussion/13/mapp-gas-vs-propane-torches#latest
For sous-vide cooking your going to want the hottest flame you can get (and are comfortable with). Those tiny creme brulee torches are cute but your food will be cold by the time you put a decent sear on it (trust me i've tried). Most people go with a torch adapter that can be screwed on to butane canisters such as this http://amzn.com/B0027HO3XO
WOW! I went out and bought the $29.99 Greenwood Propane Torch from Harbor Freight. I connected it to a 20 lb propane tank and lit it. STAND BACK! That's like searing with a jet engine! Might be a little over-kill but it blasts an almost invisible blue flame. It will definitely sear a steak quick. However, I have read that the fuel taste comes from too hot of a flame and not from unburnt fuel.
I tested it on two steaks. It will certainly sear steaks quickly. Less than 5 seconds on each side. When you pull the trigger it is very loud and sounds like a fighter jet that turned on its' after-burners! It's way too hot to use indoors. I heated the grill, threw the steaks on and immediately blasted, flipped and blasted the other side. We didn't taste a fuel taste and the steaks had a very nice sealing crust.
Combined your answers for you, keeping it on the post made by the user you registered. If you have anything else to add, please just edit further!
I have two propane torches. One is the Bernzomatic-type handheld, and the other is a 500,000 BTU weed burner monster that I call "Mr. Flamethrower". I got mine at Harbor Freight for $20, and it connects to a 20lb tank. The flame is adjustable. I use them both.
I agree that the butane torches are too small, but they work fine otherwise and don't seem to add any taste of their own. They're good for small strips of beef for sushi.
My ideal torch would be either alcohol, from an old-fashioned blow torch, or even better a hydrogen flame. Hydrogen flames are very hot and burn so cleanly that the flame is invisible. Controlling an invisible flame might be an issue though.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.056014 | 2010-11-09T03:34:02 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8965",
"authors": [
"Alex Horlick",
"Cascabel",
"GalacticCowboy",
"Jolenealaska",
"Joy Varitek",
"Kiara Latchman",
"Maura Hughes",
"Nuno Miranda",
"P. O.",
"Prairie Rose",
"Stephen Melrose",
"boolean",
"brooklynnyd",
"event_jr",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33411",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95403",
"kapunga",
"mark gaffney",
"moscafj",
"raymond martino",
"stephennmcdonald"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
13541 | How much water in potato-leek soup (Vichyssoise)?
Larousse De La Cuisine (American Edition) has the following recipe for vichyssoise:
250g leeks
250g potatos
50g butter
1.75L water
200mL crème fraîche
I was cooking 3 times as much soup, so I multiplied the amount of leeks, potatos, and butter by 3. However, 5.25L was just way too much. I ended up eyeballing it and using ~3L. Still, the end result was a bit too watery for me.
It seems that even the above recipe has too much water. Is this a typo?
Or was it in the scaling up? I can imagine that you do not simply multiply by 3, even if you use a bigger pot than you'd use for the non-scaled version.
Btw, I checked another edition of the book (a single volume edition, mine is multi-volume) and the recipe was the same.
I'm not sure if it's a typo but the recipe surprises me, traditionally (as far as a 100ish year old dish can be "traditional") vichyssoise would have chicken stock or seasoned milk as the liquid base.
For that quantity of potato and leek I would estimate 0.6->0.75L of liquid so it is possible it is a typo.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.056625 | 2011-03-29T01:16:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13541",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3300",
"luispedro"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
15331 | Wok: Carbon steel or cast iron?
I LOVE stirfrying (I probably do it 4 times a week) and I want to take it to the next level (or 2). I am going to get this burner to cook my stirfry's out on the patio.
I am wondering if I should also get a cast iron wok, or should I just stick with the carbon steel that I have been using?
Suggested improvement: Make the question title about compatibility with the heating equipment you suggest.
Lots of answers now. I like my stainless clad aluminum filled wok, on a good strong gas burner. Heats fast, cleans easy, and it's not overly heavy. Whatever you do, stay away from non-stick woks. Non-stick tends to evaporate ar wok temperatures.
@WayfaringStranger - that depends on the quality of the non-stick. Regular 'old fashioned' shiny teflon sure, but modern robust non-stick surfaces are pretty much restaurant-proof these days. My own I've had about 2 years now & I haven't even managed to get the grey, slightly rough non-stick surface to start to so much as brown a bit yet. The outside looks like it's had a lot of use, the inside still looks brand new.
@tesujin There are still plenty of cheap Teflon Woks for sale here in the US. The first time you crank up the heat, it's time to buy a new Wok. It's like rice cookers here: People don't know how to pick a good one.
I have friends from Hong Kong who always use steel woks in their take-away.
A cast-iron wok would require a different technique for stir frying. It would be slower to heat up and retain heat when you didn't want the food to continue cooking.
Stick with the one you have ...
Or you could perhaps get a bigger one. There really is an old Chinese saying, politely expressed as "when stuff starts flying around, you need a big wok (daiwok) to catch it"!
There isn't so much difference between both materials to warrant the purchase of a new wok. While the different parameters can be measured, any noticeable difference will probably stem from production quality or seasoning quality. They are just too similar in specific heat per cubic centimeter (how much you can heat the pan) to expect an improvement. Iron has somewhat better thermal conductivity (how quickly it gives off heat to the food), which is more important in a wok than in a generic sauce pan, but the difference is small. Also, they are very similar in maintenance, with carbon steel being easier to (re)season.
For specific values and for better understanding the theory behind the heating of pans, read this article. For an example of somebody who has come to prefer his carbon steel pans over his cast iron ones, read here. (The part I mean is the four paragraphs between the picture of the pans and the "seasoning" heading, but the whole post is an interesting read too).
A cast iron wok has to be heavier (thicker) than a steel wok to be useful - it cannot be made robust and thin, it has to be heavy or it would crack easily.
@klypos, I forgot that part (although, I have an iron pan which is only 2.5 mm - but then, I think it's forged, not cast). It speaks even more against iron, because a direct comparison of thermal conductivity is only sensible if the thickness is the same. A thicker pan will be clearly less suited for woking, because of its worse responsiveness. So thank you for the addition.
When you see chinese chefs in the kitchen they always use carbon steel woks because they are much lighter, making them better for flipping the food in the air in the style called "The Pao Action". This looks exciting, but does not make the food taste any better. If you decide that you don't need the Pao Action style, you are better off with a cast iron wok like those from Lodge (there are other brands as well). Yes, they are much heavier, but they will last for a lifetime, are more stable on your stovetop, and they are not as fragile as the Asian cast iron woks. Why risk cracking a thin seasoned cast iron wok? Buy the heavier cast iron, they can take the abuse and you will never be sorry.
From my experience, I do not like carbon steel woks. I seasoned the carbon steel woks by the instructions. When I stir fry food on the carbon steel wok, I have noticed later that the seasoning layers peel off and that is not good at all. I have given chances to try the carbon steel woks about 3 to 4 times. I feel to realize that the carbon steel woks do not build a good patina, after seeing the seasoning layers peeling off. Now, I do not even want to have a carbon steel wok, anymore, after my bad experiences. Cast iron woks are the best for cooking.
I think your layers are probably too thick if they are peeling off. More like a food cooked on really hard. A real patina on a carbon steel wok will stay.
I use cast iron and couldn't be any happier. I get restaurant quality flavor.
The only down side is that it's really really heavy.
But cleaning and maintaining is much simpler, less dangerous and worry free compared to a carbon steel wok in my opinion. All I do is just lightly scrub it with hot/warm water and wipe it with a tissue and its clean.
Seasoning is simple just heat the cast iron pan and coat it with oil... finished.
I don't find myself re-seasoning the cast iron pan since it seasons itself while cooking. You also don't need to worry much about any of the natural non stick coating to peel off like a Wok. You see chefs use carbon steel woks because its easy to lift, it's light weight and can serve the food onto plates.
Here's a video of me using cast iron for Asian cooking:
Delicious Authentic Asian Shrimp Fried Rice
I would definitely go for the CAST IRON WOK. It is so convenient for indoor or outdoor cooking in term of cleaning it (It only needs water and coconut brush like the Chinese Chef do). It last for a life time and something memorable to pass on to the next generation. My grandpa brought several cast iron woks from China to BATAVIA The Dutch East Indies Colony (present day Jakarta-Indonesia in 1910 during the period of the Last Emperor of China. We are still using the same woks today but in Australia. The thick cast iron wok not just subject to abuse but it also provide dietary supplementation of iron to individuals affected by iron-deficiency anaemia.
I would definitely recommend Cast Iron. It’s so easy to season it with a little bit of Oil (used olive oil). The Crust you get, & the flavor of your food is so much better. It makes a Huge difference over any other kind of pan.
The OP was specifically asking about woks, and comparing cast iron with carbon steel (which is seasoned in a similar way to cast iron). Have you used carbon steel, or are you comparing to things like stainless steel or teflon?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.056752 | 2011-06-09T08:37:25 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15331",
"authors": [
"Sneftel",
"Tetsujin",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4637",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5885",
"klypos",
"rackandboneman",
"richard",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
14881 | Does paneer have to be cooked?
I want to just toss it into some indian food I have. Does it need to be cooked first or is it ok if it just warms up a bit when I throw it in the sauce?
Just a comment: I ended up cubing it and quick frying it in a pan with some olive oil. Crispy on the outside, soft on the inside, delicious!!!
Paneer can be used as is. Sometimes it is fried to extend shelf life. Cooks will also sometimes fry paneer until it is slightly brown and then put the fried cubes of paneer in hot water for a few minutes. This makes paneer very soft.
If you do cook paneer, it will not melt, like most other cheese varieties, because it's an acid-set cheese.
It will not melt as easily as other cheeses but it will eventually melt. I always have to be careful when making rasmalai or saag paneer that the paneer doesn't melt/dissolve/vanish into the cooking liquid.
Some things just burn instead.
Well, I am Indian, so let me tell you this: in traditional North-Indian cooking (and this is where paneer is widely used), paneer is almost always cooked. Yes, no problem with not cooking it, but uncooked paneer is not a good dish. It is more a dry and stingy (for lack of a better word) cheese. So you see paneer or cottage cheese is best served cooked and well seasoned. That is where the real magic of cheese lies!
P.S. Google "paneer pakoda". This is a unique dish which will show you the versatility of the item.
It does not have to be cooked. It's cheese!
I didnt think paneer melts. You can boil it and boil it in a curry and it still maintains its shape. But you can eat it raw! :-)
You're right. Properly made paneer does not melt. It may disintegrate if it's not made properly, but I have never had paneer melt when heated, like cheddar. Harold McGee's On Food and Cooking has an explanation for why acid-set cheese do not melt with heat.
It could be eaten raw, but is generally heated or cooked.
Personally, I find that pouring piping hot sauce over room-temperature paneer cubes works wonders for delicate sauce-based dishes, while cooking them gives best results and texture in dryer style dishes.
I have only used fresh homemade paneer, so I am not sure if differences in taste or texture with the store-bought stuff would yield different recommendations.
You have to prepare paneer in boiling water. Remove paneer from refrigerator. Cut it into cubes. Place it in boiling water and keep it for 5 minutes.
Uncooked Paneer tastes like putty. No taste. Paneer aught to be fried to a golden crust. Best is to fry the Paneer and let it soak in hot water for some time. That gives the best Paneer.
There is no black and white reply to that question. All depends on the dish being cooked or the chef. Some chef might put paneer before serving in shahee paneer or butter paneer but some might like to cook it in the sauce for last five minutes before serving. Generally it is cooked for very short time. The chances that it will be eaten raw is a little less but not impossible. It is put raw in salads and it is grated on several dishes. At the same time chances that it will be cooked for long is also less but not impossible. Like in some dishes it is deep fried or roasted.
It depends on which dish you are using it in. In some you can fry and put in the sauce, in some you can put after the sauce is ready, in some you might have to marinate it for a few hours before you use it and in some you are required to cook it in the sauce for last few minutes before the dish is ready. Generally in the last case you need to be careful not to cook it too long else paneer cubes might break or crumble.
Welcome to the site! Thanks for your time answering the question. Could you improve your answer by elaborating on it? A few examples would clarify, I think. Also, remember that the question is; "does paneer have to be cooked?"
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.057268 | 2011-05-18T01:06:26 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14881",
"authors": [
"Avinash Bhat",
"BaffledCook",
"Carl",
"JAB",
"Lisa Willis",
"Paul Schreiber",
"Reinmar Bielau",
"Sobachatina",
"Spammer",
"Tunococ",
"apnorton",
"david",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4637",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97276",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97476",
"mathgenius",
"richard",
"topcat"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
14935 | Can jasmine rice and basmati rice be cooked together?
I only have one cup of jasmine rice left, but plenty of basmati. Can I just mix them together in the rice cooker?
Not sure in the rice cooker but I just mixed 1 cup of Jasmine with 1 cup of wild rice in a pot and it tasted great. :)
Well I ended up doing it (1 cup of each), and it was fantastic! :-)
Glad it worked out :D
It shouldn't be a problem, since their cooking times are similar.
Since their cooking times are similar, I'm sure it would be no problem to mix them.
In my experience - maybe it depends on the rice cooker? - it's possible to cook two very different types of rice at once in a rice cooker.
For example, I've had no problems mixing brown and white rice in my rice cooker. I wash them separately, put brown rice on one side of the pot, white on the other, and then add water slowly so they don't get mixed around much. I put in as much water as I would if it were all brown rice and then cook as normally. The white rice comes out a little bit on the sticky side, but not to the point that it seems like gruel, and the brown rice is just right.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.057599 | 2011-05-20T01:31:38 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14935",
"authors": [
"Bascoman",
"Kyra",
"SoItBegins",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31484",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31493",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4637",
"marilee",
"richard"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
15396 | How much oil should you use when stir frying a single portion?
I stir fry several times a week. When I do I do each portion seperately, made to order.
How much oil should I use? How do I figure out how much oil to use for each portion since some are bigger than others, i.e. I stir fry much less for a portion for my 5 year old daugher.
Use about 2-3tbsp for a 'normal portion', and reduce that by the same factor as you reduce the portion for your daughter, e.g. if your daughter's portion is half the size, use 1tbsp.
Remember you can always add oil, but you can't take it away (not easily anyway), so err on the side of caution and whack a bit more in if it seems necessary.
I would say start with 2 tablespoons as well, and then see if that is transferring enough heat to cook your food well and giving you the flavor and texture that you like.
Plus, if you do end up with sticking, you can always just scrape the heck out of a regular carbon-steel wok. You don't need to be gentle with them. So just use as little oil as possible to get the job done.
If you are aiming to reduce oil, I don't have a measurement, but perhaps a technique that might be useful. With stir frying, we generally start with a very hot dry wok, If you've waited long enough the oil should spread thinly right away. I find I add a lot less that way.
The second thing is the kind of vessel you're cooking in. Stainless steel will require more oil, then a more traditional, well seasoned carbon steel wok..
Hot hot hot wok! I can use as little as 1/2 Tbsp. For an adult size stir fry portion. Since we are all watching our intake this does not seem to drown the flavors. A quick bead around your wok will coat a thin layer and nothing will stick. The trick is having everything ready keep the wok moving and start with the wok HOT!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.058044 | 2011-06-12T06:26:07 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15396",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Ales Ruzicka",
"Araz Abedini",
"David T",
"Jean",
"Michael Natkin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126587",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32583",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32584",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32667",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
17683 | How concentrated can I brew iced tea?
I infuse the tea in about 4-6 cups of water just off the boil for about 5 minutes. Then I dilute it down to 1 gallon (usually with some ice to speed chilling) and keep it in the fridge.
I was interested in just making the concentrate and diluting it as I drink just to save space in the fridge and consolidate the brewing time. How concentrated an infusion can I make without adversely affecting the flavor?
What have you tried? I think that this is going to be a matter of your taste. I think trial and error is going to be your best metric.
How much tea do you use per gallon? That's half of the vital info. =P
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/6267/67
The amount of tea you use won't affect the flavor of tea adversely; the way you brew it will. This also depends on what kind of tea you're making (black, oolong, green, white, herbal). Greater quantities of tannins are released in higher-temperature water, which makes the tea more bitter.
TL;DR: If you follow the instructions for brewing temperature and time, you should be able to more or less add as much tea as you want.
Black teas are brewed with boiling water, typically for 2-3 minutes. Green, white and oolong teas are usually brewed at lower temp (180 F) for 3-4 minutes, and herbal teas at just below boiling for anywhere from 4-8 minutes.
I've found that I can easily more than double the amount of tea leaves I use, brew it at the recommended temperature for the recommended time (most tea packages should have instructions), and store the 2x concentrated tea in my refrigerator. Upton Tea has a great guide to tea for water temps and amounts. They also have instructions for hot and cold brewing iced tea - they recommend double or tripling the leaf quantity when hot brewing, then diluting to taste. (I buy a lot of my teas from here, and their instructions have never steered me wrong.)
If you're looking for even more information about preparation of and descriptions / histories of different types of tea, I recommend the Harney & Sons Guide to Tea.
I use 6 family size luzianne tea bags per 12 cups water.
I brew in a 12 cup coffee maker minus a filter. The tea concentration is served 50% water / 50% tea and some ice. It never tastes diluted.
Charles, welcome to Seasoned Advice! I took the liberty to edit your post a bit. As for all new users we recommend that you take the [tour] and visit our [help] to get a better idea of how this site works.
Aside from that, you might want to mention that the luzianne family size tea bags are intended for one bag per quart, so brewing at your given ratio and diluting with equal oarts of water leads exactly to the manufacturer's recommended strength. Feel free to [edit] your answer any time.
I usually use 10 "standard" teabags per final gallon of iced tea. Like you, I steep them in less hot water first (I'd estimate about 4-6 cups, too) then dilute to 1 gallon.
That amount seems to provide enough strength for me. Since the tea infuses well into that amount of water, I'd guess you could try your plan of keeping concentrated tea on hand...say 2x concentrated or so. Maybe you could do 4x.
In chemistry class a while ago, I remember there was some way of calculating how much of a particular substance could be dissolved in a given volume of solvent (like water). If you really wanted to know the maximum concentration of tea you could make, that's what you'd need to look up. It's also temperature and pressure dependent, so cold water will "hold" less tea than hot water.
This wikipedia article seemed to have some related chemistry info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solubility
As far as I know tea isn't really a homogeneous solution (instead you have a huge amount of small particles in the water), so I guess that there is no maximum concentration, although I am not sure if it is tea when you cannot pour it anymore.
tea syrup. =) that might be useful, actually.
So, you can obviously keep your tea at the 4-6 cup concentration by just not diluting it before storage, that is perhaps a reasonable amount to keep in a bottle in the fridge and should require no sacrifices. You might want to store it more concentrated in the future, but this will be easy, take very few changes, and you can get used to the process of re-diluting by hand on a per-cup basis. It will also be one less variable when you're trying various extra-concentrated brewed tea methods, if you're used to mixing from concentrate you can more easily tell if the problem with a batch is the brewing or if mixing differently will help.
You can also concentrate the (pre-prepared) tea extract by heating gently over time. As long as it isn't held at a higher temperature than you steeped it at, it shouldn't alter the flavor compounds much. I would suggest leaving it on the stove on low while you're cooking (and eating), or even putting it in the oven - it is low temp enough, and will take long enough, that you don't need to be hovering over it. Reducing the concentrate by any great volume will take a while, especially at lower temps, and it might change the flavors just a little - but probably it will change the tastes less than trying new, ultra-concentrated brewing methods.
As for brewing the tea to a more concentrated infusion in the first place, I'm not sure. You can obviously just try it, double the amount of tea next time and see how it goes, maybe one more addition of it works well (by which time you're down to a cup or two, so). But, there are two considerations - one is the rate of infusion of the tea into the water has to do with the relative concentration of the flavor compounds, so the compounds may extract more slowly with a higher concentration (which can make things tricky if brewing with a timer), and at some point will simply not extract fully, leaving good flavor in the tea leaves. You may have to leave the tea longer to get the same extraction, or you may throw out tea leaves with some life left in them. At some point, you may even run into physical issues - trying to brew a gallon's worth of tea leaves in a cup may be physically problematic, think of trying to fit a gallon's worth of tea, which would be at least 5tbs (16 "tea"spoons) of tea leaves, or 16 tea bags and more if you prefer it strong, into a single cup's worth of water - at some point there might actually not be enough liquid, or too much water might soak into the tea or teabags, or evaporate off while brewing, to actually keep the tea moving and brewing, or not settling out and burning, something like that.
The other thing is, it will make a difference how much flavor variation you are willing to tolerate - it is really hard to say how much change is too much, when it comes to flavor differences. Along the same lines, the kind of tea will also make a difference - but that goes back to flavor tolerances, I suppose. I suspect higher end teas will probably not come out as good on this sort of concentrated brewing method, or perhaps the kind of people who favor higher end teas will notice the difference more, since they seem to need very precise brewing methods, while tea bags are likely more forgiving.
This makes me think of the Tibetans who actually boil their tea to extract all their flavor to make yak butter tea. If you're using tea bags tea or broken leaves loose leaf tea then you can give it a try. If you're steeping some fine full leaf or bud rich teas, then it will for sure adversely affect the flavor.
Ideal tea-water-ratio: Tea isn't like coffee, in which brewing is approached in a kind of scientific way. The intensity of the brew is quite personal and depends a lot on the tea characteristics, such as tea type (oolong, black, green etc), tea form (crushed, powder, loose leaf, buds etc), and aged/non-aged etc. The best way to find out is simply by trial and error.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.058244 | 2011-09-12T21:35:52 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17683",
"authors": [
"Benny Jobigan",
"Cindy Lewis",
"Cos Callis",
"Joe",
"Kim",
"Rebecca Hartan",
"Stephie",
"abbey",
"daramarak",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158951",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158971",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"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
} |
94913 | Do I use half as much "double concentrated" tomato paste?
I have a tube of tomato paste that is "double concentrated" (brand is "Cento"). Do you use half as much as a recipe calls for, or is this a case where all tomato paste has been "double concentrated" forever and one brand just got around to putting it on the box?
I would not change the amount.
Tomato products are graded as following:
pureed tomatoes (passata di pomodoro), up to 10% dry mass
tomato paste (concentrato di pomodoro) single, 14 to 22% dry mass
tomato paste double, 28 to 30% dry mass
tomato paste triple, 36 to 40% dry mass.
These are German numbers. Other countries use somewhat different prescriptions, but are in roughly the same range. There are higher concentrations of tomato paste too, but they are not commonly sold in supermarkets.
My first reason to not use it is that singly concentrated tomato paste is rarely sold. So I would assume that whoever wrote your recipe intended to use either doubly or triply concentrated paste. It is unlikely that, by changing the amount, you will get closer to what the recipe author used. You may even be already on the low side of tomatoes (if the author uses triple), so you'd make it even less authentic if you try to compensate.
Second, as you see, this is not some simple mathematical doubling of everything. Not even the dry mass jumps exactly double as much, and a tomato is not simply dry mass. If you really wanted to be closer to the recipe (if it has been designed for singly concentrated), you would have to reduce by less than half. And even then, you cannot be completely the same in taste, since the heat/pressure concentration process changes more than just the amount of water.
Third, tomato paste is an ingredient that is used when you want your dish to have lots of tomato flavor and little water. If this was not the case, the author would probably be suggesting the use of tomato puree or canned tomato pieces. Even if the recipe was originally developed for singly concentrated paste, it is rarely wrong to add more tomato flavor by using doubly concentrated. So just throw the whole amount in and see what happens - chances are, you'll like it.
I think we may hit another of those "what we call it here vs there" translation issues... so, though I'm in complete agreement on all you say as regards strengths & how much to use, just a couple of different 'standard supermarket descriptions' from a UK perspective. Passata is always sold by that name, not as 'purée' [usually in glass jars or TetraPak boxes]. Purée is almost exclusively double concentrate at 28-30% [mainly in tubes, sometimes as small cans]. It's usually only called 'paste' in the ingredients description, not on the front of the pack. Single & triple are rare.
@Tetsujin I actually don't know what the English words are. I live in Germany, and they do sell "passierte Tomaten" and "Tomatenmark" for the passata and concentrato. I couldn't come up with a good English name for "passata", so I used the descriptive "pureed", which is typically applied when other food is run through a food mill. If the terms here are badly chosen with regard to typical usage in English, you are welcome to change them.
Before I would think of unilaterally changing your descriptions, I'd like at least one native US English speaker to weigh in with the US equivalents, so we can hit something approaching a consensus on terminology :)
@Tetsujin, assuming the OP is in the US of course. In the UK we have passata and (double concentrated) puree, by the way, and I could believe that adding an equal amount of water to the latter would give something like the former
@ChrisH - I've never tried it, but I'm pretty sure watering down purée will not give you passata, it will just give you watery purée. One has been through a heat cycle of some sort; potentially the equivalent of getting back fresh coffee by adding water to dried coffee ;)
@Tetsujin good point; whenever I use puree or passata, further cooking is involved, and then I still believe they're equivalent aside from the water content. Passata, being tinned (or equivalent) has however been cooked as part of the canning process, probably to 120°C.
Tomato paste is used as a thickener for sauces. Use the same amount the recipe calls for. if the recipe is too thick, adjust it with a bit of water until you get the desired consistancy.
good point! And when looking at the numbers of dry, if it really gets too thick, one would only need to add between 6 and 16 g of water per 100 g tomato paste - such fine adjustments are rarely needed, that's quite within tolerance levels for most recipes.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.058818 | 2018-12-17T06:58:45 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94913",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
44194 | Are cooking show minutes really minutes?
I've noticed that cooking show inches are not very accurate. I can usually see that the "half inch slices" called for by the chef are no where near that, which is fine, since I can see the thickness for myself. It only just occurred to me that cooking show minutes might be way off as well. If they say "put this under the broiler for five minutes" they could mean anywhere from two to ten minutes if their sense of time is as warped as their sense of distance. But the shows are edited for time, so I have no idea if they're fudging.
How literally do you interpret times given by cooking shows? Is there a fudge factor?
My impression is that the shows that are intended to teach do a pretty good job of giving accurate instructions. Shows that are intended to just entertain? Fuhgeddaboutit.
Shows are meant to tell you what could be done rather than what should be done.
There is no single answer to that question: it is going to vary program by program. Some shows, like America's Test Kitchen, are going to be quite precise--at at least, they will intend to be. Other shows, not naming any names, less so.
The thing is, with very very few exceptions, you should not be cooking to time anyway. The time in a recipe is just a guideline so you have some expectation for logistical planning, and to know when to start testing.
Quality recipes--and quality television shows giving you recipes--should always give a test for when a food is done. This can vary from "pulls away from the side of the pan" for brownies, to "pulls apart easily with a fork" for a braised pork shoulder, to "internal temperature of 135 F" for a roast.
Even for shows that intend to give you very good time estimates, testing is still important, because there are many variables that effect how long it takes food to cook. For something as simple as a steak, the starting temperature of the steak, the thickness of the steak, the starting temperature of the pan and its thermal mass, and the power and setting of your burner (hob) will all effect how long it takes the steak to finish. You probably don't have the same room temperature as the test kitchen where the recipe was developed, the same stove, the exact same settings, and the same thickness of steak.
Such variables apply to almost all recipes. The test is what tells you when to stop cooking; the time is only an estimate.
As an aside, the few things that must be cooked to time are those that are 1) uniform in size and cooking properties; and 2) foods for which it is difficult or impossible to observe the effect of the cooking directly. The only two examples I can think of that are appropriate are cooking eggs in the shell, and roasted peanuts in the shell.
There are many instances in baking where you have to go by time, because any kind of test would ruin the recipe - for example soufflés, meringues, or choux pastry. All of the prior preparation has to be very precise in order to compensate.
@Aaronut, due to differences in conditions, is your only option trial and error or is there specifics you can do for the preparation.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.059337 | 2014-05-17T05:59:44 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44194",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Andrea",
"Cynthia",
"Jolenealaska",
"Noa Botanicals - Honolulu spam",
"SSS",
"Spammer",
"WetlabStudent",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103813",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103815",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
22938 | Can alcohol bottles (especially liquor) be stored on their side?
I have a fairly well-stocked mini-bar, but not a lot of space. I've considered storing the bottles in a drawer, but I've heard that you should store certain alcohol upright. Is this true? If so, why? If it's only true for certain types of alcohol, which ones?
Beer bottles should be stored upright. This is to minimize contact (and hence oxidization) between the beer and bottle cap, and (for unfiltered beers) to keep any sludge on the bottom of the bottles. (How To Store Beer)
Wine should be stored (mostly) on its side. This keeps the cork moist; and a dry cork can shrink and allow too much air into the wine bottle. (Storage of wine) But note that:
Champagne and other sparkling wines tend to age better if they are kept upright.
The rules for liquor aren't as defined, but it should generally be stored upright. (Taming Your Liquor Cabinet). It's stored that way at the factory, and it's shipped and displayed that way. Also for many "fancy" bottle types, the bottle won't even sit properly on its side. Also, alcohol in liquor can leak through - or even break down - whatever material is used for the cap. But it's generally safe to store liquor bottles horizontally in the freezer for a time. It depends a lot on the specific bottle and cap in use.
So should liquor be stored upright to reduce the surface area exposed to oxygen?
Don't forget to turn your wine bottles every few months. If you don't, it's possible that part of the cork will be too dry and break off.
This answer does link to an article that states liquor should be stored upright, but it doesn't ultimately answer part of my question: why? I've heard that they should be, but I haven't seen reasoning behind it.
Sparkling wine should/can be stored upright depending on who you ask.
I have to concur with KatieK as to the conclusion that liquor bottles should be stored upright, as for "Why?" While I can not necessarily tell you "the reason" I can tell you "my reasons"... Liquor bottles lids are less reliable after they have been opened, upright storage prevents leakage.
I have had the unfortunate experience with a bottle of Jack that didn't keep well.
An additional reason to do this is that in all of the bars and liquor stores I have visited, I can recall never having seen liquor stored sideways...if it made sense to store those sideways the retailers would do so.
These may not be perfect reasons, but they are good enough to me...for whatever that is worth to you.
I have some opened liquor that I stored on its side in a wine cabinet. It seems to have leaked and a ring of "sugar" dripped on the bottle below it and crystallized. So, if it has not been opened, it may be ok.
As far as I know, storing liquor bottles on their side is a bad idea.
For screwtops, I believe storing them on the side will over time degrade the seal, especially when there is a lot of alcohol involved.
Corked liquor bottles use soft low-density cork to make it easy to remove and insert the cork, and unlike the harder, denser corks used for wine, these corks simply will not hold up to prolonged exposure to alcohol.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.059668 | 2012-04-10T18:31:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22938",
"authors": [
"Auntie C",
"Blanca Villalon",
"Chicago Accountant",
"Georgie",
"Mien",
"Stevie Gee",
"Watermelon",
"Wokky",
"empedocle",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51793",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51794",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51795",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51798",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51862",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85717",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9474",
"priyanshi",
"ramblinjan",
"vwiggins"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
41411 | What sushi-like dish consists of various fish in a light sauce?
I recently ate at a sushi restaurant where we just asked for "chef's choice," so we ended up with some dishes and rolls I was not familiar with. The first one was small pieces of various fish tossed together with a light sauce. Is there a name for this dish/preparation?
Can you describe the sauce?
I can't really place it since it was a pretty light sauce. I'm more curious if there's a general term for fish (without rice) tossed together and eaten by itself.
In general, slices of raw fish or other meats are called sashimi. These are often served un-sauced, but occasionally they are served brushed with any number of soy-based sauces.
From your description, you could also be describing a Japanese-inspired version of a dish very common in Hawaii called Poke. Poke is most often made with tuna, but could also be made with other fish or seafood. The other ingredients included in Poke are highly variable.
That's the closest things I've seen. It wasn't slices, so I'm not sure I'd call it sashimi.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.059997 | 2014-01-24T02:04:20 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41411",
"authors": [
"Didgeridrew",
"MJ Tegan",
"Robert W",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96525",
"ramblinjan",
"timusp"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
56516 | What is the additive they put in apple juice to change it from cloudy to clear?
I was told today that my juice was cloudy because they hadn't put the additive in it that makes it clear.
My question is: What is the additive they put in apple juice to change it from cloudy to clear?
Filtered .vs. unfiltered is more accurate. Filtering may or may not involve any additives/filter aids. In making hard cider, I start with brown opaque cider and simply through time and yeast end up with a clear pale yellow end product, without ever putting it through a filter - but a lot of gunk falls to the bottom of the fermenter.
Commercial production is often similar, just with the addition of large centrifuges to quickly and completely settle out the particulate matter.
(after reading this: http://www.ncbe.reading.ac.uk/ncbe/protocols/inajam/pdf/jam01.pdf)
They usually use pectinase (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pectinase) to break down pectin molecules to help mechanical filtration.
They also use gelatins to help clump up particules to help mechanical filtering.
It is important to note that it is the filtration that makes it clear. The additives simply make the filtration more effective with higher yeilds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk_ufH6je84&feature=youtu.be&t=2m12s
That's not 100% true, filtration gets out the big stuff. It'll still be a touch cloudy. They use clarifiers to get the stuff out of suspension and fall to the bottom. Gelatin is one of those, egg white is another, as well as isinglass.
For homebrewers; (making hard cider or even regular)
pectic enzyme and pectin for long term clearing
irish moss
citric acid
usually you will re-rack at least 2 times; if not 3; this means moving from one fermenter to another.
You can "polish" with a filter systems; but these are very pricey are not easy to use.
Any homebrew shop will carry the supplies needed.
You could use much the same process for regular cider,
Patience and a racking or two is all that's needed.
Agreed; but the pectic enzyme will keep the "solution" from turning cloudy later on. Many people don't mind the haze; does not effect flavor at all.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.060140 | 2015-04-09T13:08:25 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56516",
"authors": [
"Barbara Watson",
"Ecnerwal",
"Escoce",
"Jeff Deptuck",
"Johnny Gonzalez",
"Kelly-ann King",
"Lillian Jones",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134353",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134354",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134411",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34356",
"logophobe",
"zerobane"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
44699 | Can I rescue honey that is crystallised in the container? (with water or otherwise)
I've got a container of honey at home that has gone 'crystalised' and has caked up. When I turn the container upside down, the entire mass has fractured in half, and half sticks to the bottom and the other half slides in the direction of gravity.
Can this be rescued? (ie is it simply dehydated?) Can I add water to it to fix it?
Note such crystallized honey is perfectly fine to use. Your only concern is getting it out of the container.
Yes, crystalized honey can be saved with a combination of heat and water. The trick is using low concentrations of both. Your honey has solidified because over time the moisture has escaped and the sugars have formed crystals.
Add a tiny amount of water and break up the large crystals if possible to speed the process of dissolving the sugars back into solution. You can apply heat to the crystal solution via a water bath or microwave to help break down the crystals. However, you won't need much heat and a few seconds in the microwave should be ample. Do not over heat it (particularly if it is in a cute cheap plastic bear bottle that deforms under heat quickly). Your best bet is to add tiny amounts of water and heat, mix the solution and wait a bit. Repeat as necessary. Time is your friend, turning your honey into a boiling soup is not.
Where would the moisture have gone if the container has been closed?
It's bizarre to me because I've never heard of using water to loosen honey. I know heat works.
This answer is wrong. Honey crystallizes over time because it is an unstable solution, not because of moisture loss. http://blog.beeraw.com/real-raw-honey-crystal Honey will last forever undiluted. If you go adding water to it it will mold, though, or ferment, depending how much water you add. You can melt the crystals back to liquid by placing the sealed container in warm water for a few minutes. You can also microwave, but that's not ideal since the microwave heats so unevenly you can wind up with super hot pockets and some quality loss.
Honey crystallizes because it's sugar in a supersaturated solution. Warm it in a hot water bath to get the honey to it's "normal" state. Adding water to honey will surely spoil it. Crystallized honey is also a "normal" state and can be used normally, although the texture will be different (many prefer crystallized honey over a butter toast for breakfast)
I use a sous-vide machine to keep a water bath at 105F or so. I put the container (lately big plastic jugs that have crystallized) in the bath and leave it there for several hours until all the honey has melted.
Just put the whole closed container in hot water. Warm it up and it will liquify, use it like normal. Once it cools again it will slowly re-harden, but it's fine. Rinse and repeat.
I usually microwave the bottle/jar for 5-10 seconds, stir, and repeat if necessary. Water bath sounds like a more gentle way of doing it though. Less risk of burning yourself too.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.060376 | 2014-06-07T04:47:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44699",
"authors": [
"8xbetpoker",
"Aurelia Peters",
"Jamie Osborne",
"Jolenealaska",
"LifeGuard Data Recovery spam",
"Preston",
"Resnawati Tahiya",
"Ruslan",
"SF.",
"Spammer",
"duncanssweetshop",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105135",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105136",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105139",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23964",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93780",
"roetnig",
"senschen"
],
"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
} |
48945 | Will swapping the red wine in my spaghetti bolognese with port wreck the dish?
We were out of red wine when cooking spaghetti bolognese today, but eyed off the port as a possible substitute. We decided against it but were left wondering. I imagine you'd have to halve the quantity because it would be too strong. I thought it might make it too sweet.
My question is: Will swapping the red wine in my spaghetti bolognese with port wreck the dish?
Mistaken (or correct) regional names in cooking are always a source of confusion, but someone flagged the whole comment thread as irrelevant to the actual question, and I have to agree with the flag: it doesn't matter whether the people in Bologna have heard of the dish, the question is about a substitution, not about traditions. And, per SE policy, comments are actually expected to have relevancy to the question itself.
In short, using port as a substitute for red wine will not wreck the dish.
Though the flavour is different (and richer) and will make your bolognese taste different as a result, the taste should not be bad. I frequently do this as I am not a red wine drinker, and port keeps far better in an open bottle. I would recommend using slightly less than when using red wine, but this is highly subjective.
You could also leave the wine out, with no ill effects.
Leaving it out will make a much bigger difference to the taste than substituting port would.
@PPL...I don't know if I agree...how do you quantify "much bigger?"...and, bolognese has a lot of recipe variation to begin with...white wine, red wine...no wine. The only way to really know would be to make three batches and compare. Given the strong flavor profile of bolognese, I would suspect there would be a small, but noticeable difference. ...but would it really matter in one's enjoyment of the dish? One of the reasons one perceives port as "richer" is that it is fortified with alcohol..much (all?) of which will evaporate. Further, which red wine? Flavor profiles vary there as well.
I forgot the wine once. Regretted it.
Many flavor components are more soluble in alcohol than in water. Small quantities of alcohol are often added to dishes to allow these flavor components to dissolve into the sauce and change the flavor, rather than for the flavor of the alcohol itself. Vodka, for example, is often put in spaghetti sauce not for the vodka--which shouldn't have much flavor--but because of the flavors it extracts from tomatoes. Pour a tiny bit of alcohol (whatever type) to deglaze your saute pan before adding other things in your next dish; you may be surprised at the major impact it can have on the flavors.
Nope. Port (or Porto as we Portuguese people call it), will leave a sweeter taste in your dish.
This is related to the process of making the wine.
In Port wine, during the fermentation process is added brandy to continue the fermentation process during the colder times of the north Portugal region. This process leaves more natural grape sugar in the wine.
You'd know better than me, but Wikipedia does say that that the fortification spirit is actually aguardente, a neutral grape spirit that's not much like brandy.
Yes I know. But the translation for Aguardente at google tradutor is Brandy. Btw, aguardente means ( in the literal way ) burning water.
Port is a little sweeter than ordinary red wine so it will change the taste but not, in my opinion, in a bad way. After all, the bulk of your sauce is tomato and some tomatoes are a little sweeter than others. Some people even add a little sugar to their tomato sauces, anyway.
A lot of ragu/bolognese recipes actually call for white wine, which is another option.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.060707 | 2014-10-15T11:48:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/48945",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Cascabel",
"Delalic Realestate",
"Devika B I",
"Justine Arscott",
"Lightness Races in Orbit",
"PLL",
"Pamela McCree",
"Reese Hanan",
"Robert Rae",
"Valerian Colaco",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116803",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116804",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116805",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116807",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116811",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116848",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116884",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"moscafj",
"ruifn",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
52194 | What is the name for the 'sweetness' of cooling roast pork?
I did a slow roast pork today putting pork knuckles on the bone cooking for 8 hours in a dash of apple juice.
After cooking, I left it to cool for an hour with the lid on.
When I lifted the lid, I noticed a 'lightness' to the smell of the pork, almost the lightness you might get when smelling a bouquet of flowers. (Sorry to those who feel this description is overdone - I'm trying to capture an idea in words).
It almost reminded me of the caramelisation of onion when cooked on a frying pan.
Help me out here - what is the term I'm looking for? Is it caramelisation?
My question is: What is the name for the 'sweetness' of cooling roast pork?
I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you assuming that there is a standardized dictionary of smells? While certain communities (such as wine tasters) have developed a vocabulary, it's quite subjective, and also basically not used outside of the community.
Perhaps the phrase I'm looking for is "smell of glaze" (similar to what you would do to a Ham at Christmas). My question is about the name of the cooking process that is related to this smell.
I have worked in the meat industry for years and have never heard a specific term for the sweetness of cooked pork... I have noticed it cooking some cuts of pork, particularly on those with the bone in.
How much liquid was left when you opened the lid? Almost every slow cooked roast I've done had some source of sugar (rich vinegar, fruits or vegetables like onion or carrot). Apple juice contains a large amount of sugar and other aromatics - is it possible those residuals were the source of what you smelled?
Yeah it's possible. What would you call that?
I think you are confusing a lot of things here. First, you apply a cooking technique to the food. Second, the cooking technique causes a lot of physical processes to happen within the food. Third, the cooked food causes sensory perceptions in your head. I once explained the difference between cooking techniques and physical processes in this answer, so won't repeat it.
That being said, I don't think a word for your situation exists, on any of the three levels. The word for the cooking technique you used is simply "slow roasting". There were many different physical processes going on in the meat, including protein denaturation, collagen converting to gelatine, caramelization of sugars, maillard reaction between proteins and sugars, and so on. And then you ended up with a smell of slow roasted pork, which is a perception.
None of these words describe your situation unambiguously. Had you used a different recipe for roasting the pork, it would still have been "slow roasting", but it would have smelled differently. None of the physical processes is by itself responsible for the smell. It's the combination of them, and with the unique parameters they happened to have, which produced exactly this smell. And the smell itself doesn't have a name either. The olfactory sense of humans is incredibly complex. We can sense 5000 different substances, some of us can sense substances others can't, and they all produce a different sensation in different combinations and concentrations. We don't have the words for every possible smell in the world, neither do we have the capacity to remember or distinguish them all. So, language has no better word for "the smell of slow roasted pork with apple juice glaze" than this descriptive phrase. Whoever has smelled it, might remember it. Whoever hasn't, probably won't be able to imagine it even from the description.
You are welcome to describe the smell any way you want, and you are correct to tell the people that your technique was "roasting". The fact that they won't be able to perfectly picture the exact sensation of your food is just an everyday thing in human communication.
I don't think there is a word specific to the "sweetness of cooling roast pork" in the English language. This is simply an "aroma", and more specifically, the "aroma of roasted pork". (Or, in my house, "the smell of porky goodness") It is produced by caramelization of the sugars and the Maillard reaction that occurs during roasting. These are the same mechanisms at work when you caramelize onions, as you point out.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.061026 | 2015-01-02T11:36:37 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/52194",
"authors": [
"Angela Sullivan",
"Dacio",
"Donna Hester",
"Lisa King",
"Margret Kjartansdottir",
"Phrancis",
"Valla Sodoma",
"hawkeye",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123869",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9523",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
42467 | How to clean lecithin residue?
After using liquid soy lecithin to stabilize a foam, I find it often leaves a hard to clean, sticky residue on the cooking ware that was in contact with it in undiluted form, which is resistant to soap and needs to be cleaned by hand. Even by hand, it is not so easy to clean as it sticks to your hands as well.
Is there any product/trick to easily clean up the lecithin?
If the surface is metal, I would suggest an oxalic acid based cleaner like Bar Keeper's Friend.
This is one of the reasons I hate working with liquid lecithin - it's the most viscous and sticky substance I've ever had in my kitchen (or, frankly, anywhere).
Prevention seems to be the best approach; try not to let the lecithin directly touch any utensils or cooking surface. Grease up your spoons, preferably with something reasonably solid at room temperature like coconut oil, butter, or margarine. That makes the lecithin slide off more easily, and you only need to clean off the grease afterward (i.e. with soap).
The only way I've been able to clean surfaces or utensils coated with the lecithin itself is lots and lots and lots of warm water and paper towels. Warm water is important since lecithin does not dissolve very well in cold water.
Good luck - personally, on the infrequent occasion that I need lecithin these days, I just stick to the granules.
Even the small amount of soy lecithin in cooking sprays can be a problem once they are baked on. I keep my baking sheets cleaner by using parchment paper whenever I can.
This is a great tip for future prevention, but doesn't really answer the question of what to do when the residue is already on there.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.061361 | 2014-03-02T21:50:39 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42467",
"authors": [
"Adrian Soliz",
"Catalyfe spam",
"Erica",
"Karmic Realms News spam",
"Kelly Couldridge",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"Tix",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156027",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99165",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99166",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99194"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
104654 | Why does Jacques Pepin's souffle work?
I just saw a video (there are numerous all over the place, but this is one) of Jacques Pepin making his mother's cheese souffle. In the recipe, he does not separate the eggs or beat them to peaks. He just scrambles them and whisks them into the bechemel.
Yet the souffle rises.
I've made many a souffle in the past, and this flies in the face of all the souffle techniques I've learned.
Why does this work? (what is the science behind it)
And, does it work as well as a souffle made with separated eggs?
I'm going to have to disagree with FuzzyChef's answer a bit. I don't understand the statement that FuzzyChef's wife's recipe matches The Spruce Eats (separating egg recipe) proportionally, but Pepin's supposedly uses more eggs. Yet The Spruce Eats recipe uses 2 eggs with 1/2 cup milk and 1 1/2 tablespoons each of butter and flour. Pepin uses 5 extra large eggs (or about 6 large eggs) with 2 cups of milk and and 6 tablespoons each of butter and flour. That is, Pepin's recipe is scaled up 4 times in most ingredients from The Spruce Eats, but only about 3 times in eggs. Pepin is thus proportionally using less eggs than The Spruce Eats recipe.
And while I agree that Pepin does beat the eggs in a manner that incorporates some air, that's clearly not what's causing the batter to rise, as he then follows up by noting that one can prepare this souffle batter hours or even days ahead. Most of the small amount of air incorporated by beating the whole eggs will almost immediately dissipate and will mostly be gone within minutes, let alone hours or days. Whole eggs, unlike egg whites, do not hold their foaminess for long. The beating is helpful, but clearly not the essential process to the rise.
Instead, the science behind this is quite simple and truly basic: the souffle rises because of steam.
The reason this technique works is the same reason that popovers and Yorkshire pudding rise (to a huge extent, often much more than classic French souffles), with no egg separation and no fancy preparation. But the bubbles created by the steam in popovers and Yorkshire pudding are generally large, creating a more "rustic" texture, rather than the refined souffle. Pepin's dish has a less extreme rise and more consistent texture because he puts a large quantity in a wide thicker pan, rather than, say, popovers, which are placed in relatively small narrow pans that heat the batter very quickly (and thus produce incredible oven spring from the steam).
Once the steam begins to rise, the eggs begin to coagulate and trap it, leading to the light and airy texture. The flour also helps provide more structure to hold up the finished product. Essentially, it's the same steam that makes light and "fluffy" scrambled eggs, just increased by more moisture and trapped with the help of flour to provide additional structure. Popovers and Yorkshire pudding proportionally contain a lot more flour, which allows them to rise much higher and have a more "bread-like" texture, rather than the smooth texture of a souffle. But they're both using the power of steam primarily.
The classic French souffle technique with egg separation isn't necessary to create a rise -- steam can do that all by itself. (Harold McGee in On Food and Cooking notes that the air bubbles from the egg-white foam only contribute about 25% of the air to a souffle: about 75% of the air comes from the steam produced during baking.) The French souffle with the egg white beating, etc. is about creating a very consistent fine-grained interior texture (with small bubbles), all produced by a relatively slow and consistent rise in the oven. In Pepin's case (and in most standard souffles), cooking the flour and adding cheese help to thicken the batter, so less flour is needed to start trapping air compared to things like popovers. And Pepin's reduced egg quantity also contributes to a slightly thicker batter that won't rise as high, but is also less fragile and less likely to fall. The longer bake time in a wider mass contributes to a more slow, even rise, where the top layers gradually coagulate and help trap air in the interior.
Ah, interesting! I was comparing the amount of eggs against the size of the pan, instead of against the milk quantity. You are absolutely right about the amount of white sauce ingredients. It actually seems like Pepin has more of everything in the same size souffle dish -- because it's still more eggs than I would put in a pan that size (and yes, we tried it in our standard souffle pan).
I wonder how necessary the gluten in the flour is to the rising. Would a gluten-free flour (Cup4Cup for instance), have a similar rise?
I watched the video, read the article, and compared it with my wife's family souffle recipe (whose proportions match The Spruce Eats), and I'm pretty sure I have it.
Pepin uses more eggs per souffle than is standard with separated eggs. For a 1 qt souffle in our family recipe, I would use 4 separated eggs. Pepin is using 50% more eggs, with corresponding additional rising power.
His souffle doesn't rise as much as a separated egg souffle would, per the article: "It isn't quite as cloud-like"
He does beat the eggs in a way that incorporates some air. Watch his technique in the video. It's not nearly as much as you'd get with whipped egg whites, but it's not nothing either.
And thanks for introducing me to this, I'm gonna have to try it myself now.
so it's more like a fluffy omelette ?
It looks fluffier than that.
Tried the recipe today. It works. It also doesn't rise as much, or get as fluffy, as a separated-eggs souffle. And it has a depression in the middle. Still really good though.
Jacques is the man! Great video. He speaks to your point a bit in the video, though not the science...just that "it works," and it is not the classic technique (Turns out mom's right again). I'm not sure the science is any different, though. Egg white traps air. Heat expands the trapped air. The protein network in the egg provides strength and structure. Does it work "as well?" I don't know, but his final result looked pretty good. What different result would you be looking for?
"as well" to me means you could use that technique on a chocolate souffle and get the same results as the traditional technique.
I have no reason to believe that it would not work. You would just make it sweet as opposed to savory. It seems like a good experiment to run. If you give it a try, report your results here.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.061634 | 2020-01-10T18:26:59 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104654",
"authors": [
"CleverPatrick",
"FuzzyChef",
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3399",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
17553 | What is the difference between "Mongolian Grill" and "Hibachi"?
For years I have been frequenting Chinese restaurants that feature "Mongolian Grill" (or Mongolian BBQ depending on the location). Recently I tried a new place that had (what they called) "Hibachi", which looked very similar, and I originally mistook for 'the same'. When I inquired about the Mongolian grill I was informed that there is a difference. While the host went on about what those differences are I am afraid that the subtleties were "lost in translation".
Can someone clarify for me what the differences are?
I'm no expert, but I've always seen hibachis as smaller, table-top devices with coals under an open grate, and places specializing in mongolian grill using a large, round griddle where the chef rotates around the griddle cooking multiple dishes at once.
That is what I have seen as well, but in this case the "hibachi" was being done on what I would call a 'flat top' or a 'griddle'.
Hibachi are technically a traditional Japanese device used for heating one's house. They are a basic, heat-proof container that holds charcoal.
The cooking devices that many people refer to as "hibachi" are what the Japanese would call "shichirin":
I'm guessing that the term "hibachi" was popularized in North America because "shichirin" can be hard to pronounce for Anglophones.
Somewhere along the way, primarily in North America, the term "hibachi" also started to be used to refer to teppanyaki:
I'm not sure when or why this started; perhaps it has something to do with the fact that Banihana confusingly refers to their teppanyaki restaurants as "hibachi-style".
Among these, teppanyaki is most similar to Mongolian barbecue, in which meat is cooked on large, round, cast iron griddles:
(Images taken from Wikipedia.)
If you were to actually go to a Japanese restaurant and cook your own food over a shichirin, it would likely be referred to as "yakiniku", which is believed to have some origins in Korean barbecue.
Whereas teppanyaki has been a traditional Japanese cooking method for a long time, "Mongolian barbecue" was developed in the 1970s in Taipei, Taiwan. During that time, Japanese Teppanyaki was very popular in Taiwan, so many people speculate that was actually the inspiration for Mongolian barbecue. There are also some similarities between the Japanese dish "jingisukan" and Mongolian barbecue, however, jingisukan predates Mongolian barbecue.
The idea of "teppanyaki" appeared circa 1945 in Japan, so it's not that much older than the idea of Mongolian barbecue.
I know this is an old post but I'd like to add something that I was told by the owner of a Mongolian resturant. He told me the origin of what is now called Mongolian BBQ was the cooking methods of the Mongolian soldiers (read: Genghis Khan's army) who fought and traveled for long periods. They would communally gather food - meats, fish, vegatables, etc., and then individually cook their own meals in their helmets, over an open campfire. They carried oils and sauces along with them and they were considered prized possessions.
I can easily imagine this to be true and that this tradition would evolve into a family practice in a home, in a larger "wok" device, and eventully into a resturant setting. Somewhere along the line, the wok was inverted to make the cooking of multiple meals possible.
It's a nice story, but "Mongolian" BBQ was invented in Taiwan in the 1970s and does not exist in Mongolia, where lamb is virtually always boiled or steamed.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.062130 | 2011-09-07T14:01:01 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17553",
"authors": [
"Baker GD",
"Cos Callis",
"Hanii Puppy",
"JasonTrue",
"Joe",
"Kikaimaru",
"Maura Nankervis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139091",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37764",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37774",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37781",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"lambshaanxy",
"tim"
],
"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
} |
21080 | Does the choice of peppers affect the 'flavor of the heat'?
Working with a variation of this chili recipe I meticulously cleaned my peppers of seeds and veins to produce a 'milder' chili. Unfortunately this batch was almost 'too mild' (heat wise, the flavor was very good). I am thinking that next time around I will leave in some of the seeds/veins to give it just a bit more 'kick'.
The question is, given the choice of Anaheim, poblano and jalapeno peppers would it matter to the flavor which pepper I allow to be the source of the heat? I know that each pepper has it's own unique flavor to offer and each is going to provide a different 'level' of heat, but will the 'heat' taste differently based on the choice of pepper?
[for anyone interested, the variation that I apply is to substitute buffalo for ground beef and fresh tomatoes for the canned, I don't believe either should affect this question.]
It's actually a common misconception that the seeds are a significant source of heat; almost all of the heat comes from the oil which is itself mostly concentrated in the placenta (what you're calling "veins"). The seeds might take on some oil and be slightly hot, but you can remove the seeds and not notice much of a difference in the overall heat as long as you keep the placenta.
while I've not personally tested the question, I have heard (from 'reputable sources') that seeds are or are not a significant source of capsaicin. Just as I have heard the term veins, ribs and placenta used to describe the inner structure of the pepper which supports the seeds.
This is actually previously discussed on Seasoned Advice. It is in fact called the placenta and contains the majority of the capsaicin, while the seeds produce hardly any.
The heat is the same; all peppers contain capsaicin. The Scoville scale defines heat in terms of capsaicin content. Use the peppers that have the flavor you want, and make it as hot as you want, and you'll be set.
And the flavor besides heat is definitely concentrated in the flesh, so you shouldn't notice any real difference in pepper flavor either.
This is true, but I think what the question was really getting at was, do the seeds/veins impart any significant flavour other than the capsicum heat?
@Aaronut: Oh, oops, that wasn't how I understood it. Edited!
It really is not as simple as that, or you can go the other route throw in what you got and see what it may have to much of or be lacking for you.
Disreguarding the heat differance in the peppers there are also great diferances in the flavors, of many your three choices included. The Choice of chili is more like 3 choices. heat, flavor/texture and amounts of chile and types, what will give you a desired result.
Capsaicinoids: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsaicin#Capsaicinoids Capsinoids: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsinoids
The "flavor of the heat" has a lot to do with how the capsaicin is distributed in the sauce, and how it is contained in solid (if you added dry chili powder at the end of cooking), fat, alcohol (if there is any in the food), or water (which does not dissolve it well at all) phases, and also with how these phases are mixed (water+alcohol obviously mix, fat+water can be emulsified or separate).
Two different chile pepper preparations, added each in amounts which will add the same total capsaicin content to the dish, will only yield equivalent heat if, by cooking methods, the capsaicin is equally dissolved.
For example, 1g of dry bhut jolokia powder will not be a good substitute for 10-20g of dried cayenne pepper or 50g of deggi mirch, even if all the options are roughly equivalent in capsaicin, unless the dish is very rich and cooked for a significant time - the first option will present harshly spicy particles in an -on average- milder suspension to the tongue...
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.062430 | 2012-02-06T04:47:58 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21080",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Brandon Schilling",
"Cascabel",
"Cos Callis",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62642",
"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
} |
19757 | Dishwasher safe lids for copper cookware?
I have a copper cookware set. I understand that the copper portion isn't dishwasher safe, but what about the lids? I assume since they have no copper on them, they are dishwasher safe.
My Cookware Set
Those lids appear to be stainless steel, and as such would be dishwasher safe.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.062744 | 2011-12-18T22:37:07 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19757",
"authors": [
"John Murray",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43099",
"user48485"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
15147 | What temperature would you heat frozen lasagna in the oven at?
We froze some leftover homemade lasagna and instead of reheating in the microwave we would like to use the oven. What is a good temperature and time for reheating?
Exact time is going to depend on the type of container and the shape/size of the lasagna (eg, if it's 2" thick in a thin metal pan vs. 4" thick in stoneware).
Next time start it in the microwave, full power until you get some warming at the edges, then half power a bit more. Meanwhile the oven is warming... cover in foil and pop it in until the center hits a good temp.
350F is the magic temp. Just about every casserole cooks at 350, and you cook it until it starts being bubbly which will probably between 30 minutes and an hour (in this case, you should check to make sure it's hot in the center as well, since you're starting from frozen). I'd cover it early, and then uncover it near the end so the top won't get dry.
Thanks, it took quite a while, over an hour at 350 plus a microwave kicker at the end. :)
If you have a probe style thermometer look to get the internal temperature around 160˚F.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.062811 | 2011-05-30T23:11:41 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15147",
"authors": [
"Didgeridrew",
"Jeremy Mullin",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6329",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"renegade"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
15232 | American recipe using 'a can of tomato sauce'
I have an American recipe which lists a 'can of tomato sauce' as an ingredient. Does anyone know if this just means chopped tomatoes or is an actual sauce maybe onion, garlic, tomato, seasoning? Do we have an equivalent here in UK?
It’s worth mentioning that ‘can’ here is significant. There are many types of ‘tomato sauce’ that are sold in the US in jars, but the stuff that’s sold in cans is pretty consistent, even for the name brands: https://www.amazon.com/Hunts-Tomato-Sauce-15-Oz/dp/B00I9VC6Y0 https://www.amazon.com/Muir-Glen-Organic-Tomato-Sauce/dp/B000LKXG64
On same topic: Can someone tell me the grammature of the can of tomato sauce? In Poland it comes in anything from tiny 70 gram cans to bulk 5kg ones, with a broad range of sizes in between, so a recipe calling for "a can of..." is literally useless without that info.
@SF. recipes for home made dishes usually mean a 350-400g can. You might use some common sense too, I doubt you'd need a 5kg can for a sauce recipe that yelds 2-4 portions...
@Luciano 5kg - sure it would be silly. But 300g and 1000g will produce two vastly different dishes and both look like a reasonable amount for "2 cans" in a 4-portion stew-like dish containing other "bulk" ingredients.
I pulled out some cans of tomato sauce to answer your questions. The details are listed below, but it looks like they are generally diluted tomato paste with spices. If you can get tomato paste (canned or in a tube), that should get you the consistency that you want.
The ingredients as listed on the Hunt's brand are:
Tomato puree (water, tomato paste),
water, less than 2% of: salt, citric
acid, spice, tomato fiber, natural
flavor
Shop Rite brand (a supermarket house brand) contains:
Tomato concentrate (water, tomato
paste), onion powder, garlic powder,
citric acid, natural flavorings,
dehydrated bell pepper
And a can of Rokeach brand (a kosher food processor) tomato sauce with mushrooms contains:
Tomato puree (tomato paste & water),
mushroom, modified potato starch,
peppers, cottonseed oil, sugar, onion,
apple cider viengar, garlic, celery,
white pepper, bay leaves and citric
acid.
Yep, that's about it. Diluted, seasoned tomato paste. The less seasoning, the less likely it is to form any unpleasant combinations with other parts of the recipe, but almost everything labeled as a tomato sauce has some seasoning, particularly the trace amounts of citric acid and salt and/or garlic/onion powder. It's meant to be used as, well, a sauce, e.g. for pasta, so it's not just cooked tomato purée.
OK thanks these are all very helpful - esp the list of possible ingredients - thanks Martha! I thought there had to be some added ingredients otherwise the whole recipe I am looking at looks v bland, but the picture shows the tomato sauce being added to the recipe and it just looks like chopped tinned tomatoes, so wasn't sure.
I do a fair bit of cooking from American recipes, and I have always used passata or sieved tomatoes when 'tomato sauce' is called for. Never had any problems. You can get plain versions or ones flavoured with onion, garlic, basil etc.
They are available at all the major supermarkets, sometimes in the pasta aisle, but usually with the canned tomatoes and tomato puree. It comes in either a glass bottle or a small cardboard carton like orange juice.
I use alot of passata so could easily substitute this, just felt it needed some seasoning of some sort.
Canned tomato sauce in the US does not typically have 'Italian seasoning' or basil, but there is almost always some salt and/or dried spices. Even the most basic tomato sauce is going to be more than just cooked tomatoes; however, it might be a bit more runny than simply pureed tomatoes.
I can approximate the texture of canned tomato sauce by pureeing canned whole tomatoes, which are peeled and in a very runny liquid. If you are going to start with whole tomatoes, you might blanch them first and remove the skins.
Also, canned tomatoes and tomato sauce is pasteurized. Pureed fresh tomatoes would probably not be quite the same, so if your dish is not otherwise cooked, you might try cooking your puree.
I would argue it is less runny than pureed tomatoes. Also, it's been cooked quite a while and both the seeds and the skins have been removed first (I have a machine for that process.) Both of these change the taste as well as the consistency.
Aha! So if it has no seeds and skin it is like sugocasa?
I won't downvote this because it depends on the sauce; some very cheap brands really are runnier than tomato purée. But the very first sentence is unequivocally wrong; any product labeled "tomato sauce" is always going to be seasoned. The seasoning might not be very interesting, but if you're going to start from whole puréed tomatoes then you'd need to also need to add salt, garlic/onion powder, and possibly a small amount of sugar. If starting from tomato paste instead of purée, you also need to add vinegar.
For the texture--yes, it does vary pretty widely. As far as seasonings--it may be different in Canada; around here (Pennsylvania) unless it says otherwise (e.g., "with italian seasoning", "with basil and garlic", "with chili peppers", etc.), there's not much in the way of seasoning, at least for the purposes of substitution. The Hunt's (in Martha's answer) is a fairly representative standard brand.
Yes exactly - the seasoning usually does not get as fancy as basil and garlic but there is almost always some salt and/or dried spices. Even the most basic tomato sauce is going to be more than just cooked tomatoes.
Ah, I see what you mean. So, @Vanessa, don't forget to season your recipe as needed.
American here!. I know this post is 8 years old but still wanted to add my 2 cents. As the best answer noted with ingredient labels it's tomato paste and water blah, gross....
When I come across this I use either a can of chopped tomatoes with the juices separated and reduced before being added back to the cooking tomato/flavor base, Or the same amount of an already cooked basic tomato sauce (homemade preferably).
I think either way you are going to get a better flavor. Tomato sauce out of a can is always smooth so you could blend the chopped tomatoes in a food processor. I say still reduce the liquid separately or you will have far to much water.
In the UK the equivalent is tomato passata.
It will likely work, but note that ‘tomato sauce in a can’ tends to be closer to watered down tomato paste. Also note that ‘tomato sauce in a jar’ has much more variety in thickness and flavorings, so may not be equivalent to passata.
I was stumped by this too. I knew it wouldn't actually be tomato sauce because they would have called it Ketchup. I used Passata, which is a tomato cooking sauce, and it was perfect.
I found out that tomato sauce used in an American recipe is passata (typically in a carton)
Could you explain how you found out, please? That said, welcome to Seasoned Advice! Don’t forget to take the [tour] and browse our [help] to learn more about how the site works.
I’d be interested in how you came to that conclusion as well. In both Kentucky and the US Midatlantic states, I’ve only seen the watered down tomato paste with seasonings sold as ‘tomato sauce’ in a can. In a jar, it might be more complex, but canned is the cheap stuff
Tomato sauce is cooked, while tomato passata is not; in both my personal experience and this article, passata is extremely unusual in American recipes. They may easily be interchangeable, however.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.062960 | 2011-06-04T14:18:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15232",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Erica",
"Joe",
"Kate Gregory",
"Luciano",
"Ray",
"SF.",
"Stephie",
"Vanessa Fuller",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6368",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
19053 | Why has the meat turned out to be hard like rubber?
I was following this recipe for Chinese Stir-Fired Steak with Peppers.
I think I messed it up by cooking this for too long. The meat (I used lamb's meat) turned out very hard, like rubber.
I suspect this was because I cooked it for too long. Can someone confirm this? I will be much obliged.
Do you have any idea how long you cooked it by the way?
@Mien, far too long, I am afraid, something like 20 minutes. In my defence, I am a total noob at cooking. I have only just started about 4-5 months ago.
Oh yes, that's indeed far too long :) Try it again for 4-5 minutes or so. If it isn't enough, you can put it back in the pan ;-)
You might also be comparing your results to restaurants that apply velveting to the meat first.
Yup, cooking most meat too long is a bad thing. Cooking lamb too long like that will result in rubber.
Its also possible that you accidentally cut with the grain instead of against it - which would result in a very chewy, rubber like texture. You end up with long proteins that are harder to chew. When you cut across the grain, its a bunch of very short proteins.
Thanks. Please clarify, why would cutting along the grain instead of against it make a difference?
@UmarFarooqKhawaja updated
Lamb also tends to cook faster than beef, so following the same instructions for beef and just substituting lamb would almost certainly result in inedible shoe leather.
I like to add some extra comments to this post and also may give some criticism of the recipe.
1.Background of the problem
As @rfusca said, cooking too long is a bad thing, which is true in some way. However, I think it's too broad to conclude cooking too long is the ultimate reason. There are parts of beef that they get tender as you cooking longer such as beef brisket.
Two things to remember
Without going into too much science, the general rule of cooking is
that meat get hard as it loses its moisture and arguably its fat. The
art of Chinese cooking is to try keeping the moisture in the meat
and the cornflour in the recipe was to seal moisture in the meat.
Cut across the grain, don't cut along it. I am not sure if I am
using the correct terminology, but you will see the very long beef
grain (texture) when you look at the beef surface. To explain it a
bit more clear, I have drawn up a image to explain what I mean.
Please see the diagram
(A) The diagram (A) shows how you should slice / cut beef if you have a chunk of beef like skirt or round steak. You should cut through the grain.
(B) Typically the steak buy are not like what I drew in diagram (A) as butchers usually cut through beef texture to make pieces of steak. If you slice your beef like diagram (B), then you will end up with beef slices with very long grain (texture). Longer the grain (texture) is, the chewer you will find as it's harder for us to tear apart the long texture.
As @rfusca said, "When you cut across the grain, its a bunch of very short proteins."
(C) To resolve the issue in diagram (B), you can slice beef on the bigger side which you will cut through the texture.
2.Choice of beef - there is no doubt sirloin steak is premium steak and it's perfect for western cooking. However, I believe it's too lean for stir-fried, although I have used sirloin using the diagram (C) method which also worked fine. I would suggest to try using different steaks such as round steak, skirt steak or rib eye. Rib eye is actually pretty ideal and the fat content will help cook and it will come out very tender, but it's probably too pricey. Skirt and Round steaks are cheaper and they are always the forgotten choices. I found skirt and round steaks tend to have more moisture inside the meat and they will turn out quite well. In fact, they are quite close to what Chinese would use in stir-fired.
3.Change of the recipe
i. Slice the steak into (1cm in the recipe is too thick) 0.3 or 0.5 cm thick slices across the grain. The thinner the beef, the easier you can control your cooking.
ii. Don't whisk with your ingredients. Put them in following the order below.
Put all the beef in a big bowl
Add soy sauce, sugar, ginger & maybe 20ml of (water or rice wine).
Please note that the amount of water depends on your beef and how
you mix it. When you put in soy sauce and sugar, you should stir it
through the beef and you will notice the sauce will get absorbed by
the beef. If you notice all the sauce get absorbed straight away, it
will be good idea to get some extra water but don't over do it!!
Don't end up with too much liquid in your beef marinade. You want to
see all your sauce get absorbed and should take out any excessive
liquid.
Once you have a good mixture of beef marinade, you then add in the corn flour. You want the cornflour to coat the beef very nicely.
(This is what was missing in the original recipe) Put about 1.5
table spoons vegetable oil and stir the oil through the beef. The
oil will help to seal the moisture in the meats.
Then you follow the original recipe to cook your beef 1/3 a time for
2-3 mins depending on how thin your beef is. Please don't cook over 3 mins.
Once you set aside your beef, then don't follow your recipe to put
your beef in the wok again with peppers.
Cook your peppers and onions. ONLY put your beef in when the peppers
and onions are cooked, then put your beef in to toss it up with
peppers and onions for 30 seconds.
iii. You should now have a very nice beef stir fried.
The question specifically mentions - and is tagged [lamb], so a pretty large chunk of this answer either needs to be adjusted or doesn't apply at all.
Sorry I missed that, but most of the information would apply for both lamb and beef regardless
Thank you @Foodrules. I really appreciate the detailed answers as well as the recipe modifications. I will try the modified recipe.
Sometimes the age of the animal matter. I hear that older animals tend to be tough no matter how low and how long of a temp you cook it at. I've had some briskets that probably came from an older cattle and I cooked it in the oven at a low temperature for 5 hours and it came out extremely tough.
Older cattle will tend to result in more tender meat, due to greater fat marbling.
For "lamb", though, (depending on jurisdiction) labeling laws will limit the age, so I don't think this is related to the OP's situation.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.063524 | 2011-11-21T19:37:41 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19053",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Behdad",
"Ben Page",
"Foodrules ",
"Mien",
"Sneftel",
"Umar Farooq Khawaja",
"Zargon",
"alexwc_",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2951",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41352",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41353",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41354",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6379",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77095",
"mbeckish",
"mmmh beet roots",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
16638 | How does foil protect a sandwich in the [toaster] oven?
If I wrap a sandwich in foil and toast it, the entire sandwich seems to warm more evenly, so I don't get burnt edges of bread.
Can someone explain what is going on here?
I assume it has something to do with the ambient temperature cooking the sandwich instead of direct heat.
I don't think it's just one thing:
The foil reflects radiant heat, meaning that the only remaining way to propogate heat is through conduction and convection.
The foil is an impermeable barrier which helps to keep the moist air (created by boiling off the moisture in the surface of the bread) near the sandwich, which reduces the rate at which the bread dries out, and we need dry items for them to burn.
It's possible that retention of the moisture within the foil slows the heating of the enclosed system as there's less loss of thermal mass, but I doubt that's a significant factor in most situations.
You might be able to test which of the other two is the more significant factor by running a test with foil that's been perforated such that it's not a good barrier but would still be reflective, and see how that compares.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.064145 | 2011-08-04T18:09:07 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16638",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35490",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35491",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35492",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35516",
"kay jones",
"shockabra dakind",
"tykowale",
"user78094"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
69064 | Slicing bratwurst for quicker, more even grilling
I am always surprised and little impatient with the time required to cook my brats all the way through on the grill. More heat typically means the outside finishes before the inside, and less heat means I'm waiting 30 minutes or more for fully cooked brats.
A few years ago at a grill-out, I saw that some friends that had scored their sausages before grilling them, I presume for quicker and more even grilling. I can't remember if these were hot dogs, brats, or some other kind of sausage, but they certainly weren't the cheap-o mystery meat dogs from the supermarket.
I recently tried this approach with brats, but it hasn't really been working.
My first time, I sliced the brats before grilling, but then when they're exposed to heat the meat starts oozing out of the slices in the casing. This makes for a pretty un-appetizing looking brat.
The next time, I tried slicing them after they had grilled for a bit, but they were difficult to handle and I don't know how much this helped in terms of time or even cooking.
Are there any slicing/scoring techniques that will help brats grill more quickly/evenly, or do I just need to be more patient?
Boil or steam them using beer (for a traditional flavor combination) or water before grilling. Grill for flavor, not as the sole means of heating them.
This is more about cooking faster (or more evenly, anyway) than slicing, though that step will also make them hold together better if sliced after boil/steam and before grilling. But if they are basically cooked via boil/steam, you don't need to do any further processing before grilling, since you can just grill until the outside suits your sense of grilled.
I think scoring is more about releasing some of the fat than actually grilling faster. Slicing (like in half lengthwise, or in chunks) will grill faster, and/or give you more grilled surface area/flavor (if you're pre-boiled and just grilling for flavor.) It may fall apart completely if not cooked somewhat before that.
This site looks reasonable: https://www.bratsandbeer.com/how-long-to-boil-brats/
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.064272 | 2016-05-18T01:10:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69064",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
9347 | Pouring cold water on pasta after cooking it
Some of my friends pour cold water on pasta after boiling it other don't. What do the professionals do? If they pour cold water on the pasta after the boil, what do they want to accomplish with doing it?
¿Have you tried Spaghetti Aglio e Olio? Is a nice and easy alternative to plain pasta
I would strongly suggest not pouring cold or any other kind of water on pasta; it will rinse the delicious starches off its surface, which would otherwise help your sauce cling to it.
To counteract the negative consequences of overcooking due to remaining heat (which, as belisarius suggests in his answer, is the reason other stuff is often rinsed with cold water), just serve it immediately. You want to have the sauce (hot and) ready just before your pasta is, so you can drain the pasta, mix with the sauce, and put it on the table.
I usually use the pasta water to thicken the sauce ... so the pasta regains the starches while sauteeing "nothing is created, nothing is lost, everything is transformed" :D
Also note that "serve it immediately" is not always possible for large batches.
Or, slightly undercook it if you need a few minutes to plate. Rinsing in cold water both removes the starch (helps stick the sauce to the noodle), but it also cools the noodles down (which is not good eats).
You can however use this effect to your advantage. If you're making pasta that you're not going to sauce, you can rinse off the starch thus causing reducing the pasta's tendency to clump together.
@MagnusNordlander Yes! As in when you're making a cold pasta salad.
Some asian noodles have such short cooking times that they will overcook to a mush if not quickly cooled and/or will release too much starch which will make them cling even if served immediately...
Pour cold water on boiled things when you want to stop the cooking process. Once you get "al dente" stage, the pasta will quickly get past that, so cooling it with cold water helps you manage the final state.
Be aware that the pasta will lose temp, that is going to be re-gained when you briskly sautee it afterward (with some salsa, hopefully).
PS: for vegetables, quickly immersing them in ice-cold water after boiling helps to retain the bright color (although I don't know why).
In the case of the vegetables, it's called "shocking". My understanding of the process is that other minerals and gases in the cells escape, leaving the chlorophyll more visible. Shocking the vegetables causes the chlorophyll to stabilize before it has a chance to break down.
I rearranged your last sentence; even though I eventually understood what you meant, it seemed a little odd reading the phrase "...boiling in ice-cold water".
@Aaronaut Thanks ... It was surely a mix of deficient English and an idle mental state :D
@HelpfulAnswers4u Sure, eventually, but it'll still be steaming for a few minutes - it's nothing like running cold water over it.
Your pour cold water over pasta if you don't want the noodles to stick together later. If you are making enough for the amount of servings -- that you will eat right away -- then it is ok not to. As Erik's answer pointed out, the sauce will stick better onto the noodles.
So you are cooking pasta in bulk and will refrigerate some of it for later consumption, it is better to dump cold water on it. Otherwise, you'll end up with a glob of pasta that you can't sort out later.
Even though you might want to rinse pasta that you plan to serve warm with a sauce later, to do so is never ideal. Rinsing in cold water then tossing with a bit of oil works adequately to keep the pasta from sticking if you need to serve the pasta long past the time that it is cooked, but even under those circumstances, consider tossing with the sauce in advance instead of rinsing.
If you're making a cold pasta salad, then rinsing with cold water might very well be your best, ideal choice. It depends upon the dressing, but that starch that makes the pasta stick so nicely to warm sauces can make cold salads unappealingly clumpy.
Alternatively, I use a little bit of oil to coat the noodles and then stir it up. This way I can prepare or finish off whatever I am doing before I sauce the noodles. This method is also ideal if you are making an intricate noodle dish like ramen (real ramen, not instant) or pho where ingredients are layered or designed in specific ways that can take some time. You then just pour the very hot soup base and the noodles will instantly loosen up. i also use this method if I made too much pho and we need to save it. Oiled noodles won't stick, will loosen in liquids and can be refrigerated.
How does this answer the question that was asked?
I think this might have been meant as a comment to one of the answers talking about sticking? nathan, you might be interested in this question, though with that many answers, I'm pretty sure just about everything has been said.
It is not the first time that somebody asks about doing X, and somebody else answers "doing X is not a good idea in your situation, do Y instead". I understand this answer to be intended in that way, but nathan just left out the reasoning "pouring water is done to prevent sticking, if you want to prevent sticking you are better off oiling" before continuing to explain how to oil.
@rumtscho Sounds good!
Erik P. is absolutely right, rinsing pasta is a bad idea, and many Italians consider it heresy. Rinsing removes the residual cooking water, which contains considerable flavor, nutrition and texture. This water is often used in recipes as the primary base for sauces.
Rinsing also lowers the temp of the pasta. This will stop cooking in the pasta, but you will have to add heat to bring it back up to temp, which will lead to further cooking. Really, pasta is pretty heat tolerant, and the cooking time for al dente pasta and overcooked pasta are not that close to each other.
To prevent the pasta clumping, add salt and oil to the cooking water before the initial boil. If you are storing the cooked pasta sauceless, toss it with a little olive oil. This is how it is done in restaurants.
Yeah, it is better to wash the pasta with cold water (to wash away unnecessary starch that sticks outside) very fast... otherwise the pasta gets cold. After that, you can mix the pasta with the sauce and bring it to boil for about 30 seconds. If you don't wash it the pasta will stick together and will be hard to eat later. If you wash it you still can eat it even after 2 to 3 hours.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.064498 | 2010-11-22T03:03:05 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9347",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Berta Severance Sergeant",
"Big Tim",
"Bruce Alderson",
"Carlos Castillo",
"Cascabel",
"CentauriAurelius",
"Dr. belisarius",
"GalacticCowboy",
"Jolenealaska",
"Look Alterno",
"Magnus Nordlander",
"Mason Bryant",
"NextThursday",
"Rakward",
"arejaye",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100607",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100628",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100698",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19119",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19121",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78761",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93205",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho",
"series02",
"user19126"
],
"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
} |
18047 | What are ways to reduce cellulose in vegetables and fruits?
I (and some family members) have a medical condition that affects the ability to digest cellulose, so we have to avoid most fresh fruits and vegetables. We have found that cooking vegetables helps a bit, and something that requires a long cooking time (like a stew or soup) helps more.
Basically I am wondering if there are other ways besides cooking to break down the cellulose of vegetables and fruits and make them easier to digest?
I am afraid it doesn't look good. Beside heat, your best options are enzymes and high pH. High pH makes the taste unpleasant, and I don't think you can buy the enzymes needed. But maybe somebody has a good answer I didn't think of. Or maybe there is an easy source for enzymes.
Ummm, this isn't a specific condition...cellulose is indigestible by humans. It is the chief component of what we call "dietary fiber" or my Grandma called "roughage".
This question is really asking how to remove the fiber from fresh fruits and vegetables - puree and straining, juicing etc. would all do the trick.
This was what I was thinking and I googled just to double check my memory was not faulty.
Freezing fresh foods high in water content will rupture cell walls (cellulose strands) similar to cooking. I think the effect on cellulose in cooking is more mechanical in nature (water expanding causing cell wall rupturing) since based on what I could find here the heat involved in cooking isn't enough to actually breakdown the cellulose. Freezing will provide a similar mechanical breakdown.
I'm not sure of the extent of the breakdown, but an easy comparison is to look at a frozen strawberry that has been defrosted next to a fresh one.
Freezing makes plants mushy, but I think (not sure though) that it breaks the bonds between cellulose molecules in cell walls, not the molecules themselves. I'll have to research it more for a definite answer, but just comparing a fresh and a defrosted strawberry doesn't prove that there is no cellulose in the defrosted one.
Yes, that's what I was saying, though you stated it more clearly. Thank you. I didn't say that the defrosted strawberry being mushy was an example of the cellulose being broken down, but rather that it was an example of the freezing process rupturing the cell walls similar to what cooking does due the formation of ice crystals.
I use two different juicers that separate juice from fibers. A triturating juicer works on hard vegetables like carrots, turnips, beets etc.. An auger press crushes leafy vegies, celery, cucumbers etc. but requires multiple passes to maximize extraction. An old book on using mixed juices for medicinal purposes is titled: 'RAW vegetable JUICES- what's missing in your body' by N.W. Walker.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.065329 | 2011-09-27T20:01:21 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18047",
"authors": [
"AaronN",
"Megasaur",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6688",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
16946 | How to flavour iced green tea?
I'm currently making iced green tea by placing two green tea bags into 500 ml of water and moving the bags arround for 2 to 5 minutes before placing the whole mixture into the fridge in a sealed container. After a few hours I remove the tea bags leaving the iced tea in the fridge until it is wanted.
So far I have made flavoured iced green tea by either using flavoured tea bags or by adding honey and/or lemon. I would like to be able to add flavour without using flavoured tea bags and would like some ideas on other flavours to try as honey and lemon is pretty basic?
Have you tried using one green tea bag and one bag of herbal tea? There are many herbal tea sampler packs that you could get to try several flavors of tea. Since you are making iced tea, I would also recommend adding chopped fruit once the tea has chilled - I would imagine some crisp apples or even a fresh melon would add a really refreshing profile. You can even let the fruits steep in the chilled liquid, like a tea-sangria.
Another option is to create a flavored simple syrup in order to sweeten your iced tea. It's always better to use a simple syrup in a cold liquid than any kind of 'dry' sugar. Simple syrup is easy to make on the stove or in the microwave, and just add some flavors you might like while heating it. I wouldn't recommend vanilla for green tea (gut reaction), but maybe lavender, orange or cardamom?
In China, there are a myriad of different flavors of tea. Withing the green teas themselves there is allot of variety. Some teas are stronger than others. Some are sweet or bitter. Trying out different varieties of tea is a good place to start. Is there a local China town in your city where you might obtain tea? Alternatively you can source online.
Other common additions are items such as dried flowers (like chrysathiums and jasmin), some nuts and dried fruits (like dried Chinese dates), herbs (like lemon grass) and a whole range of other stuff which I just don't know the names of. Again if you can find a local Chinese supply shop or look online you should be able to order various blends to try out.
Good answer. Dried rose petals are also easily available (a friend gave me some), and work well with green tea and honey. Rosewater is another way of adding the same flavor.
To add this this - having lived in China, tea is often served cooled (not iced, as they don't really do iced tea) with Goji Berring, Daisy petals, as well as little tiny purple flowers that look like pansies (but aren't).
Ingredients often used in China to flavor green tea are the following (i've separated them in fruity and flowery depending on what end result you want to achieve):
Fruity:
- Goji berries
- Jujube fruits
Flowery:
- Osmanthus flowers
- Lavender flowers
- Chrysanthemum flower
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.065583 | 2011-08-18T08:31:05 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16946",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"HerrimanCoder",
"J Crosby",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36314",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76237",
"user3241552"
],
"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
} |
16976 | Items in freezer, including ice cubes, taste freezer burnt. Possible causes?
Items placed in my freezer take on an awful flavor that tastes a lot like freezer burn, even ice cubes. If I put items in the freezer over-night and it isn't tightly covered, this problem occurs.
With the ice cubes I can rinse them off to eliminate the bad flavor, but I'd prefer to find the root cause and fix it.
Any ideas/suggestions are quite welcome.
Freezer burn occurs when water molecules in food gather in a colder location in your freezer—whether that be the sides of your freezer or even other foods.
Tips to prevent freezer burn:
Don't put hot food directly into your freezer, let it cool first
Put your food in air-tight containers
The longer food is in the freezer the greater your chance of freezer burn
I'm going to go out on a limb though and guess that—at least with your ice cubes may just be acquiring a "freezer smell" from the other foods in your freezer. If I don't use the cubes in my freezer fast enough they end up tasting really unpleasant. Give your freezer a good cleaning and cover your ice cubes with saran wrap and this should help stop the funny smells/tastes.
The baking soda "trick" is little more than a clever marketing ploy and popular myth. Although it might absorb a very small amount of odour, it's really very ineffective.
Hmm, good to know. Seems as if using activated charcoal to control odors is a more accepted method now. http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem00/chem00388.htm
Excellent point @Vecta, I was wondering what 'freezer smell taste' was.
I'll try the activated charcoal. Thank you to everyone to contributed.
Here are some tips for preventing freezer burn:
http://www.wikihow.com/Prevent-Freezer-Burn
The most important thing is to keep the temperature of your freezer constant and as low as possible (below 0 degrees Fahrenheit).
I found out that the "freezer" taste comes from the free-on(?) used in frost-free freezer's.
Freon (a DuPont brand name, commonly for dichlorodifluoromethane aka R-12) is (a) no longer used, under the Montreal Protocol; (b) is contained inside the refrigeration system, and isn't released into the freezer compartment (and, if it were due to a leak, the freezer would cease to function); (c) the smell of freon is entirely inconsistent with freezer taste; (d) its very much a gas, even at freezer temperatures; (e) when it was used, it was used in both self-defrosting and non-self-defrosting freezers (and air conditioners, etc.)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.065840 | 2011-08-19T04:30:38 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16976",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Brian Vandenberg",
"Dominic Raj",
"Ivaylo Strandjev",
"Katey HW",
"Larry Smith",
"SnakeDoc",
"The Chef",
"Vecta",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36371",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36372",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36375",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36395",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7118",
"maj",
"rureddy88"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
45459 | How to make home made corn flakes?
I looked at the history of Corn Flakes on Wikipedia but it doesn't really tell me how I could go from raw ingredients to the final product. Should I use corn flour ? What should I do to make the final product in shape of flakes ? Should I cook it in a oven or in a pan ?
If you do try making corn flakes, you should come back and post an answer of how you did it and how it turned out. Would be interested to know!
@standgale Sure ! I think I'll try the recipe mentioned in Martin Jevon's answer very soon. When it's done I'll give a feedback and accept one of the answers.
@standgale I tested the recipe in Martin Jevon's answer. I made the mistake of buying wheaten cornflour instead of corn starch but the result turned out well. I didn't evaluate the global cost (ingredients, electricity, etc) to see how it compares to Corn Flakes from the supermarket and I doubt it saves any money, but it was fun to make !
Great, I might try it some time! Thanks for letting me know :)
I would suggest that you use corn meal, for the constituency and texture.
Here is a recipe link that I think will answer all of your questions including how to cook.
http://www.alwaysorderdessert.com/2014/03/homemade-corn-flakes-cereal.html
Back in 2009 the bbc in the uk aired a tv programme called jimmys food factory, which explored ways of making commercially produced food stuffs in a home environment. The very first episode covered the making of corn flakes.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00nk0j5
Reference 1 in your Wikipedia link, the patent, describes the process as it was in 1895.
Flakes of "corn, and other grains" appear to have been a bit of an afterthought.
The basic process is: hot soak, cook, roll, steam cook, roast dry. Looks pretty tedious to do in a home kitchen, but possible with some effort.
I didn't even think of looking at the patent. Thanks for digging deeper than me ! Like you say it doesn't seem to be a very easy process to apply at home.
@rold2007 Old patents are a great way of figuring out how something is done. Newer cornflake production methods are likely even less home friendly than the old one.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.066099 | 2014-07-10T08:14:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45459",
"authors": [
"Anomaly",
"Marie Niemeyer",
"Morais",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108323",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108325",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7169",
"rold2007",
"soaringjupiter",
"standgale"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
9434 | Is it safe to fully cook a stuffed turkey the night before thanksgiving?
If I empty the cavity of stuffing after I cook it thoroughly, and reheat the turkey and stuffing separately the next day, will its consumption be hazardous?
I wouldn't say 'hazardous', but there's additional risk.
You basically need to take the fully cooked bird, and cool it down quickly so it doesn't spend too long in the 'danger zone'. And the same for the stuffing.
Then you have to reheat them back up to a safe temperature ... the stuffing you can add extra liquid to, and make sure it gets up to the necessary temperature, but the turkey itelf is going to be difficult to reheat without drying out (maybe if it were brined it'd be better, but still less than ideal).
I'd say in all, you'd save some time the day of, but the total time spent is going to be much longer, there's an increased risk of food-related illness, and there's an overall lower quality.
If the main interest is in reducing cooking time, I'd start with not stuffing the bird. I'd also make sure that it's well thawed in advance (too many people leave it for the night before). If you really wanted to reduce time, you might be able to butterfly the bird, but it'd then be too wide for most ovens. (maybe do it on two trays?)
If it was fully cooked properly the first time there shouldn't be any problems at all. You may have an issue with reheating the turkey - not that it would be hazardous to your health, just difficult to do without drying it out or burning it. It might be better to fully carve the turkey and then reheat the meat you want to eat instead of trying to reheat the entire thing.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.066410 | 2010-11-25T02:17:26 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9434",
"authors": [
"Andris",
"Kate",
"Scott Wegner",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19307",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19308",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19348",
"m0sa"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
9592 | How do I recognize a silver utensil?
Being visually impaired, looking at the color of a utensil doesn't tell me whether it's silver or not, so I'm wondering if there are other easy ways than simply "tasting the utensil" to tell if it is silver or (stainless) steel.
I'm wondering mainly because I've understood placing silver items in the dishwasher may cause discoloration in both the stainless steel and the silver itself.
To comment on the dishwasher part, so long as the items do not touch, you should be fine. After big dinners at my parents, the left side of the cutlery rack was silver, the right stainless. Worked fine for us.
@sdg: That's good to know.
This isn't a perfect test, but a magnet won't stick to a silver utensil whereas it will stick to most other metal utensils (i.e., stainless steel).
Hmm, do be careful there. Silver is non-ferrous yes, but much silver these days is silver plate. You may well get some reaction with the magnet, so not sure that is a good test.
Not all stainless steel is magnetic. It depends on what has been added to make it "stainless". Chromium doesn't affect the magnetic nature of the iron, but adding nickel does.
@Doug You've gotten that reversed. The magnetic metals are Iron, Cobalt and Nickel. Chromium is not magnetic. I don't see how adding nickel would affect the magnetic nature of iron in stainless steel.
@Doug OK, I've done some research and I understand your point. Adding nickel and chromium to the steel makes stainless steel non-magnetic. If you add just chromium to steel, it retains its magnetic properties.
Unfortunately, not knowing the state of your utensils, answering 'silver feels rough' implies your utensils are already slightly tarnished. My recommendation is, assuming that we are referring to a limited amount of silverware that you will be using infrequently anyway, store it separately so that you have a mental organization of where the silver is.
Obviously this will not help if you are holding two spoons; one silver and one stainless in your hand. However, you likely will be able to commit to memory a sense of contrast between the weighting/balance of how each one feels in your hand and a comparison between the actual shape/design of the two.
To answer the related question: if you put PURE silver in the dishwasher with ANY OTHER METAL, it will discolor (two metals in an electrolyte cause galvanic coupling). You should also only use mild soaps. Nothing harsh (Most soaps will say "safe for silver" or something similar). If you put plated silver in the dishwasher, it can set up a galvanic reaction with itself...And it doesn't take much to wash the plating off, so you should never put plated silver in the wash.
However, if you do a silver-only load (or silver and glass), and you use a mild soap, you should have no problems.
Thanks for the tip! In actuality, I'm just gonna avoid putting anything silver in the dishwasher altogether. Mainly because I don't own nearly enough silverware to fill it up, but also because I have an aversion to the flavor/odor silver utensils give off in combinations with certain foods.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.066586 | 2010-11-29T23:24:52 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9592",
"authors": [
"AakashM",
"Cypress Frankenfeld",
"Doug Johnson-Cookloose",
"Sathiya Kumar V M",
"Tom Bowen",
"ghoppe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19628",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19671",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19793",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3550",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/835",
"oKtosiTe",
"prettysoldier",
"sdg",
"werdna3232"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
43544 | How do I clean off bread stuck to a non-flat / patterened cast iron pan?
If this was a normal pan I'd be scraping it with a metal spatula right now, but it's a custom shaped pan (for making novelty shape bread/cupcakes). There are no flat spots, just a lot of grooves and curves. Should I be using a plastic or otherwise non-scratchy tool to scrape out one part at a time, or is there some other approach?
Long soaking is your friend.
Won't even take that much soaking. Just leave it in hot water for 10 minutes or so. Then it'll come off with your standard nylon brush.
@derobert I have to admit I was thinking about burned on....
I've been told in no uncertain terms by many people to never soak a cast iron pan.
@Sparr : it's all relative ... a 30min or hour soak isn't bad ... leaving it overnight or in your sink for a week is not good. (you also have to be aware of where you soak it -- leaving it in your sink, where the back's also getting wet and staying wet isn't good, as the seasoning tends to be less developed there.
You should not use metal on cast iron or may damage the seasoning. It is best to clean it while still hot with a brush to get into the grooves and never use dish soap. Some coarse salt can help get rid of burnt on areas. Then reheat and coat with a bit of oil to protect the coating/seasoning. Patterned cast iron is difficult to season and may take more time developing a good seasoning.
As mentioned in the comments, start with a short hot soak (the hotter the water, the better, even boiling water poured into the sink is great for this). Remove the pan from the still hot water and scrub off all of the stuck-on stuff that you can using a nylon brush or a scrubby sponge . Repeat with fresh hot water as necessary until all of the big stuck-on stuff is gone. Once you get down to just little stuff, use kosher or other coarse salt to scrub it off. Do not use soap, do not use steel wool or a metal brush. Rinse very thoroughly.
NOW is when your pan is vulnerable to rust. Get it dry fast by using towel and paper towels, then stick it a hot oven (or on a burner) just until the whole pan is warm and completely dry. Lightly oil the whole pan (I use a paper towel for this), bake the oiled pan upside down at 350F (180C) for an hour. Once cool, it's ready to put away.
Get it nice and hot, nearly red hot, the stuck things will seperate and then knock it a bit to loosen anything left. But for safety, use tongs and oven mits/kitchen towels to handle it while it's hot and make sure you have some place to put it when you take it off the burner, like the sink or ceramic/stone surface, that won't melt or scorch.
And as Jolene has mentioned, a short soak with a thorough drying and re-oiling should be fine for the finer grit.
Under these circumstances, a short soak is fine, especially if she quickly thoroughly dries the pan. Your recommendation includes using a metal brush. I absolutely disagree with that, a metal brush WILL damage any seasoning she has.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.066864 | 2014-04-16T17:15:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43544",
"authors": [
"Anurag",
"Barend",
"Jim Lauck",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"One Ten Junk Removal",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Scaffold Shed",
"Sparr",
"Steve the hammer",
"corvus_192",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102052",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102091",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3564",
"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
} |
34248 | Is a seed different from a nut?
I bought a bag of cocoa beans and it is written "Nut Free" on it. I always thought seeds/beans where the same a nuts except we called them this way because there is more than one in one fruit.
So is it right or wrong to say a bag of cocoa bean is nut free ?
(Extra question) Is there any potential nut allergy with theses beans ?
There are two ways to define nuts, one botanical and the other culinary.
Botanical: It is a dry fruit containing one or two seeds, where the fruit does not open to release the seed. So, only indehiscent fruit are considered true nuts. eg. Walnut (image), pecans, chestnuts.
Culinary: A lot of seeds are called nuts even when they do not conform to the botanical definition. eg. Almonds, cashews(image).
Cocoa beans fall in neither category, so it is correct to say that the bag is nut free. Cocoa beans are harvested from a cocoa pod which is fruit like (image of cocoa pod with the seeds), so they definitely fall into the category of seeds and not nuts.
So the labelling on the bag is correct. As for the allergies, there may be people allergic to cocoa beans, but they wouldn't necessarily overlap with people who are allergic to nuts.
Every fruit and many vegetables you eat are seed carriers. That's true from acorns to zucchini and there's a huge variation of types and structures. Many tree nuts seem to be descended from a common ancestor which contain a particular strain of protein that sets of allergies, while other fruits and vegetables (including cocoa) do not.
Nuts by definition are fruits with a hard shell, cocoa beans are not in a hard shell so they cannot be nuts. Not everything with a hard shell is a nut though, for example peanuts, which are not nuts at all.
Every vegetable is a seed carrier? How are, say, leafy vegetables like spinach and lettuce seed carriers?
Reading again I didn't make myself very clear! Thanks for drawing my attention to that! I meant to say that every fruit and MANY vegetables are seed carriers. I'll edit.
In the context of the labeling, they mean "tree nut" free, as many folks are allergic to tree nuts.
Technically, cocoa nibs are seeds, but they are not nuts. I have not heard of people being allergic to cocoa but that doesn't mean they don't exist.
Botanically, all nuts are seeds, but not all seeds are nuts.
I have two friends who are allergic to chocolate (and yes, that includes cocoa).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.067141 | 2013-05-22T13:11:58 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34248",
"authors": [
"Brian",
"Carey Gregory",
"Consider Non-Trivial Cases",
"Dylan Cristy",
"GdD",
"Marti",
"Spammer",
"TRANSFERS - IN - EUROPE.com",
"Wendy",
"bound2",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79720",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79721",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79722",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79723",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79724",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79726",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79745",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79779",
"user29148"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
52139 | What should I look for in a new kitchen knife set?
We've had the same knives for a very long time now, and we need a new set. What should I look for (or avoid) in a new kitchen knife set?
Do you like your current set? What do you like/dislike about it? Is your current set a nice one? Are any of the knives damaged?
highly related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/184/67
If you have good knives that are just getting old, you may want to find a knife sharpening service and have them put a new edge on the knives. If it was a set of 20+ knives for under $40, it's likely not worth it, though.
Typically, you don't want to buy a 'set' of knives. You're better off buying the knives that you specifically want. Often, you'll want to get a mix of knives from different manufacturers, so that you can get the best knife for each purpose.
As for what to look for ... I'd have to say that the main issues these days are weight, handle, and how the knife is made:
Most knives should balance near the front of the handle. If it doesn't, you'll end up doing more work at the wrist to keep the knife in control, which will tire you out. (exceptions are small paring knives, cleavers, and maybe exceptionally long slicers).
The blade should be full tang. This means that the blade continues all the way to the end of the handle, giving it a better connection to the handle while improving the balance.
The handle should be comfortable in your hand. This will of course vary per person, as we all have different hand sizes.
The handle shouldn't be too slippery. If it is, you increase the chance of cutting yourself.
You should avoid ceramic blades unless you're specifically going to be cooking a lot of food that will discolor when cut by steel.
Now, there are some issues that are personal choice:
Most home chefs should avoid carbon steel blades. They have their advantages, but they need extra maintenance or they'll rust. If you didn't grow up using them and are used to immediately cleaning & possibly oiling your knives and can sharpen your own or have a reasonably priced sharpening service nearby, I'd recommend steering clear of them.
Many people prefer forged vs. stamped blades. Although the sign of a forged blade used to be the bolster (the thick bit of metal just before the handle), newer manufacturing techniques can add a bolster to a stamped blade. Stamped blades are thinner and more flexible, which is an advantage in boning knives. They also tend to be considerably cheaper, which is a huge advantage when you're starting out. Not all stamped blades are bad; I believe that the the Victorinox Fibox chef's knife has won America's Test Kitchen's round of tests. On the high end of forged blades are folded blades, which can be quite expensive but hold a great edge.
Knives for slicing should be fairly heavy. They shouldn't be cleaver-heavy, but you want the weight of the knife to do the work, and not have to be pressing forward with your wrist as you slice. But if you're going to be torting cakes, or other cases where you're slicing horizontally, you want the slicer to be much lighter.
The angle of the blade affects how sharp it is, but also how often it needs to be sharpened (aka. 'edge retention'). A very small angle creates a very, very sharp blade, but if you nick a bone or something hard, it's more likely to be damaged. Even just leaving the knives in the sink is risky with some exceptionally sharp knives (the weight of the knife itself can break off the tip). Japanese knives tend to be a smaller angle than European blades, but some of the European manufacturers have started putting out sharper knives. If you have the budget, you may want a variety of angles (a small angle for vegetables, a wider angle for meats)
These are all general characteritics. It's take much longer to go into details about each type of knife. See for instance What should I look for in a good, multi-purpose chef's knife? . Serrated knives are getting trickier, as there are now different types of serrations (regular, micro, wavy, etc.); even micro serrated blades (eg, Ginsu) have their advantages.
Update: I forgot to mention the personal choice 'granton edge' (dimples) or holes along the side of the knife near the cutting surface. It can reduce the amount of drag that you get when going through solid but moist foods (apples, firm cheeses, etc.) by breaking the adhesion between the food and the blade.
Also, when it comes time to buy knives, consider asking at the store if they'll allow you to test the knives; bring some carrots and apples just to get a feel for how the different knives feel in your hand when actually cutting. (if they won't allow you to actually cut something, they might still let you try chopping and other tasks on an empty cutting board.
100% agree. Not buying a set also allows you to buy better knives: buy one or two to start with, then add one or two a year or as you can afford them. That's how I ended up with my nice 'set' of Shun knives - one or two a year, particularly when I find sales, makes a $100/knife set a lot more affordable.
Far from being a mark of quality, bolsters are actually a disadvantage to my mind, since they prevent easy sharpening of the full length of the blade. As the knife gets older, you end up with a hump at the near end. (I actually filed the bolster flat on my otherwise-favorite slicer.)
@JoshCaswell : it can be a mark of quality while still being a disadvantage in some aspects. Personally, I typically tend to prefer the weight and balance that the bolster gives; if you have to grind if down for sharpening purposes, I'd take down the bare minimum necessary, only thinning it near the blade itself.
I have to agree with @JoshCaswell--the main thing I'd add to this answer is whether you want bolsters, particularly if you sharpen yourself. I can live with lots of other annoying aspects in knives, but one thing I can't stand is a dull knife. And the only way to keep it sharp is to do it yourself regularly; sending them out frequently is too expensive and annoying for me. Full bolsters are a huge pain for sharpening, and they serve no useful purpose - they could be shorter and still provide the balance Joe mentions, but few knives are made that way. So I almost always look for no bolsters.
Also, it should be noted that full bolsters are only generally a mark of quality in traditional German-style knives. Top Japanese knives (the handmade ones, but also the better mass-produced ones) rarely have them, and more manufacturers, even traditional European ones, are using them less in some sets.
Don't buy a set. You've had a set for a while, so you know which knives you gravitate to. Spend your money there. Don't waste your money on knives you don't use 'cause they look nice in the block.
They could be wanting to replace their set for any number of reasons...you can't simply assume they just "want" a new set.
You wouldn't, for example, ask them to keep their current set if it was a Ginsu or similar stamped-blade set since those cannot be reliably resharpened or if the knives were of poor quality and the handles are all cracked...many reasons why buying a new set is perfectly valid. And you did not answer the question. The question was not "should I replace?"
I totally agree here. Some people are paring knife people who never touch a chefs knife. Some people never debone meat and have no need for a specialized blade for that purpose. Some people never use a cleaver. Buy the knives you want to use. Personally, give me a chef's knife and a bread knife and I'm set.
@jbarker2160 I wouldn't ask them to keep anything. I was answering the question as written.
This may or may not answer the question - it's actually hard to tell because the question isn't totally clear. The OP asks "what should I look for (or avoid) in a set?" which could be interpreted as either "what materials/characteristics" or "what knives". If it's the latter, as I suspect it might be, this is a completely reasonable answer, although I'd probably take out the "don't buy a set" sentence.
America's Test Kitchen did a show on knife sets recently, and reported similar findings to what has already been noted here by the other commenters. I am only including this as it is technically a set, but you simply buy the components based on their own merit and not what the manufacturer is trying to get rid of/sell you.
Per America's Test Kitchen:
Wusthof Classic 3.5" Pairing Knife: $40
Victorinox 8" Chef's Knife: $30
Wusthof 10" Bread Knife: $120
Victorinox 12" Slicing Knife: $58
Victorinox 6" Boning Knife: $20
Shun Kitchen Shears: $70
Bodum Bistro Block: $50
http://www.amazon.com/Cooks-Illustrated-Kitchen-Carte-Knife/lm/R27FG2C1FMTA16
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.067374 | 2014-12-31T07:40:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/52139",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Anne Sullivan",
"Athanasius",
"Bette",
"JD Lotus",
"Japanese Knotweed",
"Joe",
"Joe M",
"Jolenealaska",
"Mr. Mascaro",
"Peggy Hearl",
"Preston",
"Ray N",
"White Glove Bathtub",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123721",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123722",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123723",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123724",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123731",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123801",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jscs",
"user3738870"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
17951 | What side dish should I have with saltimbocca?
What is traditionally the side dish you eat with saltimbocca a la romana?
I would venture to say there is no one specific traditional side dish. If you go to Italy you aren't going to see saltimbocca with a side of anything on the menu. You can pick you primi and contorni yourself. I think s very simple mixture of roasted or grilled asparagus and/or squash would be very nice.
If your wanting traditional and you are making a roman style saltimbooca (saltimbocca alla romana) You can try to pick a primi and contorni that would be common and traditional to that region. For example you can do "bucatini all'amatriciana" as a primi. With a nice fennel and orange and/or artichoke salad as a side And of course to the season it is being prepared. To me that is really what is "traditional" Italian cooking.
When I was much younger I worked at an 'authentic' Italian restaurant and I seem to recall that Fettuccine Alfredo was our standard side with chicken saltimbocca.
The Food Network's Giada De Laurentiis recommends Penne with Treviso and Goat Cheese
as a side dish with her saltimbocca.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.068019 | 2011-09-23T13:21:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17951",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
43068 | Replacement for file powder
File powder isn't sold locally. I know it is made from Sassafras leaves, but I don't recall ever seeing those locally either. What are my options for a something that is more common that I might use as a substitute?
It's a unique flavor. Plus it has the thickening power. Okra is traditional as well, but it's not a substitute. File is readily available by mail order, if that is at all helpful.
Here it is on Amazon Note, out of 21 reviews, 18 are 5 star. The remaining 3 are 4 star. Good Stuff!
File powder is mostly used for thickening gumbo, and there are two schools of thought on that (armed with shotguns and rifles, so trifle with them at your peril): file gumbo and okra gumbo.
A file gumbo is thickened with file (typically added by the diner at before eating the gumbo), as mentioned. An okra gumbo is thickened with... well.. okra.
It is possible, but not traditional, to combine the two in the same recipe.
If gumbo is your goal, consider making a an okra version.
Otherwise, if you are using it for its unique flavor, there probably is no substitution. If you are using it for its thickening properties, depending on the recipe, you might try a roux, cornstarch, or arrowroot.
For thickening,flour or corn starch would be the route I would go. And for (feelay) file substitute flavoring, I use root beer where water is called for. Hard to tell the difference if you even can.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.068138 | 2014-03-27T01:23:43 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43068",
"authors": [
"Jolenealaska",
"Phil0110",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"borderline_coder",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100750",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100751",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100753",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"pvpd spam"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
13181 | Should I "bake" a pizza stone before the first use?
I've just bought a pizza stone.
The manufacture recommend to put the stone in high temperature (220°C) for two hours before the first use.
No one on the equipment store knew why.Do you know?
Generally that sort of treatment is to get rid of any moisture the stone may have taken on during storage/handling--if it weren't kept dry, there could be moisture deep in the stone that would not be an issue in normal home use. I would expect the instructions were also that you should put the stone in the cold oven then turn it on--that would be the safest way to do the whole process, avoiding thermal shock, etc.
There might be some proprietary reason to do this also, but my vote goes to driving out deeply absorbed moisture.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.068282 | 2011-03-16T11:54:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13181",
"authors": [
"Colin Banks",
"Unihedron",
"crthompson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27331",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27335",
"vizigr0u"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
25844 | What makes creme brulee set?
I've attempted to make creme brûlée several times using different recipes. The usually result is that the custard doesn't set, and gets up too runny. I've tried adjusting the ingredients, and the amount of time I let the finished product set in the fridge.
I'm wondering what is the cooking process or ingredient that determines the consistency? Time in the oven, level or water in the around the ramekins in the oven, amount of creme/milk compared to egg yoke?
You might take a look at the answers to this question:
http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4686/does-julia-childs-creme-brulee-work
Proteins. Use enough yolk (mcgee gives the lowest workable Ratio) and heat it to at least 70 degrees Celsius.
Good question. I actually got runny creme brulee at a restaurant once...
While Rudy refers to one excellent resource, it is indeed one which the authors are quite proud of ($450 on Amazon, yikes). @Yossarian provides a much better (more economical source for essentially the same information) In his first blog post: Three Books for Every Kitchen. The New Best Recipe Book, from Cooks Illustrated (Amazon, $22.97), accurately describes the coagulation process and heat concerns (with a slightly different ratio of products) it great detail beginning on page 952.
In addition to the direct question you pose, "What makes Creme Brulee set?" to help you with your 'general frustration' in making Creme Brulee I would recommend this 3 minute video from Alton Brown's "Good Eats". I believe you will find it a useful resource.
(should the link fail: search on YouTube for "Alton Brown Creme Brulee" and you should find the video easily)
I would prefer to give an answer that doesn't involve spending hundreds of dollars, but Modernist Cuisine has a great table about the consistency of custards comparing cooking temperature to egg concentration. If you can find a copy at your local library the kitchen guide has a table on page 233, otherwise check out volume 4 page 84.
Quick synopsis: What sets the creme brulee is the egg proteins coagulating. If you were to take the weight of the liquid in the brulee and add 30% of that weight as eggs and cook it to 181 degrees F you would have a creme brulee texture. Overcook to 190 F and you have flan, undercook to 176 F and you have creme anglaise. The two main factors are egg concentration and cooking temperature.
I'm not sure I can totally agree with you RubyB due to one main point. You are dead on with the temp having a great deal to do with final consistency but a large problem with your use of eggs as opposed to egg yolk. Flan is made with whole eggs (whites and yolks) and thus the egg protein can coagulate since the bulk of the egg proteins are found in the whites. Thus you get a more rubbery consistency with the whole eggs. Any brulee recipe I have ever used has only yolks with at least a 2/1 ratio of heavy cream to whole milk. The whites contain almost double the amount of protein plus the yolks
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.068386 | 2012-08-25T01:42:00 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25844",
"authors": [
"Chellachamy Gansean",
"Chris Steinbach",
"D. Woods",
"DavidC",
"Justin R.",
"Madonna C",
"Rembly",
"awe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58755",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5878",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59292",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59298",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59301",
"rumtscho",
"user59297"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
27950 | What is 00 flour and when should I use?
I've made pasta before using 00 flour. I was about to use the same thing to make gnocci but I've noticed that none of the gnocci recipes mention the "00". Does it make a difference? Is one better then the other?
Object-oriented Flour? Wow!
@BlessedGeek, it's two 0s, not two Os, which clearly indicates elite MI6 secret agent flour. Seriously though, http://www.thekitchn.com/whats-the-deal-with-00-flour-108281.
00 is extra-fine flour, the most refined grade. Here's a useful page for more about the old flour grading system. Other than pasta I use it for thickening sauces, and I sometimes make pizza dough with it, although I can't tell the difference between using 00 and good quality bread flour. I'd use 00 for Gnocci certainly as the chefs do, but most home cooks just use plain flour and seem to get good results.
Basically, if you have it or can get it use it, if not plain flour is fine.
Shared from Book: Making Artisan Pasta: How to Make a World of Handmade Noodles, Stuffed Pasta, Dumplings, and More
TYPES OF WHEAT FLOUR Italian Doppio Zero (00) In Italy, flour is milled to various degrees of fineness from 2, the coarsest, to 000, the finest. The number of zeros is unrelated to gluten content. There is 00 flour meant for bread (labeled panifiabile in Italian), for pizza, and for pasta with gluten levels ranging from 5 to 12 percent. In the North, 00 flour produced from soft wheat (grano tenero) and relatively low in protein is preferred for making fresh pasta at home. Some pasta artisans choose slightly grainier 0 flour, and others add some durum flour or semolina for color and strength, as I do in my mix. Look for imported extra-fine Italian doppio zero flour from specialty Italian importers. Molino Caputo, a mill in Naples that specializes in slow-ground artisan flours, produces a special 00 flour labeled “Pasta Fresca and Gnocchi” that is ideal for fresh pasta but not easy to find in the United States.
I would personally recommend using flour with less protein content for gnocchi. <10%
Just a quick aside...I went to make a pie today and discovered I was out of all purpose flour, so I decided to try the 00 I had in the pantry. It's lower gluten content and fine texture made for the best pie dough I've ever made!
I was just about to say the same thing but my example was white sandwich bread. I only had half of the all-purpose flour I needed, so I made up the difference with 00. Damn but that was good loaf of bread! It's too bad that 00 is so expensive here, I'd use it more often.
You do know 00 is a fineness of grind, not a protein level....
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.068768 | 2012-10-23T01:24:20 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27950",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Bobs",
"Cynthia",
"Jolenealaska",
"Lynn",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sarah",
"Susan Ruggiero Andruskiewicz",
"Trojan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64239",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64240",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65486",
"slack1661"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
18323 | How to barbecue marinated chicken drumsticks
I'm looking for some general advice on how to do this. I've attempted this twice and they turned out OK, but the outside layer looked a little black. Everyone really liked how it turned out but I'm wondering how I can improve. This is my process:
Skin the drumsticks.
Marinate them for 20-30 minutes (we bought a bag with the flavor in it that was for this purpose).
Put the chicken on the barbecue on medium to low heat.
Flip/rotate the chicken every 5 minutes or so for a total of 25 minutes.
What kind of marinade?
Alton Brown has an interesting technique in an episode of Good Eats in quite a bit of detail.
But, what I just do is to put it on direct heat (right over a medium-high flame) to sear the skin side and then move to indirect heat (burner right below turned off, other burner still on) and cover to complete. I will admit I've burned it a couple times, but every time I do, it's cause I've forgotten to check it, and left it without checking it.
While I appreciate all the answers and they are all good, I'm picking this one because of the link to the Good Eats episode. We had a good laugh and learned some things. Thanks to all.
Use indirect heat if you don't want the chicken breasts to caramelize so much. To get a nice texture for your skins, dry the chicken pieces thoroughly in the fridge, and target a higher heat (around 350f) for the temperature of your cooking environment. How hot you have to make your fuel source depends on how well your grill convects and holds heat.
Your marinade, plus the oils dripping away from the chicken pieces, will almost certainly cause flare-ups on your grill with direct grilling. By not cooking directly above the heat source, you will mitigate the charring of your chicken pieces that would result. Plus you don't have to flip the chicken pieces so frequently, just turning them once during cooking (should be 30-45 minutes, give or take) if necessary.
Your method sounds fine - black(ish) on the outside and succulent in the middle is ideal. I think a nice crispy skin is good (except for tandoori where it should be removed) and masssaging oil in helps. You can take the skin off if you like. You may be able to improve the flavour by using your own marinade - I use a mix of garlic/onion/soy sauce/sugar/oil and vinegar, making deep slashes in the surface, for 1 1/2 hrs or so. Barbecue them for a while - 30 mins or so, high at first then turning and reduce the heat until done - increase the heat at the end if you need. Alternatively cook in the oven at 200degC for up to an hour.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.069010 | 2011-10-11T20:04:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18323",
"authors": [
"Dustin Kendall",
"GalacticCowboy",
"WaterMolecule",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39607",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39631",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7316",
"prairiechicken",
"urkele",
"user39600",
"user39631"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
18848 | How to thaw soup without noodles going mushy
I made a great vegetable soup in which I also put noodles and beans. Fresh, it was perfect. I froze most of it in small containers to thaw as I needed them. The problem is that when I thaw them, the noodles seem to get overcooked (they were "just-right") when the batch was fresh. I thaw the soup in a pot on the stove. I don't cook it exceptionally high, just hot enough to melt and warm the soup. Is there a better way to do it, so that the noodles (and to a lesser extent, the beans) won't get mushy when cooking to thaw?
possible duplicate of How can I stop the cooking in my chicken and noodle soup?. While the overcooking here happens at a different point of time, all the answers of the other question should be applicable here.
I think the answer to this question: How can I stop the cooking in my chicken and noodle soup? will help me as well.
One thing you can try is freezing the noodles and the soup or beans separately.
Instead of thawing the mix together, thaw separately. Use a frying pan with a bit of some oil on low heat to thaw the noodle. And just thaw the soup or beans in pot as you do usually.
Mix the noodle back into the soup / beans when ready.
Pasta will get softer and mushier with every heating and cooling cycle. Try a grain or rice instead.
I could, but I wanted noodles!! rumtscho posted a link to an answer which basically said that the soup to be frozen should stop cooking while the noodles are still a little firm. That way, they'll be fine on thaw/reheat.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.069240 | 2011-11-09T04:40:24 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18848",
"authors": [
"FrustratedWithFormsDesigner",
"Jo Gelard",
"PatrickM",
"dnl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40837",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7501",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
18577 | Would freezing affect the flavour of mint tea?
I have a recipe that calls for a large pot of strong mint tea. I don't have time to make the recipe these days, but I'd like to make the tea before the spearmint in the garden dies off so I can finish this later when I have time. My plan was to harvest the remaining mint (I was going to include the stems as well since by now I've already used many leaves - but would stems affect the flavour in a negative way?), brew a pot, then put it in a container and freeze it, and then thaw when necessary. Would freezing affect the flavour?
You can freeze the herb itself (in small portions, so you don't end up with a solid block of mint), but I would never use spearmint for tea. A recipe which calls for mint tea is meant for peppermint. The taste is very different.
I've used spearmint in tea (to drink). But of course, it definitely tastes different. We'd need to know the recipe to even guess if a peppermint to spearmint change would be OK.
@rumtscho: I know they taste different, I've used both for tea and I like both tastes. And since that's what I have in my garden, that's what I'm using. I hadn't thought of just freezing the mint directly. Would using frozen vs. fresh mint have a different taste? Would freezing it make it taste weaker? If using frozen or fresh mint to make the tea is the same, I think you've got a better idea there.
Some of the volatile flavors will be diminished, but I've managed to make fairly good drinks with the help of mint that I kept frozen. In my experience, freezer burn starts to become visible after two or three months, and starts to harm flavor probably around 4-6 months.
I'm not sure preparing the drink will work really well, but if you just defrost the drink in the refrigerator, it probably won't be terrible. Active thawing with heat will probably cause some harm. Many infusions and teas become a bit cloudy and lose color after bottling or freezing, which is why most bottled teas use an enzyme (not usually a listed ingredient) designed to mitigate that.
Thanks! I don't plan to let it sit frozen for more than a couple weeks. When you say active thawing would cause harm, do you then suggest I let it thaw naturally on the counter before making any tea from it? As for infusions becoming cloudy/losing colour when frozen: I'm mostly concerned about flavour, I would accept some aesthetic losses as long as the flavour is not badly affected.
I'd probably thaw in the refrigerator for safety and quality reasons, although it would take longer, but otherwise, yes.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.069418 | 2011-10-26T03:34:52 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18577",
"authors": [
"Annabelle",
"FrustratedWithFormsDesigner",
"JasonTrue",
"Tom J Nowell",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7501",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
18168 | Roasting multiple vegetables at once
I have plans to make a roasted vegetable soup. The tentative list of veggies (that need roasting) is: sweet peppers, onions, carrots, garlic, zuchini (maybe), small weird purple potatoes.
I've roasted potatoes and garlic before, but usually I do them separately, for different dishes. Ideally, I'd throw all of these in the oven and roast them at once (more efficient than one batch at a time), though I don't know if that will work: Do different vegetables need different temperatures and durations for roasting? If so, what's the optimal temperature/time?
I was very roughly estimating 375F for all of the above, for an hour, but I don't know if that will work or not. Any suggestions as to the most efficient way to roast all of these? I have a small toaster oven that can help, if it's just not feasible to do them all at once.
The carrots and potatoes need a longer roasting than the other vegetables. Also, roasting onion keeps it with a relatively "raw" flavor; if you want your onion to taste cooked and lose its sharpness, you should sweat it in oil on a stove before roasting in the case of eating the stuff roasted. If you are going to cook this stuff to a soup, don't roast the onion at all, just sweat it in the pot and then add the roasted vegetables to cook the soup.
Generally, roasting time for nonstarchy vegetables isn't that long. I would start with just the carrots and potatoes (carrots are not starchy, but they are woody and need a long time for the cell walls to break apart and soften; potatoes need some time roasting after the internal temperature has reached 70°C because of the starch). The garlic can also use a long roast, but I would cut it very fine and sweat it together with the onion. That depends on whether you prefer garlic-flavored oil infusing your soup or roasted cloves to bite on.
After the potatoes and carrots have been in the oven (tossed with a little oil) for 25-30 minutes (preferably covered, so they half cook, half roast in their own steam), I would add the tender vegetables (if you want to put the sweated onion in, that's the time for it too). Remove the cover to let the vegetables roast nicely. Then leave in the oven for another 25-30 minutes or until tender.
You won't get the strong roasted flavors of, say, a pepper roasted directly on a flame, but you will have some nicely cooked veggies. You can then cook them up for a very short time in a broth to make a soup (under a minute), or use them in other ways, for example as a side dish, or extending the recipe to become a casserole.
The two-step addition of the vegetables is important, because the tender vegetables like sweet peppers and zucchini become mushy when overcooked and dry when overroasted.
If you want to add spices, add them in the beginning, mixed with the oil. Dried herbs can also be added at the beginning, to have time to rehydrate a bit. Don't add fresh herbs at the beginning, they will wilt. Add them 3-4 min before the final dish (i.e. the soup) is ready.
Great advice! Would a constant temperature of 375 work for this method, or should I keep it high for the potatoes and carrots, then reduce it when I add the peppers, zucchini, onions, garlic?
The constant temperature should work well. You want to roast the zucchini etc. a bit, not just cook them, for that you need a somewhat higher surface temperature.
This strategy worked well, only the peppers and zucchini needed more than 30 minutes of roasting (probably closer to 50). Thanks!
I would parboil the potatoes for 5 minutes before roasting. It softens up the edges so they 'catch', resulting in a crisp outside and a fluffy inside.
I suspect that I roast smaller amounts of veggies and cut them into smaller pieces, so 25-30 min are enough for me. Parboiling the potatoes makes sense, but also requires more effort, it is up to you if you want to do it.
I roast vegetables all the time. If I am doing a roast of meat at the same time, I do the veggies at whatever temperature the meat wants. Typically an hour before we eat I put in potatoes, then 45 minutes before onions (and yes, onions can get browned and absolutely delicious when roasted), then 30 minutes before parsnips. Peppers, zucchini, eggplants etc would also be about then. They are all very tolerant about what temp they are cooked at, just needing longer for a lower temp, but they won't crisp well at 325 or even 375.
Therefore, when I take the meat out to rest, I turn the heat up to 425 to get them browned and crispy. Usually the potatoes were around the meat in the roasting dish, which I now need for gravy-making, so I put them in a new glass dish along with whatever meat fat clings to them as I take them from one pan to another. Usually the other veggies are in canola oil in separate dishes. I keep an eye on them as I do gravy etc and pull them out when they're golden. Parsnips especially can dry out and get nasty pretty quickly, but they are so lovely and sweet when they're done just right that I do parsnips pretty well every time I have a roast - at least once a month.
If you're roasting for soup, put them all in at 425 and monitor, pulling each kind of vegetable out as it is done. The potatoes will probably need the longest. At 425 the whole time, you probably need less than an hour total. Once you get familiar with the relative times your different veggies need, you can streamline the process by putting one kind in, then starting to peel and prep the next, and so on getting each vegetable prepped just in time. But to get started, prep them all, put them all in at once, and pull them as they are done.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.069636 | 2011-10-03T23:39:06 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18168",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"FrustratedWithFormsDesigner",
"Gail Lyons",
"Jambs",
"Rahul Kadukar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39239",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39240",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7501",
"maskedbacon",
"rumtscho",
"user2084795"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
28045 | How to get the correct expresso extraction amount, grind vs tamper
I'm trying to extract a double shot, e.g 60ml in 30 seconds. I always seem to go over and get 100ml+. When I use a finer grind, the coffee tastes burnt... It seems that tampering harder and using a finer grind have the same effect.
How do I know which method to use? e.g. why not use a really fine grain and not tamper at all? why not use a croase grind and tamper really really hard?
There are two things happening when you make espresso:
The pressure of the espresso machine pushes the water through the grounds faster than most other coffee-making methods. In general, the good flavours in coffee are highly water-soluble and the bitter, acidic parts are less water-soluble, so by pushing the water through the grounds quickly, you get proportionally more of the good stuff and less of the bitter.
More significantly, by grinding the coffee very finely and packing it in (tamping), the water doesn't just flow past the coffee particles, the pressure forces the water through the particle where it pushes out some of the aromatic oils which form an emulsion in the liquid.
That emulsion - the crema - is what makes espresso different from coffee, and you need both a fine grind and tamping to get it.
If you're really keen on getting this right, you could start by checking your temperature and pressure - you want ~200 F and ~9 bars.
Your extraction time (30s) is good, and so is going for a double shot, but I'm not sure what you mean by "always go over." If you're getting good crema, it should ooze out, almost like honey or syrup, and you should stop the extraction when it starts to turn whitish. If that happens in less than 30s, you should grind your coffee a bit finer and try again. If it takes more than 30s, you need to go a bit coarser.
If you still find the espresso tastes burnt, try different beans.
Making a good espresso is non-trivial. To achieve that, a lot of things must be "just right". Based on your description, I am guessing that your flow is WAY too fast. The usual culprit is that you need to grind the coffee beans finer.
As mentioned above, start with the temperature and pressure of your espresso machine. Exactly what machine are you using? Does it allow you to control the temperature? I had very random results making espresso until I bought a PID kit to control the temperature.
Of equal importance is your grinder - you need a very fine grind. Most grinders simply don't grind fine enough for espresso. A really good grinder can easily cost the same $$$ as the espresso machine.
I was mystified by the hard tamp / light tamp concept when I started out. What I learned from experience is that a light tamp is generally fine.
How much coffee are you using? I weigh mine for each shot (before grinding). I typically use 15g of coffee beans for a double shot. I adjust the grind to pull the shot in 25 seconds.
Thank you. I'm going to try a finer grind and lighter tamp. The finer grind usually scares me because its quite hard to remove all the tiny coffee particles from the portfilter once they are stuck.
I never have a problem with that. I give it a good thump to dislodge the puck (into the trash), then rinse thoroughly in the sink.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.070049 | 2012-10-26T23:41:18 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28045",
"authors": [
"Acestar",
"Beer King",
"ForeverDebugging",
"Rick G",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64490",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6629",
"jdwee",
"user64490"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
16432 | Stir fry sauce quantity
I am trying to create written instructions for making stir fry for some rather inexperienced cooks to follow. One dilemma that I'm having is describing the amount of sauce to use. How would you quantify the best ratio of sauce to vegetables? For instance, how many cups of sauce to coat 10lbs of vegetables?
If we were going to keep the sauce to reuse at a later date, I would just make a big batch and then having the cooks use their judgement on how much to use. We can't really keep the sauce, however, and I'm not sure I necessarily trust the cooks' judgement either (sadly!)
Murphy's law of cooking, part one: "If you think a dish needs a specific amount of sauce, it will actually require twice that much." Part two deals with phone calls and other interruptions only occurring during the most delicate part of cooking a dish.
Ha! Thanks. I will be sure to overestimate if that's the case.
Years later, I come back to say that 2 tbsp per 4 cups of vegetables seems to be a good rule of thumb for my tastes.
The "best" ratio of sauce depends on:
The type of vegetables;
The type of sauce;
The quantity of solid food;
Time spent cooking;
Personal preference.
I've made some stir fries with no sauce at all (technically a stir-fry only needs oil) and some with extra sauce, particularly if they're intended to be eaten with bland white rice. I know you say you can't trust their judgment, but to some degree, you're really going to have to, because there are too many variables to pin it down to a golden ratio.
At the end of the day you're trying to get an even coat on the vegetables (or meat, or whatever) - the thickness of that is again dependent on personal preference. But even if you make that decision for them, the main ratio affecting the end result isn't based on the weight of the food, or even its volume - it's based on surface area, which is nigh on impossible to measure and guaranteed to be inconsistent between specific preparations.
Stir-fry sauce is extremely cheap to make. It's pennies per cup. If you make too much, you can always cook it down, so if you have to pick a number, it's better to err on the side of caution and make too much as opposed to too little. You can always supplement the real sauce with soy sauce, teriyaki, etc., but that's not the same as a proper stir-fry sauce thickened with tapioca and flavoured with sesame oil and so on.
So pick a number that seems a little high, and instruct the cooks to let it reduce if it seems watery. They'll be using high heat, so it won't take long to reduce, and the net effect is positive anyway (a stickier, more flavourful sauce).
Personally, I always find 1 generous cup of sauce to be more than enough for a standard-size (14") wok filled with meat and vegetables, assuming it's the kind of stir-fry that you want to be reasonably "saucy", and also assuming it is thickened properly; if you dump a full cup of pure soy sauce in there, you'll just end up with vegetable soup. I literally use a coffee mug and never measure any of the ingredients, and the difference between one preparation and the next isn't particularly noticeable.
So start with that as a guideline and test the recipe yourself, if you can. Unless you have extremely precise control over the quantity and quality of the raw ingredients in addition to a precise and well-tested sauce recipe, you won't be able to come up with a reliable ratio. It's not a question of trust, just practicality; Asian cooking is (at least in my experience) very loosey-goosey and doesn't lend itself well to precise recipes - or inexperienced cooks.
Thanks for such a thorough answer. I wish there were an easy fix but I agree especially with your last statement, that Asian cooking doesn't seem to work for inexperienced cooks. The only Asian food that has come out of our kitchen that I've been pleased with have been salads. I'm determined to make this happen though.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.070311 | 2011-07-27T01:59:13 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16432",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Chester",
"Kyla Ostermann",
"Sara D Gore",
"Susan Piper",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35002",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35006",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6711",
"jedesah"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
9705 | Overwhelmed by cheese
I have been trying to improve my skills in the kitchen by watching some professional chefs on television, I have a serious problem though, many of the recipes they describe contain different kinds of cheese, I can get cheddar easily but after several disasters I have discovered that I can not replace some of the hard to get cheese discussed in some recipes with cheddar, to my surprise there are even different varieties of cheddar.
Could someone point me to a comprehensive easy to follow cheese guide for beginners? I would prefer a PDF document I can freely download and print. the guide should contain the different types of cheese, their characteristics and what they are best used for I will then use this to try and make substitutions.
I'm not sure that's the right way to go about this. There are tons and tons of types of cheeses. I'm not sure you'll find a good list of all substitutes because it will be too big to put together.
Instead, I think you need to learn about the types of cheese so that you can make an informed decision. Is a cheese blue, sharp, creamy, hard, soft? How does it melt? What part of the world is it from? Those questions will allow you to find a cheese that is similar enough to make a good substitution.
For instance, if a recipe called for Pecorino a hard Italian cheese, Parmesan (another hard Italian cheese) would make a much better substitute than goat cheese or cheddar.
So see what cheeses are available at your local store. Write down the whole list (and preferably buy some of each). Get home and do a little bit of research on each one. Where is it from? How do people describe it? Take some notes on all of this. Then, when you see a new cheese in a recipe, look it up and see how it's described. Then find a cheese from a similar area with similar characteristics, and you should be good to go.
Edit: While I stand by my approach as a great way to go about this, I did find a good resource. Cook's Thesaurus has a great list of cheeses, including substitutes, broken down by type of cheese, type of milk, hardness, etc.
Thanks, I just somehow knew you would edit your answer and provide a link, I waited, The guide I asked about will help with what you suggested. I would not expect every type of cheese to be included just enough for me to get an understanding of the more popular types, Please forgive me I am an engineer by profession so I was just thinking that the data sheet approach would help somewhat.
Aye, the answer is find the cheese requested, they all vary tremendously, substitution is not generally advisable.
@Orbling, I disagree completely. Substitution is always an option. You just need to realize what the important characteristics of the original ingredient are so that you can find those aspects in another ingredient. Cheese is no exception! Although, a variety of cheese is never a bad thing. As a wise man once said, "you can never have too much cheese because it rules."
@yossarian I am a vegan, believe me I know about the limits of substitution. Some things are chemically just too difficult to reproduce to a level where the article could be considered a substituted-variant as opposed to something totally different.
Typically when you see 'Pecorino' in recipes and it's not qualified, it's 'Pecorino Romano', and as the name has PDO status, you might try looking instead for 'Romano' in the US (which isn't always made from sheep's milk, so technically isn't Pecorino).
Thanks for complicating my example, @Joe. :op My point was: substitute hard Italian cheeses with hard Italian cheeses.
@orbling, yes, if you impose restrictions like "no cheese" it is hard to substitute for cheese. However, within the realm of actually eating dairy, there are plenty of options. Who takes cheese recommendations from a vegan anyway?!? ;o)
@yossarian Well I wasn't always thus. ;-) I meant that I am an expert on substitution, due to the nature of my diet being a continuous exercise in the art. Cheeses come in such a wide variety, similar cheeses can be substituted but the OP stated "to my surprise there are even different types of cheddar", at that level of knowledge regarding cheese, I didn't want cottage cheese substituted for parmesan! ;-)
Umm. next time you're at the store go to the cheese counter and talk to the person behind the counter. Way easier than using a guide, and chances are you'll get free samples which is always a good thing.
Mmm... Wegman's cheese section...
Please be mindful of the fact that not every one lives in the United States or Europe, There are no such things as cheese counters where I live, If I ask at a supermarket where I live for Mozzarella I will likely get a blank stare. Here we are on our own.
Get yourself a copy of the Cheese Primer:
It was written by Steven Jenkins, the cheese buyer over at Fairway, a grocery store in New York that has an absolutely insane cheese department. It has chapters on each of the different categories of cheese along with detailed listings of the most commonly available kinds in each category. There are also sections on storing cheese, cutting cheese, and if I remember correctly, even a diatribe against the "parmesan" "cheese" that comes in a green cylinder.
Thanks, Very nice answer, I certainly will buy this, In the meantime I will be scouring the web for something in addition to the link provided by yossarian.
The secret is to taste. With cheese, with wine, with beer, with barbeque sauce, you've got to taste it. I wander through the store, and I get excited when I see something I haven't had before. That's how you learn foods. Get out there and try different things. Work your way through your local cheese counter, buying every kind of cheese they have. Never let the old woman with the plateful of samples pass by unmolested. Eat some raw. Melt some over toast. Mix some with your eggs. Look online, and find recipes that feature that cheese. Make fondue out of it, and raid your fridge, and dip some of everything you find into the fondue, and taste, and ponder.
In a short time, you'll get a good working knowledge of cheese. In a longer time, you'll get a sense, a feel for cheese. After that, if you've a passion for it, you'll start seeking rarities, and you'll find yourself standing there with a quarter wheel in your hand, sniffing it, and building a whole meal around it in your head.
There is really no way to know without tasting it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.070640 | 2010-12-02T17:40:57 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9705",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"John David",
"Marti",
"Orbling",
"Simmerdown",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"l3win",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
9414 | Is there a device that can be used to grate coconut and sweet potatoes electrically?
Does anyone know of a tabletop device that can grate coconut electrically? I love coconut products but most recipes call for grating the kernel which I do not like to do, it is a hard job, sometimes bits of my skin end end up in the grate. Long ago my brother made what he called a coconut mill by wrapping and fastening a nail punched tin plate around a cylindrical wooden block and then attaching a shaft through the block with a hand crank at one end he then attached the shaft through bearings fastened over a box for catching the finished product which was milled by pressing the coconut kernel between a narrow gap made by a rigid piece of material and the milling block and turning the hand crank.
I know many will say just use a blender but a good amount of people warn me not to blend coconuts for making the products of interest, they also warn me not to blend sweet potatoes for the famous sweet potato pudding the Caribbean people love so much, so the above device could be used for grating sweet potatoes for puddings as well,
I have searched a lot but can not find any electrical device that will give the same result as grating, is there something that can do this that I am not aware of?
If nothing exist I may have to use my brother's idea with an electrical motor and control to invent something.
How about cutting into slices and using the grater blade for a food processor?
Did you try a good cheese grater? Although fow sweet potatoes I'm affraid it'll not work.
It's not electrical, but what about a mandoline with a julienne blade? It's pretty easy to get "grated" consistency from that, unless you're going for the really fine pulp-like consistency. And most of the good ones have a top piece that you can use to hold the thing you're grating, so there's no danger to your hands.
Google Search Warning Several sites reccomend the Anjali coconut scraper I found all pages were the product or its images are infected by a Trojan.
@beli: I think your antivirus is overreacting, most of the sites I visited are fine. Static images can't be infected either.
@Nick No problem. I collected ten insects from Indian pages in my quarentine box in two minutes.
@Nick : static images can be infected, such as PNG , TIFF and JPEG
If it can grate a hard cheese, it can grate a coconut. I have a grating attachment on my kitchen aid that works great, but you can also use the grating disk on your food processor as justkt stated above.
Or if you REALLY use a lot of coconut and want the ultimate unitasker, you can buy an electric coconut grater. http://www.pioneercreativekitchenaccessories.co.uk/coconutgrater.htm
I just don't use that much coconut personally.
did you mean unitasker there?
We use coconuts here like the Italians use pasta, thanks for the link.
@Simmerdown, yes thank you! At least someone is paying attention. :)
I regularly use my food processor for grating, and the only issue is that at the end of each chunk of (whatever), it'll often get sucked in between the lid and grating disk, without actually getting grated. For cheese and such, it helps to slow down when you've still got about 2 cm / 1 inch left, and use the next chunk to push, as it'll have more friction than against the plastic from the pusher for the feed tube. You'll still end up with the problem on the last one, but it saves me time having to stop to clear it between each chunk being fed in. (it's particularly messy w/ cheese)
Seems like the like doesn't work anymore
Check this out:
Presto 02910 SaladShooter Electric Slicer/Shredder
I haven't used it personally, but two of the top 3 reviews mention using it for grating both potatoes and coconuts. There's also a "professional" version that's probably a bit more versatile/reliable.
Considering how silly the idea sounds, it seems to have gotten some pretty rave reviews and is also inexpensive. So give it a try maybe?
You need to get a KitchenAid stand mixer. Then you can get the slicer/shredder attachment that will do all that you desire and more.
Yes, I know it's a large expense. I'm even going to tell you to get the heavy duty one (I bought a 500 and eventually gave it to a friend and got the 600) because it will last you forever and you can use it for everything.
I make all of my bread in it. I make cole slaw. I make pasta and noodles. And, yes, you can grate coconut. If you have it you will use it nearly every day (assuming you cook that much).
To defray the costs some, you can pick up a refurb one from KitchenAid directly. What they have varies, so you can check back for the model you want. http://www.shopkitchenaid.com/sub_category.asp?HDR=outlet&CAT=outletrefurb
Or REALLY defray the costs and get someone(s) to buy it for you. But be specific. You want at least the 5 quart, not Artisan, model...6 quart is better.
These seems more than a little bit overkill. Yes, stand mixers are great versatile tools if you can spare the expense and the counter space; this guy just wants to grate coconuts. It's like recommending a propane torch to light a few birthday candles.
A propane torch would get around the problem of matches burning down while lighting lots of candles.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.071494 | 2010-11-24T17:28:29 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9414",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Burhan Ali",
"Chef Matt",
"Clockwork",
"Dr. belisarius",
"FoodTasted",
"Joe",
"Mark",
"Nick T",
"Simmerdown",
"Stew",
"Ward - Trying Codidact",
"harold a piguet",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19265",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69573",
"justkt",
"l4r3nZu"
],
"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
} |
23245 | What are some alternative uses for bread heels?
I often buy bread loaves at the store and use them for sandwiches, french toast, etc. I don't particularly like using the heels for those purposes though, because of the texture and taste - heels don't make for a good sandwich, they can't absorb the eggs for french toast, and they get way too crispy for regular toast (and don't soak up butter!). This means that I end up with dozens of leftover heels.
I hate throwing away food, so... what are some alternative uses? Is there any good use for leftover bread heels?
Sounds an awful lot like a list question, which SE usually discourages. I don't know how Cooking feels about them though.
Even so: Make croutons.
Bread crumbs - dry them and grate them
Bread dumplings - some recipes, like serviettenknödel, work well with crust (for softer heels)
Crispbread - cut them into rectangles, and toast them for a long time in a low oven. use to serve cheese (for more chewy heels)
Bread-thickened soups, such as sopa de ajo (for softer heels).
Feed birds or ducks
I've always found that if you ever use breadcrumbs for much of anything significant, you can save all the heels you want and still never make enough breadcrumbs. You might not need to go past the first item in the list!
You generally shouldn't feed bread to birds. It'd bad for them
Try making panzanella of some sort: stale, hard bread becomes quite nice if you chunk it up (I used a meat tenderizing mallet) and soak it in tomato, olive oil, basil, onion, etc. As you might expect, this is pretty versatile - we typically use whatever fresh herbs we have on hand, you can play with different types of oils and vinegars. 101 Cookbooks even had a rather interesting strawberry panzanella recipe I intend to try the next time our strawberries aren't immediately eaten fresh.
Oh, nice! I knew I was forgetting something from my list.
Think about what type of bread applications benefit from those qualities that you listed.
Take crouton for example. A lot of people enjoy croutons that are crunchy so the heel can be made into terrific croutons.
Use them to make bread pudding. You can add raisins and/or apples.
Receipe by Craig Claibourne published in the NYT Cook Book:
Preheat oven to 375°F.
Scald (not boil) 3½ cups milk. While milk is heating, break bread heels into pieces, and place in a bowl. When milk is scalded, add add ¼ cup butter. When melted, pour over the bread heels that you have broken into pieces.
Soak for 5 mins. While soaking, butter a baking dish.
Add ½ cup sugar and 2 eggs. Add cinnamon, nutmeg, and mace to taste. Add raisins, apples, or other dried fruit.
Pour mixture into buttered backing dish and bake until knife comes out clean, about 1 hour.
Enjoy!
Put it in a container with brown sugar to keep the brown sugar soft or to soften it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.071961 | 2012-04-21T19:44:27 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23245",
"authors": [
"0xFF",
"Carla Lynn Tate",
"Cascabel",
"Dan J",
"Danny Taylor",
"Dusan Bajic",
"Flimzy",
"FuzzyChef",
"Jeyanthan I",
"Marc",
"NBenatar",
"VincentCrete",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52604",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52605",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52606",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52654",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61394",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61484",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61493",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"njuffa"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
52301 | substitute beef for lamb?
I have a lamb pinot noir sauce recipe that I use for lamb chops all the time.
I would like to use with short ribs instead.
can I merely substitute beef stew meat for the lamb stew meat, and be done with it, adjusting cooking times and seasonings to taste
You're fine substituting stew meats for one another, but exchanging lamb chops for beef ribs would mean a different shape that could affect cooking time. Can you clarify what cuts you're asking about?
The meat is cooked separately from the sauce
So the sauce contains lamb stew meat, which you'd like to substitute with beef stew meat, and is served alongside the ribs/chops?
Yes, on top,of the short ribs
As stated by Logophobe below, you can of course substitute ingredients as you like. I personally find subbing beef for lamb or vice versa a bit risky though.
Lamb in general has a much milder taste of itself and thus requires a sauce and other accompanyments that do not overpower the taste of the meat. In your case this could mean that the sauce will be too weak as an accompanyment to beef.
In a case such as this and not knowing the actual recipe I would suggest replacing the Pinot Noir with a somewhat more fragrant red wine (a new world Merlot low on tannines should do nicely). You could also make the sauce more rounded by adding some crushed juniper berries.
Should you want to stick to your original recipe, you might try just reducing the sauce a little more than you usually would.
i switched out the Pinot Noir for malbec (we don't buy merlot), and made the sauce this morning. it came out really quite good, but also quite dry. will see how well it serves tomorrow, after finishing it.
Malbec is a risky sauce-wine as it can get quite harsh in taste as you reduce it. You can of course always always take off some of the liquid and whisk it with frozen butter to give it a more smooth taste and texture.
yes, it was definitely drier than I expected. it will get finished with butter -- good idea!
Yes, yes you can.
If you're adjusting cooking times, seasonings, and other factors, you can make whatever substitution you want to a recipe. Culinary purists might sneer at you but there will be no legal, regulatory, emotional, or philosophical consequences. Just don't mislabel the end product (i.e. call it a "lamb sauce" even though it's made with beef now) and be sure you follow all relevant food safety regulations, especially if you're serving this to the public in a restaurant.
Other than that, have fun and substitute away.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.072238 | 2015-01-05T18:32:38 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/52301",
"authors": [
"Adriann Surratt",
"Delynn Plott",
"Diane Rosalimsky",
"Finn O'Connell",
"Julitta Good",
"Richard ten Brink",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124176",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5373",
"logophobe",
"rbp"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
17393 | Why does my red wine reduction go 'grainy'?
After frying some meat, say beef or lamb, sometimes I want to make a red wine reduction.
After lifting the meat out of the pan I turn the heat down to low and add the wine. The wine tends to bubble furiously and reduces quickly. I quickly try to scrape the meat remnants as it goes.
Trouble is, the sauce ends up looking grainy with dark spots in the sauce, and it tastes bitter.
The wine is always wine I wouldn't mind drinking.
I think that you should strain your reduction through either a coffe filter or cheese cloth, if you have it. That would take care of the little bits of food still in ther and leave you with a clear smooth reduction.
The other issue that you mentioned is that the reduction is left tasting bitter. This would most likely be a result of your fonde being burned to the pan. There is a difference between having a nice fonde in your pan and having charcoal. I would try to sear the meat for a couple minutes on each side, remove it from the pan and finish it in the oven. Then deglaze your pan.
Thanks, I think you're right about the bitterness, but most chefs can cook a steak just on the hob, right?
@Dan Gravell: Once the sear is done, the temperature in the pan can fall, and thus won't burn the fond. Also, depends on how thick your steak is—if its thick enough that a couple of minutes on each side doesn't cook it, or alternatively you want it cooked beyond medium rare, definitely best to finish it gently in the oven.
@Dan: This absolutely is most likely to be the source of bitterness. If the fond doesn't taste good on its own -- if it's blackened/burnt -- it won't make a good sauce. You might want to taste the fond before adding the liquid, and you may just have to let it go sometimes.
Thanks both. I'll change my steak cooking technique to be sear then lower the temp and see if the fond is less incinerated. My steaks are normally ~1 inch thick but lamb loin chops etc could be larger, leg steaks thinner...
I have to wonder if you are using a wooden utensil to 'scrape the meat remnants'. If so, stop using wood. The wood will char and leave bits in your sauce, creating the bitterness. Try slowing down the process a bit and using less heat, at least initially as you deglaze the pan. The graininess could be charred bits of food which are burned before they are loosened from the pan surface; this could account for the black spots too.
Cooking is love, and love doesn't hurry.
:)
Yes, I do use a wooden spatula. I'll try with a silicon one. I'm torn about the charred food though, I thought it was expected there was some charred food, that's why you deglaze, no?
Well, you kind of want to deglaze before you turn up the heat to reduce your liquids. What I do often is when the cooked food has been taken out of the pan, take the pan off the burner, put the deglazing liquid in the pan, wait just a bit for the stuck bits to soften, scrape everything up, then put it back on the burner.
@Frankie that's some good advice! Good to know
@Frankie thanks for that advice. My technique in this area is still developing, so my understanding of the subtleties of deglazing are limited.
Once you've added liquid to the pan, you are very rapidly cooling it to less than the boiling point of that liquid. I'm not sure how you're burning wood at that point. (And, its never happened to me, and it seems like it'd be really noticeable were your spoon burning)
There's no way that wood is burning and affecting the sauce just by being used to scrape a pan. Does the spatula have blackened, missing bits every time you do this? Heat up a pan, put a wooden spoon in, and notice how long it takes to even smoke, let alone "char and leave bits". derobert's point about the boiling liquid is also right on. @Dan
@jscs No, there are no blackened spots, but the spatula may be old and may drop some wood fibre. Although I am inclined to think the bitterness is simple food (fond) that has overcooked and burnt through high heat. My old techniques (this is a decade old post!) for searing meat tended to be a bit on the clumsy side, and viewed it as "the hotter the better" - I'm a bit subtler these days.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.072486 | 2011-09-01T20:12:58 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17393",
"authors": [
"Alnitak",
"Ankur A Sharma",
"CodeAngry",
"Dan Gravell",
"Elle",
"Frankie",
"Rose",
"chrisjlee",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37363",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37366",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37425",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7269",
"jscs"
],
"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
} |
15656 | Why is there so much baking soda in scones?
I am a German living in Australia and I am generally quite happy with Australian food.
However I do not understand why there is so much baking soda in scones. One would buy self-raising flour and even add more of the raising agent.
I wonder, if there is a reason for that other than the taste. Does baking soda preserve food especially well under certain conditions?
Or were scones historically just eaten with a dish, that needed to be contrasted by the flavour which some describe as soapy, slight spicy or salty?
Can you post / link to an example? I wasn't aware that Australian scone-eaters were excessively fond of soda, and the first few search results don't turn up anything unusual. And remember Sturgeon's Law: you may just be encountering the 90% of Australian bakers who don't actually know what they're doing...
@Knives, I've looked into some scone recipes and it seems that they recommend less baking soda than is used by the people around me. As @rumtscho said in his answer, the amount of baking soda used is a bit unusual if you are used to shortcrust, puff pastry or yeast dough. Wikipedia says that scones really became what they are now with the cheap availability of baking soda.
When I made scones for the first time, I also found the taste a bit unusual. The recipe I used specified a total of 11 g baking powder and baking soda per 250 g flour, and also 5 g salt. I used less salt, but the taste is definitely unusal for people accustomed to continental Kleingebäck.
I can see two reasons for this. First, the dough for scones is quite unusual, something between cookie and pastry. It is a lot tougher than the usual soda-leavened dough. So I guess that it needs additional leavening power in order to create a light texture, unlike the semiliquid batters which raise without a problem. Plus, it gets no help from egg whites the way some cakes do (in fact, my recipe specified egg yolks only).
The second point is one you already mentioned in the question. It seems that the English tradition is to eat scones with cream and jam. I tried it with my own scones, and the combination was quite good. I don't eat much jam, as it is too sweet for my taste, but the pairing with the bland scones was really nice. A sweeter or richer vehicle would have made the whole thing overwhelming.
I would vote you up if I could. It sounds reasonable that you need more baking soda if there are no eggs in scones. I'll try to do my own ones with a "Kleingebäck" amount of soda and see if they are different in taste.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.072861 | 2011-06-21T02:49:53 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15656",
"authors": [
"Amelse Etomer",
"Colin Desmond",
"Katie",
"Shog9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"verpfeilt"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
34212 | Curious mold growth in a sealled BBQ, how does one avoid it?
When finished cooking with the BBQ and cleaning the grill, I leave it running for a bit then shut off the intake and cap the exhaust (it's a Big Green Egg).
At this point the BBQ is essentially sealed and with temperature being above 300F everywhere inside, presumably sterile. It cools down naturally over time with practically air-tight conditions.
However, in a couple of weeks there is visible mold on the grill. The question is:
How can this happen?
Are others experiencing this, is it 'normal'?
How do you prevent it?
Mold is growing because there's something for it to consume, the only way to prevent it from happening is to clean your grill more effectively, or carbonize it before the fire goes out. No grill is air-tight, so even though it gets a good heat blast (not enough to sterilize it as you may think), spores will get in from outside. Remember, hot air is less dense, so as the BBQ cools it will draw air in, hence the spores. Once there they thrive in the sheltered and often damp conditions in a closed-up barbecue.
I think where you may be going wrong is that you close the valves after cooking. That cuts off the air and kills the fire. I leave all my valves open to keep it as hot as possible after I'm done cooking, and it does a better job of charring all the leftovers.
After the Big Green Egg is COMPLETELY cooled down, put a container of DampRid on the grate. We kept our BGE outside all winter and spring with the cover on it (and a 10 oz. container of DampRid sitting on the grate) and did not have any mold inside it when we opened it last week (June) for the first time since last summer. Last year we had a lot of mold inside it every time we used it.
It wasn't a cleaning issue the grill is spotless.
It takes a very long time to cool so it stays in the danger zone nearly forever and a little air coming in through the gates (Per GdD) will condensate on the grill making it ideal conditions for the mould.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.073081 | 2013-05-20T13:14:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34212",
"authors": [
"Abion47",
"Clock Slave",
"Gloria Brandl",
"Vinícius M",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107420",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81142",
"rughooker",
"samsungrepair"
],
"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.