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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
23472 | Baking batter-covered chicken instead of frying?
Yesterday I made Sweet Chicken according to this recipe: ding!
It was very good. However, I really don't like making and eating deep fried food, so I figured I should try oven-baking the chicken. But I'm afraid the batter will "drip" down from the chicken, or that it won't turn out as crisp.
Do you have any tips/approaches I can take while trying this?
Thanks!
Possible Duplicate: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/14600/8305
Is it still crisp with the sauce covering everything?
Yeah, since the sauce is thickened, and there isn't much of it to begin with. (but you still taste it)
I can understand not wanting to fry. Batter reacts differently to the temperature and airless environment of frying than it does to the hot air filled oven and baking process.
I would and often do this:
Get some stale bread and make breadcrumbs using a food processor: turn oven on low. Cut or break up bread. Put bread in food processor and pulse until crumbs. Turn off oven. Put crumbs on cookie sheet, set in oven to dry. They won't burn because the oven is now turned off.
Get three plates; on one put an egg wash, on the second put seasoned plain flour, and on the third put the breadcrumbs seasoned with herbs.( I typically use parsley, sage, rosemary and thyme.)
Dip the chicken in the egg wash, then the flour, then egg wash, then crumbs. If you have time, refrigerate, and then after half an hour or so, do egg wash and crumbs again. The egg and flour blend to give a sticky batter-like base for the crumbs to mix with. If you're rushed, just repeat the egg and crumbs again straight away. The chicken can then be baked in the oven for 30 minutes or until ready. It's lovely!
I will try this. Is is neccessary to use home-made bread crumbs? or can I just use store-bought?
I may be off base here, but Wondra Flour is the first thing that comes to mind. Its’ an instant flour aka pre-cooked. You could really cut back on the liquid in order to make a drier batter and use an egg and a little milk/water and other desired seasoning.
Use two bowls, one for dried Wondra Flour, the second for the batter. First toss the chicken in dried Wondra Flour, then into batter, pull out then back into dried flour. You will have to experiment a little to get the right combo, just keep in mind you can always rinse off the chicken and try again. Using an Oil Spray Bottle spray the back then put on racked baking sheet spraying the top. Halfway through the cooking process, you will need to turn over the chicken pieces as moisture will accumulate on the bottom. This also works best in a convection oven. If you are heavy on the oil spray, you are defeating the purpose of oven baking, so keep it light. Also, you may want to cut the chicken in larger pieces to give the batter a chance to brown.
If your supermarket doesn't carry it, just go to customer service and requested they start to carry it. You may have to talk to a Manager, but they usually will order it in. There is always online.
sounds very interesting! though I doubt I'll find this Wondra Flour where I live.. (Israel) Do you know of any online store that ships internationally?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.073290 | 2012-04-30T12:32:13 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23472",
"authors": [
"Itamar Marom",
"Jay",
"Lucas",
"Mien",
"Paul Ray",
"Peter Vogopoulos",
"annie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"spacethought"
],
"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
} |
92014 | How to prevent large rice noodle from curling?
Today I cooked big rice noodles with chicken in oyster sauce, Thai style. It was very delicious.
I had not fresh, but dried noodles (photo not mine).
In order to make it right, I needed to first cook the noodles in boiliing water for 2-3 minutes before actually stir-frying it, otherwise it would stay tough. But the instant I poured boiling water over it, all the nice rectangular sheets of noodles curled into noodle straws. How would I prevent that?
It might be from hydrating on one side only ... I'd try slowly dropping them (from the edge) into the hot water, and see how that behaves
@Joe: Instead of dropping the noodles into the boiling water, I actually poured the boiling water ON the noodles, so you might be right.
I would cook those noodles the same way I prepare wrappers for spring rolls - having a large pan of almost boiling water, and slide the noodles gently into the pan.
I ate those kind of noodles as you showed once many, many years ago and IIRC those noodles taste like dried Pho noodles and have the same texture. To stir-fry your noodles I suggest to soak them in cold or at maximum luke warm water first1 and then stir-fry the softened noodles. Due to pre-soaking, hopefully there should be no uneven hydration and thus, no curling.2 I've seen many people preparing Pho, Hu Tieu or sti-fried Pho that way without any curly noodles.
Depending on how thick your noodles are you might have to blanch the noodles before stir-frying.
1 For 30 minutes? I never paid attention to the time. They don't get mushy if soaked longer.
2 YMMV: Another advantage: You might be able to prepare the noodles beforehand, so no blanching directly before stir-frying or having sticky noodles if not fried immediately.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.073678 | 2018-08-31T17:54:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92014",
"authors": [
"Armen Tsirunyan",
"Joe",
"John Feltz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
23675 | "Banging" cookies half way through baking
So I found a recipe for cookies which calls to "Bake the cookies for 10 mins, taking the tray out halfway through and banging sharply on a work surface covered with a couple of tea towels - this dispels the air, making lovely squidgy cookies." (Source)
Is this sound advice?
squidgy, adj:
moist and pliant; soggy; unpleasantly damp
I guess it would...collapse them? Could be tasty, though I suspect the same ends could be achieved through underbaking...
Underbaking isn't quite the same thing as taking out air. It's probably a lot like reducing the leavening.
I wonder why the recipe would call for baking powder and soda and then add a step to reduce their effect.
The soda and powder help to give the cookies spread, not only to gain volume.
Based on the recipe, it seems that the intended result here is for a denser, chewier cookie. If you were able to perform this percussive therapy maneuver in exactly the method desired by the recipe-writer, then yes, it would knock some of the air out of the cookie, and collapse its structure a bit. I think that this maneuver would be difficult to perform precisely and repeatedly. Also, you'll have lots of variation in cooking time, as you have to open the oven halfway-though which lets lots of the warm air escape from the oven.
Instead of the "bang", just introduce less air into the cookies during the initial preparation. The easiest thing to do would be to under-cream the butter, peanut butter and sugar.
Good idea - the chewy cookie recipe I used once didn't cream at all, it used melted butter.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.073852 | 2012-05-09T19:24:13 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23675",
"authors": [
"Adele- Nexus of Potlucks",
"Cascabel",
"Kevin Carmody",
"Sandra",
"Sobachatina",
"Valentino Grisolia",
"brian",
"dave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118958",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53645",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53647",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53663",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9210",
"mrwienerdog",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
39444 | Pressure cookers -- why are they good at things normally cooked at low heat?
Can someone please explain why pressure cookers are recommended for recipes that normally require low heat (about 180F). Normal recipes for braises, beans, stock, etc suggest cooking them as low and slow as possible, ideally without reaching the boiling temperature of water. I don't have a pressure cooker yet, but I hear it's great at "low-slow" type dishes. The part I find confusing is how does it achieve good results at a higher temperature (250F). If 180F is better than 212, wouldn't 250F make the braises tough and dry and make the beans burst?
I am thinking of getting a pressure cooker for beans. Do beans simply take less time to cook, or do they actually come out better in a pressure cooker?
Related question that might be interesting for OP: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5873/what-types-of-cooking-are-pressure-cookers-most-useful-for?answertab=votes#tab-top
Braises are, by their very natures, cooked to well done. They achieve an internal temperature well above 165 F which will make every meat well done.
Please see:
Why would a pressure cooker shorten a braise time?
for a detailed discussion on how the collagen to gelatin conversion takes place over time, and is made faster in pressure cookers.
The fact that the cuts that are suitable for braising are exactly the ones that allow the slow conversion of collagen to gelatin is what makes the pressure cooker suitable.
The real issue with cooking braises low and slow in the conventional oven is that at sea level, the internal temperature cannot get very high, so you need time for the gelatin to collagen conversion to take place. There isn't much point in raising the oven temperature higher than required to allow the time for this conversion, and it prevents overcooking or drying out the outside of the food while the conversion takes place. The meat will still be quite well done; it is only moist and succulent because of the melted fat, and the gelatin lubricating the meat fibers providing that slow cooked unctuousness.
In a pressure cooker, the ceiling temperature is raised, so the time can be shortened. The inside of the food is still quite well done. No loss to quality (since the food would be well done anyway), but a much shorter time.
If the food was not suitable to be cooked well done, the pressure cooker would be far from ideal, as it would certainly overcook the inside of the meat.
Note also that you have listed two special cases where foods are cooked at lower temperatures to avoid agitation (from the bubbling and boiling of the water), rather than because of issues directly related to time and temperature:
Stock. Stock is cooked at a simmer to avoid the turbulence and circulation from the bubbling and boiling leading to more dissolved, emulsified or suspended particles in the final product. That is, the goal is to keep the stock clear instead of cloudy. If you are not concerned with this aspect, it can be cooked at a full boil.
Beans are cooked slowly for several reasons, of which the main one is convenience. Cooking them at a full boil would require more attention (so they don't burn on the bottom), and is not terribly feasible in an oven, which is the easiest way to do them. Also, by cooking below the boil, there is less agitation in the pot, and so less splitting and sloughing of the bean skins, which some people find less than pleasing.
In the pressure cooker, you will not get this kind of agitation, because once the pressure is achieved and the food is at equilibrium, it is not going to be going at a full boil, but more of a simmer, but a much higher temperature simmer than is possible at sea level pressure.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.074045 | 2013-11-14T16:20:18 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39444",
"authors": [
"Canned Man",
"EZ Ranking SEO spam",
"Karen H",
"Mien",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91566",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91567",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91569",
"shane price"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
23734 | What is the standard amount (if there is one) for a "glass" of wine?
I have seen wine poured to various amounts in a wine glass; what amount is generally considered standard...4 oz, 6 oz, 8 oz?
It comes from two different measurements, typical wine bottle size, and government alcohol regulations
Typical wine bottles are 750 ml, and this divides exactly into five or six servings of 150 or 125 ml (thanks peter). So many traditional wine glass serves are "exactly" 150 or 125 ml (~5 or 4 oz) depending in which country you live in
For typical government regulation, a standard drink is; a 100 ml glass of table wine, or a 330 ml can of beer, or a 30 ml glass of straight spirits. Each of these contains on average 10 g of alcohol. So many liquor licensing guidelines recommend the serving of wine by 100 ml (3.5 oz) standard drink sizes
Governments will use this to produce such amazing guidelines such as:
For women: Two standard drinks a day, and no more than ten standard drinks a week
For men: Three standard drinks a day, and no more than fifteen standard drinks a week
And for both at least two alcohol-free days every week
In most western countries the standard drink range is from 8 to 12 g of alcohol, except in the USA where it is super-sized to 14 g
Update; references from ICAP
Standard drink sizes
Drink Guidlines
Thank you TFD. A family friend who does not drink alcohol at all and additionally is apprehensive about consuming any substance in even the smallest amount, was advised by his physician to "drink a glass of wine each day". He really has no idea how much is appropriate. So the 750 ml bottle/ 5 -5 oz servings that you mentioned makes good sense to share with him so that he is comfortable with the doctor's orders. Thanks for the detailed reply and helpful information :)
It's worth noting that not only is the size of the standard drink different depending on the country, the recommended intake is often different as well. For example, in Finland the standard drink is 12g or 15.2mL of alcohol, whereas in the US it's 14g or 17.7mL (for men). But the maximum recommended weekly intake in the US is 14 drinks or 247.8mL, whereas in Finland the maximum weekly recommended intake is 24 drinks or 364.8mL (for men). So this is often a confusing issue.
Wait, he was told by his physician to drink a glass of wine a day? Clearly I have the wrong doctor!
For restaurant pours, it's also worth noting that this varies pretty significantly by region and current trend. For example, San Francisco is currently in a $12, 9-oz-glass-of-wine mood.
@Melanie I don't drink either. Suggest you get your friend to go to another doctor for a second opinion. Alcohol is a strong physical and mental poison, there must be something simpler? Aspirin, Warfarin?
@TFD This man is critically ill& this is just one of many advisements given him by his treating physician(s).He's remained in pain& lacking mobility-due to fear of medicine- contributing to depression. (He recently began takingbaby aspirin) This causes dismay& concern for his spouse& friends. Ive heard other physicians suggest that red wine is actually good for us(most) due to high anti-oxidants-believed to be crucial in cancer prevention.This man's undergone surgery& chemo. I believe his HC team is searching for options to renew his strength& ability to fight against a cancer relapse.
I think the effect of antioxidants is speculative, but there is evidence that consuming alcohol (any type) in small amounts reduces the risk of heart disease, stroke, and possibly diabetes: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/1059/is-alcohol-beneficial-in-small-amounts
I think that in the UK the standard size of a glass of wine is 125ml. I certainly picked up from somewhere the notion that a 75cl bottle is 6 glasses.
@TFD: alcohol can be a strong poison, sure. Warfarin, on the other hand, is the traditional pesticide against mice and rats... Remember, everything is poison, it just depends on the dose. Plus, medical advice on the Internet: plain wrong...
@nico that was "strong physical and mental poison". Warfarin does not cause significant mental changes :-)
One glass of wine probably won't cause significant mental changes either, unless you're rather light or deficient in certain enzymes. :P
@TFD - Comparing Warfarin and aspirin to wine in moderation is absurd. Warfarin is highly dangerous and requires continuous monitoring; aspirin is only somewhat less dangerous. Wine (red) in moderation, on the other hand, is not only harmless but has proven beneficial qualities. Suggesting Warfarin and aspirin over a single glass of wine per day not only makes no sense medically but is downright irresponsible.
@CareyGregory I think you have miss read the comments. Yes, Aspirin, warfarin, AND alcohol are all poisons, and should be avoided if you don't need to have them
@TFD Almost everything is poison in sufficient quantity, including even water. So designating three arbitrary substances "poisons" isn't helpful. Red wine in moderation is beneficial, and not harmful, so designating it a poison without qualifying that to add "in excess" is just flat wrong. There are many physicians who actually prescribe red wine, including mine.
@CareyGregory Are they recommending red wine for the flavinoids or the alcohol? There is not much science out there showing a net gain from alcohol consumption
@TFD We don't disagree except in what I think is a rather overly prudish assessment of alcohol.
In the UK it's either 175ml or 125 ml and confusion reigns, as bars will happily serve you a 250 mil and charge the large glass price!
I would tend to believe 175ml in restaurants and 125ml for medical advice.
125ml was the standard measure in pubs and restaurants when I starting drinking. Then 175ml came in as a "large glass" of wine. Now 175ml is the normal almost everywhere, and 250ml is the "large glass". And, in the meantime, standard white wines have gone from 9-11% abv to typically 12.5% abv; and red has gone from 11-13% to 12.5-14.5%.
125ml would be considered a standard amount in France.
Do you have a source for the 125ml figure? It would add a lot of credence to your answer.
Hello Gerlech, all discussions of health are off topic here. I had to remove that part of your answer and left the part which addressed the question as asked.
In Canada wine usually put on the menu as 6oz with the option for 9oz. Never worked anywhere that serves any other number, but once went to a restaurant which did 5oz, which was very unusual.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.074365 | 2012-05-12T23:55:44 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23734",
"authors": [
"Carey Gregory",
"Cerbrus",
"David Addy",
"Dillanm",
"Eve Steele",
"FairyPrincess",
"FuzzyChef",
"Jack Aidley",
"Janette Palmer Weed",
"Melanie",
"Peter Taylor",
"TFD",
"Ubermich",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52880",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53810",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53813",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91415",
"mech",
"nico",
"rumtscho",
"user53809",
"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
} |
40989 | How do I make tasty seitan in a pressure cooker?
Today I made my first seitan. I mixed gluten some spices and herbs with cold water and kneaded a bit, then boiled in broth for 40 minutes; I failed to leave it undisturbed. When done, the chunks were clearly a great part water, but I threw them on a hot pan indifferently and fried them with oil and some more spices.
When I ate them, I found them a bit spongier than I would like, but overall insipid. Would following this recipe improve my results? How should I go about replacing the pot with an electric pressure cooker?
Hi, I read your comment below:
Leave it 30 minutes (for a hunch of 150g gluten + 50g something else, thus 500g of seitan), and leave it cool inside.
If you leave the pressure drop quickly it becomes more spongy, if you leave it to cool it becomes less spongy.
I bought the pressure cooker explicitly for seitan. ;)
In my experience a pressure cooker does not greatly influence the taste nor the texture of seitan.
The same recipes apply for cooking in a regular soup pot and in a pressure cooker, but here are some suggestions that might help:
Texture:
The sponginess can be reduced by making a bit dryer (less hydrated) seitan dough and kneading it a little more, which makes it more compact and chewier.
Also I find that the next day (after the cooked seitan was sitting in broth) the texture tends to be a bit better.
Flavor:
If the broth is too weak (cause of diffusion) the flavor gets washed out of the seitan ... so I always make quite a strong broth (i.e. on the spacier/saltier side). Adding something like some shiitake can help add more richness and umami.
I had great success with variants on this Miyoko's recipe for "unturkey" ... at least the proportions/ratios of spices/salt/soysauce are quite good ... but then you can experiment with different spices (I like it with a bit of smokiness and heat, so I usually add some chipotle chiles).
What this recipe also suggests is:
adding a little bit of chickpea flour to the active gluten (1/4 cup chickpea to 4 cups of gluten), and
pre-baking the seitan before boiling
both also contribute to a nicer texture and crust.
What I meant mostly with the pressure cooking is how much time should I cook it there? I know the environment is much hotter in the pressure cooker so I wonder how lesser a time should I cook it for.
If you can regulate the temperature, you could set it on a lower setting. I would either way simmer it for about 30-40 minutes - as you don't put it into boiling broth before you close the cooker it takes some time to heat up, so it probably evens it out. But I would recommend trying to pre-bake it first (like in the above linked recipe), then the texture does not change much while boiling anymore, but the seitan gets nicely succulent and picks up some of the flavors from the broth. This always works for me.
Thanks for your recommendations, I will try the pre-baking step!
Seitan that is boiled can get a kind of rubbery texture if it is cooked above a simmer, which your pressure cooker would definitely do. Seitan that is boiled also has a tendency to expand a lot, which can lead to sponginess.
A few ways to combat this are to add a little bit of another type of flour to combat the rubbery texture. Just a few tablespoons of whole wheat, garbanzo, almond, or about any flour will help. If you still boil it, it will expand, but the sponginess may not be as noticeable with a more tender texture.
To avoid the actual expansion, you can either simmer it it a lower temperature or cook it by a different method. I've had decent luck steaming seitan, but my preferred method is to braise or bake it. This leads to a denser texture, which I prefer. Keep in mind though, that since it isn't cooking in a broth (aside from the small amount for braising), you'll need to add more flavor to the dough itself.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.074891 | 2014-01-09T02:29:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40989",
"authors": [
"Amir",
"Daduemas88 spam",
"Eileen Flyte Romero",
"Health Beauty",
"Martin Turjak",
"Reza Sameei",
"Ronald",
"Sandy Wood",
"Severo Raz",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10276",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95470",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95494",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95495",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95506",
"runlevel0"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
23852 | Salmon patties with cream cheese?
So, I have this jarred salmon here, caught up in Montana in 2010 I believe, cooked (not sure how) and sealed in a mason jar since. I opened the jar yesterday and tried a bit of the salmon on saltines. I was pleasantly surprised to find that it smelled and looked good upon opening the jar, nothing like the canned salmon you find in stores.
Anyway, there's a bunch of salmon left, and I'm not sure how long it will keep, and I don't want to eat it all on crackers. So, I figured I'd make either salmon patties or salmon dip, and, not being completely decided, I picked up ingredients for both.
When I returned home, I realized I only have one egg, not enough to make salmon patties; but now I'm leaning toward the patties, as I'm starting to get pretty hungry and the dip seems like more of a snack.
I'm wondering if there's any chance I could use the cream cheese as a substitute for the eggs, and make the patties that way, but lots of recipe searching has lead nowhere.
Will the cream cheese work as a substitute for eggs as far as doing the work of holding the patties together? Will it cook right? More importantly, will it taste good? Or should I put this idea out of my head and either go buy some more eggs or just make the dip?
When you cook eggs they harden. When you cook cheese, it melts. However, someone may be able to suggest another protein source which you could use as a binder.
@PeterTaylor thanks, I was hoping it would hold them together long enough to pan fry them, maybe in conjunction with this one egg, but you're probably right... I just figured the ingredients were so similar between the dip and the patties (really the major difference is cream cheese instead of eggs) that it might be interesting / tasty / worth a shot.
How big is the jar? I usually make salmon patties with only one egg.
The only thing which can hold patties together is raw protein. Other things can thicken them, but they don't glue them. Egg is the easiest source of raw protein. In theory, you can also use the gluten in flour, but in practice, you will have to make a dough with just a little salmon mixed in it, not lots of salmon with a little flour sprinkled, and this would taste very weird. Cream cheese won't help at all, because all the protein in it (which isn't much) has been cooked/curdled during the process of turning milk to cheese.
But if you say that the only difference between the dip and the patties is cream cheese instead of eggs, why do you say that the dip is a snack and the patties are a full meal? The dip is likely to have more calories, by the way.
Thanks for putting up with my culinary cluelessness, this is very helpful to me although I'm sure it's pretty basic knowledge to you guys. You're absolutely right about the dip vs. patties thing... the dip will contain more calories, so it should be more filling. I guess it just feels more like a snacky food, know what I mean? Anyway (I don't know why I didn't think of this yesterday) I'm just going to make both; I've got one egg after all. Thanks for the advice!
Hehe, we wouldn't know this if somebody hadn't written the information somewhere where we could read it :) and this site is made exactly for the purpose of sharing knowledge, so "putting up" is no trouble for us. Enjoy your salmon!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.075210 | 2012-05-20T05:32:30 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23852",
"authors": [
"Autophil",
"Diane Fortner Bowman",
"JJ Winchester",
"Peter Taylor",
"baka",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54119",
"rumtscho",
"user54116",
"vikx01"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
25172 | Vertical Smoker Cooking Times
I have a gas vertical water smoker that I got from Cabela's earlier this year. I've had some success smoking a few different things: whole chickens, baby-back ribs, salmon, pork shoulder and a pork tenderloin. It's been a lot of fun!
I have noticed that my cook times are significantly longer than the recommended cook times. I have read that water smokers will take longer because of the extra humidity. This makes planning a meal hard. I know that there are a lot of variables when it comes to cooking time, but I would like to be able to look at the recommended cook time in the recipe and then say "well on my smoker that's going to take 1.2 times whatever they recommend." Is there a general rule of thumb for cooking times when using a vertical water smoker?
The recommended cooking time is only a guideline. There are a variety of factors that influence cooking times in a substantive manner. For what it's worth, water in the water pan is not one of them.
The purpose of the water in the water pan is to act as a heat sink, in order to prevent temperature spikes. Anyone who claims that it helps keep what you are cooking moist should be summarily ignored. One of the more likely scenarios is that the thermometer is either inaccurate, or it is not an accurate reflection of the area in the smoker where the meat is being cooked. There are no guarantees that the temperature you read at one point is constant throughout the smoker. In fact, it is almost a certainty that the heat sink (water) will cause a cooler area in its immediate vicinity. This is pretty common in the Weber Smokey Mountain, and is why I don't use water in mine.
I would suggest some things:
Check the calibration of your thermometer (get a temperature reading with the probe in boiling water).
Put a thermometer (an oven thermometer will do) in your cooking area, to get a sense of any discrepancies between the lid and the cooking area.
Crank up the heat, if necessary (250f is still "low and slow").
Experiment with not using water, to see if that makes the heat distribution more amenable to cooking in your smoker.
Now that you have some cooks under your belt, the time is about right to tweak your methods to your liking.
My roommate and I have a Weber Smokey Mountain Cooker, and in general, we've found that smoking times can vary a lot based on a number of different factors that tend to be hard to control. We've done beef brisket about 8 or 10 times now, and we've had some go for 8 hours and some take as long as 14.
It seems to be a function of the amount of connective tissue you need to break down. You've probably already noticed the "smoking plateau" that occurs around the 165-175 degree internal temperature mark -- when that happens there is nothing you can do but wait until the temp starts rising again and hits your target final temperature.
So to answer your question -- for larger pieces of meat, just start early and allow for wide variances in cooking times (we usually start the night before for an afternoon BBQ party). Luckily, most smoked meats taste great 3 or 4 hours after you've pulled them off (if wrapped and stored correctly). Knowing when to put on smaller pieces of meat (e.g. chicken parts/sausages/fish) will just come with experience, but since they rarely take more than an hour or two to cook, you won't be off by that much anyways.
The plateau can be mitigated by wrapping in foil. Great answer, though!
I hadn't realized you could do that. Just read this article and I think we're going to try that next time we do brisket. Thanks for the tip!
That's funny, I was actually going to refer you to that article, but couldn't find it earlier. Foiling is called the "Texas Crutch," and is commonplace at competitions. I figure anything good enough for Harry Soo is good enough for me.
You may just be smoking at too low a temperature. Don't trust the thermometer built into the lid of the smoker. Use a digital probe thermometer to monitor the air temperature near the food. A handy trick is to stick the probe through a potato--make sure you stick the probe all the way through so that the tip is out in the air. The potato will help you put the probe where you want it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.075501 | 2012-07-21T23:19:07 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25172",
"authors": [
"Courtenay",
"Jonathan Storm",
"M. Jones",
"Sean Hart",
"SwiftsNamesake",
"VRM",
"beepboop",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57553",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57567",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57663",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57818",
"jalbee",
"user57553"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
19021 | Gas grill: soaked wood chips vs. dry wood chips
I have a gas grill and want to get some good smoke flavor in a pork shoulder I am cooking. I've done some looking around for the best way to use wood chips and have found conflicting ideas about if you should soak them or not. Does soaking the chips do something other than adding time to getting to the initial smoke?
@rfusca! One for you, I believe.
@ElendilTheTall I don't do much smoking on a gas grill lately.
If you're putting your wood chips directly on a fire, it's good to soak them (and that means real soaking--a few days--not an hour or two). This prevents the wood chips from actually catching fire, which can cause off flavors from combustion chemicals settling back on your food. Tastes kinda like a brand new telephone pole smells on a hot day. Tar/Creosote, and not a nice flavor.
But on a gas grill, if you've got your chips in a pan or wrapped in a fairly tight foil pouch, you needn't worry so much about the chips actually catching on fire. As long as they just smoulder, you're good to go.
I tried this this weekend and it looks like the key is to restrict oxygen to the chips with a foil pouch or a metal box. Anything open will just catch fire. I'll no longer be soaking my chips, thanks!!
You want your wood to smolder/smoke, not burn. This is why soaking chips is recommended. However, the effect gained from that practice is temporary. Once the moisture boils off, your chips will catch fire in the high oxygen environment of your gas grill. I recommend choking the oxygen supply to your smoke wood, and placing the chips so that less heat gets to the wood (you want just enough to get the wood to slowly smoke). A foil pouch or smoke wood box would do the trick.
Don't soak the chips for a gas grill. Get a large aluminium pan and place all your chips in it first. Then heat up your grill and get them smoking, but not on fire/combustion this is bad. Once you have a good smoke going, put your pork shoulder in there. After a while the chips may try to catch fire but you can prevent this by watching them closely, through the holes in your grill you don't want to open it too many times, and dousing or spraying any flame ups with a small amount of water as some people like to do with a charcoal grill. Follow this method and you will never cook your pork shoulder any other way!
Personally, I have watched the wood chips opening my stainless steel smoke boxes on occasion to see "what's going on". My experience is that soaking the chips is a waste of time. There will be a little bit of steam for awhile, but the chips don't start smoking until they have completely dried out anyway. Best advice I can give on this is limit the oxygen flow in your smoke boxes.
Mine have holes on bottom and on the lid, I cover the bottom holes with foil before putting the chips in and this helps in most cases, although I still get flame ups some times. I've found putting more chips in helps with flare ups, rather than soaking as many will say.
I have had chips catch fire regardless whether I soak them or not. Fire needs oxygen... restrict it's oxygen soaking it only takes longer to start smoking.
The best practice would be to separate the wood chips from the fire altogether. Use a small aluminum tray or just a bit of aluminum foil, to hold the wood chips near the flames. The idea to smoking is to cook "low and slow" but you only really need the wood chips for the first hour or so, additional smoke after that point doesn't really add more flavor.
This website has a nice explanation for smoking ribs on a gas grill. The principals apply to a pork shoulder just as well.
The trouble with soaking is that it takes longer to get them to start smoking (you're just drying them out). This makes timing the start of smoke with putting your meat on more difficult. On top of that, you're using more gas to dry out the chips to start it smoking, which is where you started from!!
Actually, there is no reason to soak the chips at all. The wood doesn't absorb enough water to make a diffrence in either smoke production or length of cooking. That said, if you are looking to create a more distributed smoke over the cook cycle, adding water to the pie pan that holds your wood chips will create the same effect that people are trying to accomplish with the soaking. The one caveat is that you have to put the pie pan directly on the burner in a gas grill, as the grate will not be hot enough at 200*F to produce the required heat.
I agree: http://amazingribs.com/tips_and_technique/mythbusting_soaking_wood.html
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.076004 | 2011-11-20T06:01:16 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19021",
"authors": [
"BLeB",
"Bailey Rae Trammell",
"Edward Falk",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Felix Lover",
"Jay Prall",
"John Hughes",
"Mary Bolick",
"Mary Cahill",
"Shiri",
"Vini",
"ali",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136157",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41274",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41314",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7190",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87901",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
19143 | Recommend decent, sturdy steamer basket?
I've gone through a couple of cheap metal collapsible steamer baskets in the last year and am looking for something that will last longer. Do you have one that you like? I've seen the silicon ones but have read that it may alter the taste of the vegetables. What is your experience?
Have you tried the standard Asian bamboo steamers? They are effective, dirt cheap (especially if you have an Asian supermarket nearby) and durable.
I've commented this but I may as well make it an answer.
Asian bamboo steamers are cheap, especially at Asian supermarkets. They're also durable, easy to clean, and usually come in layers so you can steam multiple dishes at once (for example fish and vegetables).
Not to mention different diameters.
In addition to the bamboo steamers (which are great), I can also recommend finding a steamer insert which fits one or more pots you have. This is far easier to lift out of a pot than a basket, and also easier to clean.
Examples:
http://www.chantal.com/steamer_colander_lg.html
http://www.williams-sonoma.com/products/3872660/?catalogId=83&cm_ven=Shopping&cm_cat=Froogle&cm_pla=default&cm_ite=default&ci_src=14110944&ci_sku=3872660
I have a steamer insert with a single, long pot handle which fits a 4qt pot and holds around 2qt of veggies. This is even better than a two-handled one. I couldn't find links to one, though.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.076375 | 2011-11-25T05:15:19 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19143",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"Geoff",
"NBenatar",
"RodMacca",
"Sahil",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41598",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41605",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41749",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"natep"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
52153 | Three day old pancake batter with grey spots
I know from experience and Googling that day-old carrot cake can result in green carrot bits due to oxidation but remains perfectly edible. Has the same thing happened to my pancake batter? Or are these grey spots speckled throughout mold? It doesn't smell nor taste off.
Can you link a picture?
Related post: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11356/buttermilk-pancake-mix-is-green
Shoot, I couldn't stop the wife's appetite. She went ahead and consumed it so no picture possible. 3 hours on and she's still alive so, anecdotally at least, it was either safe discoloration or ... a safe amount of mold? Heh.
@Didgeridrew Good find. I think this was just a chemical discoloration.
Yes, the pancake batter is going bad and bacteria is developing. No mold is good. In a restaurant environment I would sometimes keep it over night in the fridge but not any longer. From a food safety standpoint, food should not be left out longer than 4 hours before being discarded. Just because it does not smell does not mean it is OK. Pancake batter is cheap so tossing it is no loss. If you are asking your question from a chemical reaction standpoint, I am sorry I can't help. But I do not think you would want to go to a restaurant and be served pancakes with grey spots.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.076516 | 2014-12-31T19:20:56 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/52153",
"authors": [
"Caroline Foulk",
"Didgeridrew",
"Douglas Shaw",
"Heidi Rabbevåg",
"Tina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123761",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123762",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7279",
"rfusca",
"xanadont"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
22566 | How to preserve the green colour of mint when doing spherification?
I was recently making some mint spheres using reverse spherification, as a bit of background here was my process: I blended around 15g of mint leaves with 250ml of boiling water and left to steep for an hour. I strained the infusion through a 50 micron filter and then added some sugar, lemon juice and 3.5% calcium gluconolacte before thickening with 0.4% of xanthan gum. The spherification went fine but the colour of the liquid went an unappetising shade of brown and what I would like to know is there a way, aside from adding food colouring, to preserve the mint's green colour?
I would like to know this as well. I make mint jellies and always have to add food coloring because the natural color degrades.
Plants are green due to the presence of chlorophyll. When chlorophyll is exposed to acids, alkalis, heat or enzymes, it first loses its long hydrocarbon tail, becoming water-soluble instead of fat-soluble. Then, hydrogen ions replace the magnesium atom in the center of the chlorophyll molecule, turning it to pheophythin, which has a dull green-yellow-grey color.
If you insist on continuing the heat treatment, you will lose a lot of the chlorophyll color. You can reduce your loses by using an alkali environment and by adding metal ions. The metal ions part can be as simple as boiling the tea in a copper pot. For alkali, use baking soda. It will turn the leaves into mush (so it is preferable not to use it for vegetables, even though it keeps the color), but it will help with retaining the green. I think that the changed pH shouldn't be a problem, as Lersch's Hydrocolloids says that reverse spherification works at pH levels 2.8-10, but is inhibited by pH below 4. Also, I don't see why you steeped for an hour; normal mint tea is steeped for 5 minutes. If you want stronger tea, use more mint, not longer steeping times.
If you insist on a color coming from mint, but are not particular about steeping, I would suggest getting a mint taste in another way. Juicing the mint will be best, but will require heaps of plant matter, so probably not practicable unless you have access to a mint meadow. It would be much better to rupture the cell walls by freezing, and then leech the mint taste and color in some solvent - water will be OK, alcohol will probably give you a stronger extract. Just steep the defrosted mint for a long time in the water (or alcohol, or mix of both), and then use without adding acids or heating. Again, adding a bit of baking soda may help with the color. But pay attention, if your final product has too high a pH, its taste will be perceived as soapy.
And the easiest solution is, of course, to use food coloring. While some people may consider it unnatural, I don't think it does any bad, especially considering that you are already doing some highly unusual things to your food. It gives you a much easier time with the other aspects of preparation (head and acids).
Yes, I think we're far past the point of worrying about 'unnatural' ingredients. :) Didn't realise that the steeping time was unrelated to the strength of the infusion, all I wanted was maximum extraction. If I had a Vitamix, I'd just put a bunch of mint in and make a puree that way but I don't so that's no use here. The main reason I used lemon juice was for sourness as I was aiming at a sweet/sour contrast and also to mask the calcium gluconolactate because no matter what they might say it does have a discernable taste and it's not very pleasant.
Also, I know acidic ingredients cause discolouration but I've also seen ascorbic acid being touted as a way to keep basil in pesto green and that would solve my sourness problem too.
Now you mention it, there is also the advice to add citrus juice to guacamole. I was speaking mostly from theoretical knowledge in the answer. But the interesting thing is that both pesto and guac are not cooked. Maybe in this case the magnesium dislocation stops being a problem and oxidation becomes the primary concern (although McGee doesn't mention chlorophyll oxidation). You could try if it works with a cold extract and an acid, but maybe it is only OK when the cell walls are whole to protect the chlorophyll - traditional pesto is mashed, not blended.
I'm wondering if I blanch the mint in boiling water for 10 seconds to deactivate chlorophyllase then shock it in iced water before trying your suggestion of a cold extract would that help. Looks like I've a few experiments to run!
@Stefano I don't know where you read about the c-lase, but McGee says that there are two things which happen to chlorophyll, the first is the loss of the carbon tail, the second is the magnesium displacement. You probably have to lose the tail to get your green color water-solvable. And if not, both acids and bases will remove it. So in theory, it is the second step you want to prevent. Besides, a 10 seconds heating is unlikely to get you above 70°C. This is still theory, I might be wrong. But I would try to think of other ways first, and try blanching as an additional option.
I got it from here: http://sciencefare.org/2011/09/26/green-vegetables-green but it seems I didn't read the page thoroughly enough: the action of the enzyme is over a long period so the blanching step is useful more so if you want to store the product over a long period of time, say in the freezer, for example.
You can try to add some baking soda when you put the mint leaves in the hot water.
Baking soda retains colour in boiling broccoli and other green veggies, so there's a chance this could help you with mint as well.
Doesn't that work by undoing the effect of adding the lemon juice, by increasing the pH?
I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Yes it gives a higher pH, while the lemon juice lowers the pH. But the baking soda and the lemon juice aren't added at the same time.
Further to his, according to sciencefare.org (http://sciencefare.org/2011/09/26/green-vegetables-green) you only need to raise the pH of the water you're cooking to 7.5 to get the increased greening effect. As part of the experiments I menitoned in another answer, one of them will be blanching the mint leaves in this slightly alkalinised water.
Try grinding the mint with a mortar and pestle, with your lemon juice as a solvent. Since you strain it, the final solution won't have chunks of mint.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.076659 | 2012-03-26T16:27:54 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22566",
"authors": [
"Dan Mašek",
"Jacek Konieczny",
"Michelle",
"Mien",
"Sobachatina",
"Sourdough",
"Stefano",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50829",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7552",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
61511 | Preparing cut vegetables for the next day?
To speed up lunch cooking, I'm considering pre-cutting some veggies the day before.
I often do quick meals with zucchini and eggplant and both do seem to be not too well suited for cutting and then storing them in the fridge for like 18 hours. (If I cut them the evening before.)
Are there any tricks for "pre-preparing" these?
I find that a small amount of acid helps prevent the ugly browning and "sliminess" that may occur, however many foods like eggplant, okra, etc. that rely mostly on their moisture for structure, tend to be the poorest performers. I've had more luck cooking certain vegetables like this in advance then refrigerating, than I have trying to prep in advance.
There are some veggies which you could precut and store in the fridge (e.g., carrots), but they may dry out a little.
The veggies you specified (zucchini and eggplant) are a little harder to precut. What you might try is storing them in water. However, eggplant can act like a sponge so I have no idea how it will turn out.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.077169 | 2015-09-05T12:01:14 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/61511",
"authors": [
"Amy Devore",
"Bonnie Loeb",
"Kelecia Jackson",
"Mike Dilley",
"Rick",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145869",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145871",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145961"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
94665 | Has the storage duration of packaged "fresh" dairy products increased in the last 30 yrs?
Has the general shelf life / storage duration / packaging hygiene / of pasteurized milk, cream or yogurt significantly increased in the last 30 years in western Europe (or the US)?
Or has there been any trend in reducing the best-before date?
Background:
I live in Austria, a developed country, and I like to think it was a developed country even 30 yrs ago when I was a kid :-)
Still, I distinctly remember supermarket milk (we mostly have tetrapak style milk here) or liquid cream, or yogurt to be "off" from time to time, even one day prior or at the best before date.
However, in the last 8 years (2010-2018) I cannot recollect one single instance where milk went bad in the fridge (and, given my kids, I do consciously check this) even a few days over the best-before date.
Note that this is for "normal" pasteurized milk, not what they call ESL milk.
I suspect the supply-chain is much better controlled in terms of temperature these days, and quicker. I can't speak for Austria (hence only a comment) but 30 years ago a lot of milk in the UK was delivered to the house in the morning using open-sided vans, and now it's refrigerated all the way. I think the dates might even have got longer, perhaps reflecting quicker processing and earlier refrigeration.
You have to make an important difference here - standard "shelf life" (counted before opening) and the time you have to consume it after opening.
Shelf life (before opening, recognizable by expiration date) has increased.
First, if you are a purist and only talking about traditionally pasteurized milk, there are two technology advances which have contributed to longer shelf life:
The whole production cycle is now done under sterile conditions. That is, the milk does not meet any microbes after sterilization.
Microfiltration. This not only stabilizes the milk (prevents the separation of cream) but also improves shelf life by removing bacterial spores
Second, there is also ESL, which is a pasteurization process that sits in the middle between traditional pasteurization (30 minutes at 72 Celsius) and UHT processing (seconds at 140+ Celsius). which become very popular, and at least in Germany, it is difficult to find non-ESL milk nowadays. This milk has a shelf life of several weeks (before opening!), as opposed to the several days for traditionally pasteurized milk.
The safe consumption time after opening has not increased, but the signs of spoilage are gone
Your observation of it never going "off" is related to ESL products. One of their drawbacks is that, when they spoil, they don't go sour and thick like raw or traditionally pasteurized milk. They still have the same safe consumption time after opening (3-5 days), and once exposed to air, bacteria grow in them at the same speed as in traditionally pasteurized milk. Since the colony no longer contains significant numbers of lactobacteria though, it doesn't have the traditional appearance of soured milk. It just gets faintly bitter, but if you are not paying much attention, you can mistake it for milk which is still OK and drink it.
Part of the answer is packaging. In Israel, as little as ten years ago, you could buy milk in plastic bottles, in plastic milk bags, or in milk cartons. Obviously, the milk bags could not last long after opening, since there's no real way to close them. But even between the bottles and the cartons, the plastic bottles always had a significantly shorter expiry date. They would also sometimes be off before officially expired, while the cartons would usually remain fresh for several days after. Today in Israel milk is only sold in cartons.
I can only guess that the cartons allow for better sterilisation of the container, or are less permeable to microbe penetration after packaging.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.077294 | 2018-12-10T21:20:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94665",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
35751 | Is it OK to just have two cutting boards: one for stuff to be heated, another for other stuff?
Some say one should use more than one cutting boards because if you use just one board for raw meat and vegetables, bacteria from raw meat moves to the board and then to the vegetables, then you eat that vegetable raw, and you get sick.
Some uses more than two cutting boards: one for fish, another for raw poultry, yet another for dairy and so on.
What if I use just two rather than 3 or more? One for stuff to be heated, another for everything else. What do I gain by using 3 or more rather than 2?
The exact number of cutting boards isn't critical, the important piece is minimizing cross contamination. You can use one cutting board safely as long as you're using it in a food-safe order (cut vegetables, then proteins), and follow good sanitation practices (wash & sanitize the board between ingredients). A quick scrub with soap and water and a spritz with a bleach, alcohol, or quat solution between ingredients will minimize your need for different boards.
And make sure to stop using plastic cutting boards when they start developing grooves in them. (this is one of the reasons why wood cutting boards may be safer -- they're self healing).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.077815 | 2013-08-02T15:43:49 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35751",
"authors": [
"Gwendela McCorkle",
"Joe",
"Lilly Swank",
"Simone Chiesi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83737",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83738",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83740",
"kxr"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
24535 | What is ground red pepper?
I have the 75th anniversary edition of Joy of Cooking. I've now come across two recipes that call for "ground red pepper" (enchiladas and a dry rub). I've never heard of ground red pepper before and cannot find it at the store.
Is it ground red bell pepper or something hot like cayenne? What should I use as a substitute?
This sort of problem is probably characteristic of American books like Joy of Cooking; for example, a Mexican cookbook would probably be more specific in an enchilada recipe.
The term "ground red pepper" is ambiguous in English. Things sold under that name in the US have a wide range of heats, and likely are made from multiple varieties of peppers, though I'd say they're more commonly hot things like cayenne, or other varieties with somewhat less heat.
That said, don't worry about it too much in these cases. Anything from mild paprika to cayenne would likely fit within what the authors meant, and you're not going to harm a recipe by increasing or decreasing the heat, or by using a chile powder with a slightly different flavor. Just use something (or a blend) that provides the heat level you want, and you'll be fine.
In most instances I've seen, in American cookbooks, "red pepper" refers to cayenne pepper or chili powder (not the spice mix designed for making chili con carne, but dried, ground chilis). It is usually spicy rather than being red bell pepper.
Edit to add: I'm talking about this type of product:
McCormic Ground red pepper
Source
In my experience, it is seldom spicy. In Germany, there are actually grades of it (the name is btw Paprikapulver, not red pepper) - normal red pepper is "sweet" just like bell pepper, then there is "rose-sharp" which is a mixture of sweet red pepper and cayenne, and then there is "hot", which has lots more cayenne. Pure cayenne is considered the highest level of hotness, and isn't called Paprikapulver any more.
Chili powder being the dried, ground chilis not the spice mix which includes onion, cumin, etc.
@rumtscho And you're certain that Joy of Cooking is referring to Paprikapulver? Given that it's an American cookbook, I would assume that ingredient would be referred to as "Paprika" http://germanfood.about.com/od/herbsandspicesglossary/g/Hungarian_Paprika.htm
@Yamikuronue in other languages, "red pepper" is the translation of Paprikapulver. It is possible to have a parallel use of the term, but what I wanted to point out is that any red pepper, hot or sweet, can be ground to this powder, and it can be mixed to even more combinations with different levels of hotness. So there is no way to predict the hotness of the "red pepper" Joy of Cooking is referring to, unless you have good sources saying that at the time it was published, "red pepper" was used in America for the hot variety only.
@rumtscho The 75th anniversary edition was published in 2006; since there was no German origin specified, I have serious doubts that it's talking about a German ingredient as opposed to what I can pick up at the grocery store: http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=red+pepper+spice&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=RE0&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&prmd=imvnse&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&biw=1431&bih=753&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=6665960643529255253&sa=X&ei=eFDfT5-BN4nc2gXSr_DnCg&ved=0CMsBEPMCMAg or http://www.spiceplace.com/mccormick-ground-red-pepper.php
Paprika isn't a German ingredient. It also is usually mild in the US, but you'll see "hot paprika" as well. "Red pepper" is pretty clearly ambiguous in English, in any case.
@Yamikuronue After reading the question, I assumed that the ingredient isn't that common in America, so wanted to warn that, if some stores carry imported products under this name, there can be a difference in hotness, depending on which cuisine inspired the product. If you are able to consistently find "red pepper" in the stores and it is always the same hotness, then the warning is probably moot.
Yamikoronue is correct. As someone who first learned to cook in the 70's, "Red Pepper" is a generic American term for hot ground capsicum peppers, usually cayenne, but sometimes other chiles such as arbol or hot paprika.
I had a red pepper spice by Astor out of Jacksonville, Florida. They are out of business, now, to my regret. Their pepper was not hot but has a very nice flavor and smell. I would use this spice without having to use salt or any other spice. It would change the smell of meat to delicious even as you sprinkled it on. I have not been able to find anything like it. It was not cayenne nor chili. Just labeled "ground red pepper". I saw on internet the same pepper by Astor "the Tin" for sale, it's very old so I probably will not bother with it. In other words, there was once a ground red pepper spice, not cayenne nor chili.
A generic bulk product labeled and called only "red pepper" is sold very cheaply in most International Markets, Asian and Chinese grocery stores in US.
It is always a very finely ground red powder sold in 500g (and much larger) clear plastic pillow shaped bags that I can never use up. (Normal label just says Brand, "Red Pepper", weight.)
I think it can be used to make the hot flavors when preparing "Chinese" dishes and I use it to add "heat" to any "Chinese Food" that was not made spicy enough.
Careful, this dry power will make you sneeze and irritates the eyes more than finely ground black pepper. Sometimes without even opening it.
It contains it's seeds and is a bit hotter than any crushed red pepper used on Italian food. (Mostly because that "crushed" is more coarsely grated flakes than any coffee grind.)
Every decade or so when it turned brown, I searched for another market that didn't exist long enough for me to get it again.
I add 1/8 teaspoon to a 1 pound skillet dinner.
So, I only buy one of the smallest packages and repack it in a canning jar or a used spice dispenser container saved and washed from something mild enough to use up. (Like Italian seasoning)
Growing up in the 70s, we had spices, refills for sets. We had both red pepper and cayenne pepper spices. Red pepper was just abit more bite than black pepper, but was not half as hot as cayenne. Even into the 80s, bbq restaurants which employed me as a teen had big containers of Red Pepper. Honestly I have no idea which type of peppers were used, but they were not cayenne. I understand the confusion because I have old recipes that call for red pepper and were not particularly warm.
It's just crushed cayenne pepper!
Usually crushed means flakes, and if this is calling for ground, I would think they want a powder texture.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.077963 | 2012-06-18T15:15:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24535",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"David Smith",
"Donna Krutsinger",
"FuzzyChef",
"James Mason",
"Sobachatina",
"SourDoh",
"Terry Noel",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"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
} |
17691 | How long can you keep chocolate in the freezer?
We get lots of gifts of chocolate and due to health reasons, we can't finish all the chocolate. So we store it in the freezer. How long can or should you store chocolate in the freezer before it's not safe to eat anymore?
Welcome Aurora,look at this question here, it might give you a clue.
My wife is obsessed with Milka, and last time we were in Germany, she threw out all my clothes in order to fill an entire suitcase with it. When we got it home, it got piled in the freezer (not the freezer-in-the-garage-which-is-seldom-opened, but the regular one where we keep ice cream and frosty beer mugs). Took us more than 4 years to finish it. The last bit was effectively identical to the first. No noticeable change in the product.
Given that quality chocolate has no water (which is the primary freezer-spoilage agent), I'd say it would keep effectively indefinitely. If you're talking about candy bars which contain other ingredients, it may vary.
Generally though, things don't go "bad" in the freezer. They can get brutally freezer burned and disgusting, but there is no safety issue, as long as the food remains frozen. I once made a pie out of a quart of blackberries I found buried in the ice in an old-style freezer chest. Estimated age was on the order of twenty years, but they'd been preserved by the encroaching frost. Pie was delicious.
20 year old pie thats gotta be a record ;)
@rfusca: Admittedly, if I had known they were that old, I'd probably have avoided them, but all I saw was a couple of big bags of berries...We'd been defrosting the thing for about a day, and they'd emerged from the glacier without me noticing, and I didn't want to put partly thawed berries in the other freezer, so, you know, pie. Then grandma staggers in and goes, "sniff sniff Smells like blackberry pie. Haven't had a blackberry pie since your granddad died. He picked all the berries." So I said, "So who picked these?" She looks at the label on the bag, "Your granddad." Me: "Oh."
I've left chocolate out and it's been fine after months and months. In the freezer, it lasts even longer. Happiness is putting on a winter coat for the first time in the fall and finding a chocolate Easter egg in the pocket.
@thursday: Yea, I keep my baking chocolate in the regular fridge, and never for a moment consider how long its been there.
I froze some milk chocolate buds in 1999, took them out today. No sign of freezer burn, looked and smelled good, so I tasted one. Tastes like original. No side effects.
Even on the shelf chocolate has a very long life, at least months if not years. When it does go bad, it becomes chalky, but is still not dangerous. In the freezer it should last more or less indefinitely.
I just realized how old the question is. If you did put your chocolate in the freezer, it's probably still good.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.078571 | 2011-09-13T06:34:53 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17691",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Herz",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Taylor Pope",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79608",
"rfusca",
"thursdaysgeek"
],
"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
} |
22779 | Can putting items with high heat capacity smooth out heat changes in Sous Vide?
So was recently thinking about the beer cooler sous vide method and had a thought:
While heating the water to put in the beer cooler, if you were to place an object with a high heat capacity (e.g. a ceramic coffee cup) in the water, heat both to the desired temperature and then place them in the beer cooler, would that help keep the water at a more constant temperature?
In other words, since you are replacing some of the water with a material at a higher heat capacity at the same temperature that would in turn keep the rest of the water warmer for a longer period, correct?
the better way to do it would be to get a bigger cooler. More water = stays hot longer.
Water has one of the highest heat capacities available:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_capacity#Table_of_specific_heat_capacities
Your ceramic is not going to hold nearly as much heat as the water bath itself.
If you are finding that your bath is cooling too quickly then you are better off investigating your cooler.
Water itself has the highest volumetric heat capacity of most readily available materials: Table of specific heat capacities.
Adding rocks, ceramic coffee cups or lumps of iron to your beer cooler will just displace water, and lower the total heat content.
While it's true that Water has one of the highest volumetric heat capacity of any material, stones can store more heat overall.
One of the main reasons for using stones / etc for storing heat is that water is limited to 212F while stone or other solids can be heated to a much higher temperature and retain heat.
For example, the stones used in an Imu (Hawaiian Underground Oven) can be 400F or warmer. This is 330F above ambient temps (or more) while water can only go 142F above 70F ambient.
However, putting extremely hot stones in your bath isn't good for sous vide either because it will just make the water boil and what you want is fine temperature control at a specific temperature. So for sous vide purposes, stones and ceramics are impractical.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.078828 | 2012-04-04T16:13:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22779",
"authors": [
"Brendan",
"John Feltz",
"Jordan Shweky",
"Lgdpcrep",
"WiilB",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54892"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
90702 | When pan searing, why does all of my oil keep disappearing?
So it seems that every time that I pan sear something, any oil I have in the beginning seems to be gone about half way through and it turns into me dry searing whatever I am cooking.
My guess is that I have the heat too high and the oil is evaporating or burning off.
Is there a simple way to know when the oil is hot enough to pan sear but not so hot that it burns off?
Meat? Vegetables? fish? Which oil and how much are you using? Some vegetables like eggplant and zucchini soak up a lot of oil...
Also, evaporating water tends to draw oil drops along, depositing them conveniently on the walls (or in the hood filter)...
Cooking oils do not noticeably evaporatate at cooking temperatures below the smoke and combustion points.
I concur with with what rackandneman said that it is probably spattering out combined with just using to little oil at the start.
@Fabby usually meat. I’ve experienced what you mean with eggplant where it just soaks it up like a sponge.
@Cynetta I do tend to see a lot of smoke so I wonder if I’m heating it past the smoke point and it’s burning off?
@alexpotato Ibelieve it is possible that you are burning it or evaporating it because the oil has been overheated (beyond normal cooking temperatures). Without more data, I've nothing further to suggest. In all my cooking, I've never experienced your problem. I do not cook with the temperature of the oil so high that it smokes.
You've not said what oil you are using. Knowing that fact might help answer your question.Have you tried using an oil with a higher smoke point? This site is just one of many witht a table of cooking oil/fat smoke points - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_point
And with some oils, they don't smoke that noticeably if somewhat above their smoke point but not much - empiric evidence: Definitely had peanut oil at 260°C recently, it did not smoke noticeably.
If the oil is of too low temperature, it'll have a tendency to get soaked up by the food you're preparing or get evaporated together with the water that's leaking out, so that's where it's disappearing. (Some vegetables like eggplant, zucchini, ... tend to soak up oil like sponges regardless of the temperature.)
To test whether the oil is hot enough, I always use the empirical method:
slice off a sliver of whatever you're going to sear
throw it in the pan
if bubbles start forming: oil is hot enough
if not: throw away sliver, rinse and repeat
Works for anything you're going to sear!
Having said that: Don't be shy on the oil: it doesn't just sear, it adds flavour too!
A method to test if oil is hot enough, is to hold a piece of wood into it and see if bubbles form around the wood. This is typically a good method for when there's a good layer of oil in the pan or when frying.
You may also drop a droplet of water into the pan and see how violently it reacts. This sounds a bit ambiguous I know, but when a strong sizzle occurs, you know it's hot enough. But please, don't use this method if you're cooking on fire, only for induction/ceramic.
Otherwise, I strongly recommend you to buy a simple thermometer to test the temperature. Let me explain why: It's very unlikely that your oil is evaporating. It depends on the type of oil you use by typically oil will start to vape around 230+ Celsius, and when this happens you are creating unhealthy situations. You would want to prevent that, hence why a simple cheap thermometer may be wise.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.079009 | 2018-06-30T20:54:37 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90702",
"authors": [
"Cynetta",
"Fabby",
"alexpotato",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7454",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
42372 | Correct knife to use for portioning raw salmon?
I recently bought a relatively large (~2lbs) filet of salmon. In order to portion it out I placed it skin side up on a cutting board and used a bread knife to essentially saw through the skin as it seemed pretty tough.
Is a bread knife the best option in this case? Is this something that should be done with a kitchen knife?
when you say portion the salmon, does it mean slicing like for sashimi? or just slicing into pieces, chunks or some relatively thin fillets but not as thin as sashimi?
@bonCodigo I mean into pieces/chunks.
I think a bread knife would shred the skin and flesh. I would place skin side down and, ideally, use a sharp slicing knife. Sharp is the key. I have also used a chef's knife and a fillet knife for this task. The goal is to achieve a clean cut.
Agreed! Sharp and honed on a ceramic "steel" - send out your knives to be sharpened once a year, and "steel" (hone) regularly. A truly sharp knife at hand is like having kitchen superpowers.
The ideal knife for this would be a fillet or boning knife, however if you don't have one a non-serrated knife would give you the best looking cut. There's no reason you cannot use a serrated knife, it's more cosmetic than anything else.
This may scandalize some cooks, but after years of struggling to cut through salmon skin, I have finally found a solution: use kitchen shears or scissors! They must be clean, and you'll have to wash them afterwards, but presto! Nice, neatly cut portions.
Are you cutting the whole filet with scissors (and if so, how do you avoid crushing the flesh), or just the tough skin?
As it’s currently written, your answer is unclear. Please [edit] to add additional details that will help others understand how this addresses the question asked. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.079301 | 2014-02-27T14:23:05 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42372",
"authors": [
"Community",
"Daisy Arios",
"Dan",
"RI Swamp Yankee",
"Scare_quotes",
"Spammer",
"Stephie",
"alexpotato",
"bonCodigo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/-1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98928",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98939",
"maple_shaft"
],
"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
} |
17903 | Bread dough only rises once
I'm new at baking bread but had a very experienced coach. The dough rises well one time but very little the 2nd time. If I put the dough into the baking pan to rise I get a good result, meaning it at least doubles in volume and makes a tasty loaf. If I punch it down it maybe only rises 20% or so. Is this a sign that the yeast is getting old?
Did you add sugar when preparing the dough? The sugar may have been used up by the yeast and rising is progressing much slower now.
How long is your first and second rise and what is the ambient temperature? What kind of dough is it?
Yes, I use sugar to start the yeast but not much - 1/4 tsp? what kind of dough? - Not sure how to answer, basic white bread with a small amount of whole wheat.
the first rise is about 3 hours and the 2nd about 2hours. I'm in the tropics and a cool day is 80 degrees.
I'm gathering that you are using dried yeast (you mention using sugar to start the yeast). Chances are it's too old. You should be using fresh yeast if you can.
old yeast is also what I suspect. I might have to look for a smaller bottle.
@mrwienerdog i'm gonna guess you mean new yeast - 'fresh' yeast is a different kind of yeast
it's also possible that he's letting it rise too long for the first rising.
@Fuzzy thats exactly what I think, he's over proofing the first rise. It shouldn't take that long at that temp for most loaves. I left an answer to that effect.
@rufsca Been a professional baker for almost twenty years. I know what fresh yeast is. I also know that it is far superior to the dried crap. I am also very aware that it is highly perishable, therefor not used in the home to a great degree.
@mrwienerdog Was just surprised to see somebody recommend 'fresh yeast' to a home cook given that its highly perishable. That, and him having possibly old instant/rapid yeast and changing to fresh yeast seemed unrelated to each other. No offense was meant, nor am I doubting your qualifications...
Rather than rising 3 hours, do you rise until doubled? The most I've ever seen is two hours, with a punching down if doubling happens before then. The least I've seen is whatever it takes until doubled (that's usually for a sandwich loaf while the time is usually for a more rustic loaf).
I agree with rfusca that you are overproofing. However, if your yeast is too old, your symptoms would be different. You'd either get a normal(ish) rise with bad tasting dough (because of molds in the fresh yeast), or your first rise will be too slow or won't happen at all. If you get a rise at first and then it slows, your problem is not caused by the yeast being too old.
Yeast consists of living cells. They multiply exponentionally in the right condition, just like any other cells. When they multiply, they use up sugars (and are capable of breaking down starch to sugars before feeding) and produce CO2 as well as less wholesome waste (alcohol, and a compound which stinks of ammonia). The amount of byproducts after a certain time of rising is proportional to the cumulated amount of yeast cells which lived in the dough. The amount of yeast cells which lived in the dough depends on the amount of yeast you started with (duh), time spent proofing, and temperature (rule of thumb: the time you need to proof doubles for every 17°F drop in temperature). And remember, we are talking exponential here: first you have the amount increase slowly, then it explodes pretty quickly.
Within the slow increase of cells, you are allowed to tweak the parameters to suit you. Don't have the time to proof for a long time? Proof at 35°C instead of the 24°C usual in a kitchen. But mostly, you would prefer the slowest rise possible. This comes from the fact that the fermentation of the dough produces tasty compounds in a roughly linear manner. Proof half the time (by choosing a high temperature), and you get the same amount of rise, but half the amount of aroma. But still, you have the options to play around as you want.
However, once you get past the bend in your exponential function, your bread fails. You have altogether too much yeast cells competing for food and producing waste in your dough. They overuse their ressources and die from their own pollution. The missing starches lead to a dough with a certain unhealthy spring to it (if you can degas it at all, because the CO2 pockets in overproofed dough are too numerous and too evenly dispersed, the dough looks like a spiderweb). The dough has some noticeable acetic acid, the sharp taste of alcohol and the harsh smell of ammonia. You should never let it get to that point. (And don't ask why I have such a good knowledge of that dough state).
What you can do is to limit your proofing. First, you can indeed shorten your time at these temperatures. Rfusca's suggestion of a graduated container is good. If you don't have one of the size needed, just stick a small plastic ruler in the dough. Second, forget the sugar. Your dough will rise without it. Sugar gives too big a boost to the yeast at the beginning, because they don't have to waste time breaking down starch for food. And you can imagine what happens to exponential growth if the initial, slow part of the growth is boosted. If you are in the US, chances are that your bread flour already contains small amounts of malt to boost yeast growth anyway. Third, and probably most important, watch your yeast ratio. For a standard yeast bread, it is enough to use 2% live yeast (that's weight percentage relative to the amount of flour, not to the whole) or 1/3 of that amount in active dry yeast. Theoretically, you can go as high as 9% yeast and still handle it, but the dough gets extremly finicky and you need lots of experience to proof it right. Plus, you can't avoid a strong yeasty taste at such concentrations. As for using newer yeast, it won't solve your problem, but old yeast can give you different problems, so if you suspect it's old, replace it. In a lean bread dough (no fat and other additions) your yeast will start just fine when mixed in the flour (active dry yeast) or in the water (fresh yeast), no need to start it with sugar or make a sponge.
Your yeast may be too old, as in a larger portion than usual of the bottle is dead (but some are definitely still alive) - given those rather extended rise times for a 'basic white bread' in a warm (80 degrees) area. Its like you'd be using a smaller amount of yeast.
Since its rising at all I'm a bit suspect of it though, the times should still be proportionally correct and the second rise should still be complete, just extended considerably. Given those times and temperature, it sounds like you may be over proofing your first rise. Considerably over proofing your dough can yield rather low/flat loafs like you're seeing.
Consider measuring your rise in a graduated container to actually determine when its doubled and adjust from there.
New yeast certain wouldn't hurt though.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.079508 | 2011-09-21T01:33:38 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17903",
"authors": [
"Amelse Etomer",
"FuzzyChef",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7483",
"justkt",
"mrwienerdog",
"noobaker",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
16134 | Hints on storage of vegetables and fruit
Different fruits and vegetables require different treatment in order to preserve their integrity, micronutrient contents and especially taste over the longest period possible.
Time and again I am confronted with new insights like tomatoes should not be kept in the refridgerator, because they lose their aroma in cold climate, but I have yet to find a unified resource to learn about best practices in storing these goods.
Are you acquainted with such a resource or have knowledge yourself about this topic?
Thank you for sharing.
related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15068/is-unnecessary-refrigeration-problematic/15071#15071
The best source on this, as with so many other things from the kitchen, is the book On Food and Cooking by Harold McGee. He has a short text on most of the usual and quite a lot of the unusual vegetables in Western cuisine, and gives storage tips for each.
@rumtscho: Since the OP did ask for resources, I'd say your comment is pretty much an answer.
Also see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4993/how-should-i-organize-my-fruits-for-storage/5005#5005
Thank you, rumtscho. I agree with Jefromi - your comment is probably the best 'answer'.
It seemed to me that an idea requiring the OP to read 250 pages in a 35 Eur book is too "lazy" to be a good answer. But I see you liked it, so I added it.
There is a very good book called On Food and Cooking, by Harold McGee. It is a great source on food science, and has chapters on all food groups. In the chapters on food and vegetables, he gives a short text on each fruit resp. vegetable, including storage recommendations. He covers most common plants eaten in Western cuisine, plus quite a few rare ones (fiddleheads, nopales).
The book is also a highly recommended reading material for anybody who wants to know what is happening in their pan, not just for practical advice. It makes a good reference work, but can be also read from beginning to end. If you find the matter interesting, this is one of the best books you can choose.
I managed to find this at a used book store; it's been around long enough that you could quite possibly find a cheap copy.
You can consult it with Google Books. A great resource!
This can actually get into a lot of detail. Especially if you consider that advice for your home may not work for mine. In England I could store butter on the counter, whereas here I need to keep it in the fridge lest I come home to a small puddle.
Some of the very basics off the top of my head:
Leafy greens are best stored at 12 degrees Celsius. For those in warmer climates, better 4 degrees than 24.
Salad vegetables (cucumbers, tomatoes, peppers, carrots etc.) can be stored in the fridge for longer life. In my experience this doesn't affect their flavour.
Root vegetables (onions, potato, beetroot etc.), except carrots, can be stored at room temperature, even when it's warm.
Potatoes should be stored in the darkest place possible.
vegetables from the solanum family (tomatoes, aubergines and peppers) should be kept apart from the squash family (cucumbers, courgettes, pumpkins). I can't remember why this is, though it causes the squash family to spoil faster.
There's plenty more, but I can't think of them right now.
The issues of what food to store apart from others tends to be related to issues of ethylene gas (emitters, or sensitivity to).
In general, I store fruit and veg in approximately the same conditions that the supermarket does. You can bet your bottom dollar that they've researched how to get the most time out of their stock.
This doesn't actually make sense to me. Supermarkets plan on given vegetables not staying in the store very long. If they're not going to lose much within that period, it's fine to use suboptimal storage conditions in order to gain convenience. For example, their leafy greens are often starting to wilt a bit by the end of the day. Additionally, supermarkets tend to be much more air conditioned than our homes, so even if their conditions are right, setting your AC to 68F/20C and storing things on the counter isn't very practical.
@Jefromi : some of the supermarkets near me also do strange things like these automatic misting things that spray down the vegetables every so often ... and you just hope they don't get some sort of bacteria in the line.
I disagree as well. From what I know, the lifespan of supermarket fruits and vegetables ranges between one and three days with one day being the most common occurrence. Therefore I guess their vegetable and fruit stock is optimized towards this one day of presenting itself to the customer.
@SimonVoggeneder, I cannot speak for supermarkets, for I do not know their exact requirements, but I had worked in the food distributor warehouse that supplied mostly restaurateurs and caterers, and most products, including greens and vegetables, were delivered once a week at the most, and, consequently, were expected to last as long. Each special group was stored in separate area, however, to ensure optimal temperature range, and to avoid negative proximal effects that would cause things to ripen faster (there was whole chart about that).
One book that I really like is the Encyclopedia of Country Living. It's more a gardening (and other oddities) book, but after the growing tips for each item, there will be a section discussing storage ... if you should blanch before freezing, canning, dry storage, etc.
It seems I didn't put it back on my shelf when I last referenced it, but I've quoted from it a couple of times, such as for onions and capsicums. Amazon also has it scanned for the 'search within the book' feature.
This sounds like a really interesting book. Thank you!
[...] I have yet to find a unified resource to learn about best practices in storing these goods.
Are you acquainted with such a resource or have knowledge yourself about this topic?
StillTasty is a useful database.
Since other people have given good book resources, I'll provide an answer based on experience.
No matter where you are storing your fruits and vegetables, Debbie Meyer Green Bags will help keep them fresh longer, and thereby tasting better (assuming you follow the instructions like one type of produce per bag, don't use twist ties that will rip the bag, wipe out condensation daily, etc.). I was skeptical about their efficacy (and I typically don't buy any as-seen-on-tv products), but I came across them at a discount store and gave them a try. For most produce, the green bags helped keep them fresh much longer than any other type of storage I've tried.
I'm not being compensated to write this. It's just the solution that works for me. :)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.080039 | 2011-07-13T13:23:56 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16134",
"authors": [
"Anne",
"BaffledCook",
"Cascabel",
"Him_Jalpert",
"Joe",
"Martha F.",
"Northstrider",
"Patty",
"Scott Stensland",
"Simon Voggeneder",
"Thom",
"cadef",
"cecilg23",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34344",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34346",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34354",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6754",
"rumtscho",
"theUg"
],
"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
} |
16352 | Can I use aluminum foil as a substitute for parchment paper?
I'm attempting to make this recipe for Greek Meatza which calls for baking ground beef in a pan on top of parchment paper.
I don't have access to parchment paper, so I'm wondering: can I substitute aluminum foil? If so, are there any adjustments I should make to the time or temperature for baking?
Thanks.
You should also realize that aluminum foil has unsavory chemical reactions when it gets in contact with tomato sauces... thus when I rub meat with a tomato paste before cooking, I put a layer of parchment paper between the foil and the meat.
Depends on what you're making. The principal differences are:
Parchment is much more non-stick than aluminum foil. I haven't tried non-stick aluminum myself, so no idea how that compares.
Parchment insulates (against heat transfer) more than aluminum.
Parchment is somewhat porous; it absorbs water.
Looking at that recipe quickly, it'd probably work fine. I'd suggest substituting aluminum foil sprayed with Pam (non-stick cooking spray). The bottom may brown a little quicker with the foil.
I've never made Meatza, but making a naive assumption that it's comparable to meatloaf (with toppings), I actually have better success w/ the non-stick reynolds wrap then i do w/ parchment paper... @uncle Brad's point is really valid and to that point, I've never had a problem w/ the aluminum foil changing the temp profile...
But again, I havent actually done what you're asking w/ that dish...
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.080696 | 2011-07-23T17:22:05 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16352",
"authors": [
"Doris Ruth Barton",
"Mike Pennington",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34811",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34903",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6606",
"laurie",
"lionz",
"yPhil"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
16459 | Cooking too long, or too hot?
I have just moved into a new apartment, and am learning the ins and outs of this new oven. But being new to cooking/baking in general, I find that everything comes out burnt, one way or another. Cookies, frozen pizzas, etc.
I find that the bottom of everything I put in the oven winds up burnt to a crisp. The edges wind up overdone and burnt, basically, while the center tends to be slightly undercooked. I am trying to experiment with the times and temperatures, to get it right. However, being inexperienced, I am wondering if my oven just cooks hotter than the temperature I'm setting it to.
For instance, my cookie dough says to cook at 350 in a preheated oven for 10-11 minutes. Cooking to 10 minutes, the center is still undercooked, and the edges are nearly black. (The bottom tends to be all black)
Aside from the obvious "get a thermometer" response, does this seem to show signs of cooking too long (without preheating long enough), or cooking at too high of a temperature?
when you do get "dialed in", many oven knobs can be pulled off the oven, adjusted via a hidden screw to show the right temp. and remounted.
It's definitely a sign that the oven is cooking too hot somewhere; the under-done tops and middles are the give-away. I suspect your oven has a malfunctioning thermostat, which is quite common. Try setting temperatures 50 degrees below suggested, and see if it solves the problems. Failing this, purchase an oven thermometer to check it.
Another possibility is that there is poor airflow within the oven. In this case, hot air is heating the bottom of the pan, but cannot get around the edges of the pan to heat the top of the baked good. The solution to this is usually to use a smaller pan, and ensure only one pan at a time is loaded into the oven. My oven has problems of this nature when I try to bake in both racks with half sheet pans.
Thanks for the advice. So I was right in my assumption. After I made that post, I actually tried the other half of the same batch of cookies, at 25 below the recommended temperature. Still burned, but it definitely got BETTER. The centers were more thoroughly cooked, and the outer edges/bottoms were less burned. I was also able to let it cook longer (closer to the recommended time) before it looked ready and before it got TOO burnt. So I'll try -50 then. Thanks for the tip Bob!
Mine is about 75 degrees F hotter. I discovered this by trial and error. If you do get a cheap thermometer, get 2. I don't think you can trust a cheap one.
I know you don't want to hear a "get a thermometer" answer, but you probably should. A poorly calibrated oven thermostat is a prime suspect. Using an oven thermometer, you can get a delta between your oven setting and the thermometer's readings.
The other likely cause is uneven heating in the oven. You can test this by placing the thermometer at different points in the oven.
The difficult challenge is then to remedy the situation. Some people use heat sinks to try to even out the heat in the oven. For example, you could put a pizza stone or some fire bricks (FIRE bricks, not regular bricks) on the rack above your food. Or you could put similar thermal mass between the heat source and your food in order to diffuse the radiant heat. Unfortunately, it will be a bit of trial and error before you settle in on your optimal solution.
As has been said, food + heat = cooking. Knowing what temperature you're applying to food is essential, I really don't understand people's reluctance to using thermometers.
I think uneven heating is unlikely to be the culprit (unless it's vertically uneven due to impeded airflow rather than horizontally). Why? Well, in that case it would manifest as burned cookies in some spots on the pan, and underdone ones in other spots. However, I second the suggestion of buying a pizza stone because it helps hold a steadier temp, and can deal with thermostats allow for too much temperature range.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.080847 | 2011-07-28T04:57:20 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16459",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"OpenID-test2",
"Paul",
"Rolf",
"Tux",
"apaul",
"auerbachb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1687",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35072",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35076",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6861",
"i--",
"overslacked"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
18680 | Is it safe to use the same cooking utensils for raw and cooked meat?
So, being new to cooking, I tried cooking a pan-seared ribeye steak for the first time recently. I'm just getting new cooking utensils, and the idea of flipping the steak is something I'm not sure about.
Last time, I used the same utensil the whole way through. I know, many are likely cringing at the thought. But I was afraid of over-cooking so I was as attentive as possible to the steak.
I'm wondering if this is "safe". I'm guessing most will say it is not, and that's fine. I'd like to do better if it's not safe. I bought a pair of tongs since then (I was using a spatula to flip before!) but I still only have one pair. So, should I be placing the steak in the pan with the spatula, flipping with the tongs, and removing it from the pan with...something else?
Is it safe enough to use the tongs, and rinse them each time they touch meat before it's finished? Should I be scrubbing them with soap each time? Should I simply stick to different utensils? (In which case I might just stop cooking--I don't have that many utensils, don't plan on buying more for this purpose, and quite frankly I don't wish to clean so many utensils when I'm finished cooking)
I know there are other topics, but they haven't been quite as specific as the questions I'm asking here, so I hope I can get a good response on the subject.
I think sometimes we tend to be over-cautious with these things. Wash the utensile at the end (which is what you'd do anyways, even if you just used it for cooked meat) and you're good.
Most chefs will use there fingers to put the meat into the pan, then wash their hands. Turning and lifting out, some will use a spatula, with the utensil touching only the cooked, bottom side of the meat, not the top. Thus only needing to wash the utensil at the end of cooking. I have seen some chefs use tongs, though I can't comment on their practice.
I have some concerns regarding splashing oil in my kitchen at home using a single spatula to flip--I had used two spatulas, to lay it down gently, despite what I wrote in my original question. The same concern applies when I'm placing the meat down with my fingers, of course--placing it down too gently = burning my hand with sizzling oil, and plopping it down not gently enough = splashing oil onto the countertop. I'll figure out the single spatula flip, if I can, haha.
@Tux - I'd just get tongs...
I think you need to be a little braver with the oil. A little splatter isn't going to harm you. Watch this youtube video of Gordon Ramsey cooking a steak. Notice he turns with tongs but he keeps touching the hot meat with his bare hands too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtIiR7DBAqY
When you're placing the meat in the pan, hold it by a corner at the back, thumb on top and fingers below (you need to twist your hand a little but it only takes a second so it's not awkward). Then place it into the pan with the edge closest to you touching first and just let the back edge fall away. The spatter (if any) will then be directed to the back of your pan.
Personally, cooking for myself, I would only worry about it if were something more likely to be harboring pathogens, such as chicken. When doing steak, I just rinse them in hot water.
If you're worried about it, you could soak the spatula or tongs (the part that came in contact with the raw meat, obviously) in some boiling or near-boiling water for a few seconds, long enough to get them to 160°F+.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.081215 | 2011-10-31T01:55:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18680",
"authors": [
"Carole",
"KimbaF",
"Lana",
"Rincewind42",
"Tux",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40473",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6861",
"nico",
"rfusca",
"user514366"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
28377 | Do I finish a day-ahead sauce before or after refrigerating?
I am making a lamb-based pinot noir sauce a day ahead of time. The sauce is finished with butter.
Should I finish it when I take it off the stove? or when I reheat it the next day?
Sometimes finishing is referred to as enriching, and from what I've seen, the finishing ingredient tends to be something that breaks down or otherwise changes in cooking, like walnut oil or cognac. The purpose is to keep the flavour of the ingredient without cooking it; finish it when you reheat it.
The particular issue with finishing the sauce with butter is that if it is done too early and reheated the emulsion of the butter lipids in water may break and you are left with a separate oil layer on top of the sauce. Finish when reheated just prior to serving.
I don't think either way is bad, but I'd finish it when you reheat it as it will be ... fresher for lack of a better word.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.081555 | 2012-11-12T15:43:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28377",
"authors": [
"Ckankonmange",
"Colleen Crilley",
"Kallianassa",
"Mad Myche",
"RudyB",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65404",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65406",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65408",
"user65405"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
16518 | Is it possible to use a commercial oven range in the home?
I'm moving house soon, and the kitchen needs a complete re-fit. I've always been disappointed with the power of my current gas hob, where even the 'fast' ring is only 3kW, and while looking for a more powerful hob noticed that you can get commercial oven ranges for much the same price as decent domestic equipment.
For example, the Lincat OG7002/N has 6 x 6.1kW burners and can be picked up for little over £1000 if you shop around.
I realise that the commercial oven ranges tend to be a bit deeper than normal domestic kitchen equipment (~700mm rather than 600mm) but assuming that can be designed around, are there any other potential problems with installing a commercial oven range in the home?
You seem to be speaking of gas, but I am not entirely sure. Gas might be easier. A commercial electric oven needs more electricity than usual, in Europe they go on a 380 V line. I don't know if there are 380 V lines in the USA, I think I remember seeing somewhere that they manage it somehow with 240 V for commercial.
The other point is that there may be regulations. You are not allowed to operate any electric or gas device you want to. This is why you can't import a range meant for sale in another part of the world. I think ranges must pass some tests after they are installed in a kitchen, and I can imagine that the safety criteria and maybe even the overall legality differ between home and commercial type ranges. So you should clear that with your regulation body (I have no idea who this might be, just that they exist) before you spend any money.
A completely different thing to consider is that there is an optimal temperature for preparing most kinds of food. If you are making steak on a 3 kW burner turned all the way up, you are doing it very wrong. A stronger burner won't give you steak faster, it will give you raw meat with a charred shell. There are foods which need the high temperature (anything prepared by strong boiling or deep frying, some stir-fry dishes), but for normal cooking amounts of them (4-6 portions at once), a 3 kW gas burner is more than adequate. You will need more power if you are preparing bigger batches at once. If not, the problem may be with your cooking method and not the burner.
You're correct I did mean gas (just due to personal preference) and also about the problem areas (large pans of water, some stir fries). It's not a huge problem, but if the commercial kit is the same price and (presumably) better than the domestic kit, then I thought it was worth a look.
Also, almost all Ovens that take 380/400V at a given amperage can be rewired to take 220V/230/240V at a higher ampacity, paralleling the L1...L3 inputs (this will be documented in the oven manual, if not do not attempt it). If it is not obvious why this will mostly but not always work, please let the electrician do it.
Some of the drawbacks with commercial ranges I've encountered that made them less than ideal for home use:
Difficult to light individual burners (I was working on older models so these probably have improved, but I would think the design assumption for professional ranges is that the burners are on most of the time rather than the opposite.)
Very hot oven doors and handles and no safety catches to keep the knobs from being turned (I have a little one running around)
Burners were not sealed so cleanup is more difficult
If these aren't issues for you then I say go for the professional range. You'll never regret having higher output burners, especially if they're dual-ring so they can be turned down to simmer levels easily.
Why not? The only limit is what you are willing to spend on electricity and such. If you're not happy with 3Kw, go for 6Kw.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.081685 | 2011-07-30T21:21:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16518",
"authors": [
"Greg Beech",
"Linda",
"R Brill",
"SSS",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6886",
"jywarren",
"rackandboneman",
"tohster"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
16541 | How long do you cook the vegetables in a pasta salad recipe?
Pasta salad is pasta cooked until soft with vegetables and an Italian dressing. I assume I need to boil the vegetables separately, but am blanking on how long is appropriate. Thoughts?
I agree with Kate. If you're going to do anything with them, just steam the hard veggies (broccoli, carrots, etc) very very briefly. Soggy veggy pasta salad doesn't sound very appetizing.
Kate, you should make that an answer.
My answer would be "not at all". My pasta salad involves only raw vegetables - carrots, peppers, celery, and similar things you would put in a leaf salad. The contrast between the soft pasta and the crunchy veggies is part of the appeal. Just a data point.
And of course, those things that you'd cook before adding to a green salad (eg, beans not of the string-bean variety) would be good to cook for a pasta salad.
In Italy often you use pickled vegetables (carrot, onions, peppers, cauliflower, celery), olives, hard-boiled egg, and some ham or tuna.
It's all personal taste, really.
Raw is definately the easiest preparation, but there are some things that I find a quick blanch helps (eg, brocolli). If there are any vegetables that you find a little too crunchy, try a quick blanch (or steam), and see if it helps improve the texture.
If you're lazy like I am, just chuck the cut up-vegetables into the boiling pasta water when there's a minute or so left 'til it's done. (although, I admit, if you guess wrong on when a minute or two left is, you're out of luck, as it's not so easy to just extract the pasta or the vegetables, unless you're cooking something like tortelli that'll float.) You can also blanch 'em for a minute or two before adding the pasta.
As Kate and Satanicpuppy have said in the comments, as pasta salad is served cold, the usual preparation is to simply leave the vegetables raw. However, if you really want to cook them, I'd suggest slicing them relatively finely and sauteing them lightly, perhaps with a little balsamic vinegar.
Sauteing could mess with your presentation - stuff with browned bits and oil on it usually coats with mayonnaise dressings in a uneven way....
I like to blanch my broccoli 1-1.5 minutes. I also like to sautee my onions,peppers, carrots, zucchini. However I do allow them to cool completely before adding to salad. Ham diced up and mini pepperoni thrown in with Italian dressing with parmesan cheese thrown on top with little celery salt and done. (My grandma also had no teeth) and that's why everything was cooked.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.082036 | 2011-07-31T21:13:34 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16541",
"authors": [
"Curtis Beiersdorf",
"J. Holmes",
"Joe",
"PatrickDickey",
"Satanicpuppy",
"bikeboy389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jswarren46",
"nico",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
19156 | Why are some kind of packets-soups boiled up in lukewarm water, while normally just stirred into already boiling water?
Inscription on packets-soups from supermarket states:
Stir the soup-meal into lukewarm water, boil it up, and wait 5-10 minutes. Ready to eat.
Normally the inscription says that you should boil up water and then stir the soup-meal into it. At least for all noodle and broccoli soups I regulary buy.
Whats the reason, that, in my case, a potato-soup and very few noodle soups needs to/should be boiled up in lukewarm water. Can somebody explain the cooking-physics/purpose behind this procedure?
I cannot imagine is has to do with cooking time like other boiling-tagged questions at first made me think (because the inscriptions are different on packets of same company, there seems to be a different reason), I suppose more that those soups would get lumpy/agglutinate? Cannot think of other reasons.
Some ingredients do not dissolve well in hot water - the starch swells and thickens, forming lumps that may have raw powder in them and are nasty. They need to be added to cold or lukewarm water and heated after they are dissolved. Other ingredients, most notably pasta, will partially dissolve in cold water making a thick gloppy soup. But if you add them to hot water they will "seal" (in a way) and stay together as they cook.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.082265 | 2011-11-26T21:32:38 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19156",
"authors": [
"Doug jones",
"Kate",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41683"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
56735 | If you 'caramelize' an onion, does an onion contain sugar?
I love the taste of lightly fried sliced onion. I've heard this referred to as 'caramelizing' the onion.
Is there sugar in the layers of an onion that is changed to caramel, or is this just a phrase?
My question is: If you 'caramelize' an onion, do they contain sugar?
All food contains sugar, it's just not all the sweet stuff that you're thing about. Check out the Maillard Reaction
@mikeTheLiar It's not true that "all food contains sugar". A bottle of oil contains no sugar whatsoever. There are many foods which contain sugars, but by no means all of them.
@rumtscho when I say "sugar" I'm not referring to glucose/fructose/things that are perceived to humans as sweet. I am not a chemist, but it's my understanding that all digestible calories are a form of sugar. In the case of vegetable oil, it would be glycerol. Feel free to prove me wrong :) (no, seriously - if I'm wrong please tell me)
@mikeTheLiar then you understood something wrong. The human body can get energy from proteins, fats and carbohydrates (I've seen conflicting opinions on ethanol, so I'll leave it out). Only the carbohydrates are split down to sugars, the others aren't. The energy from fat comes when the body splits it into glycerol and fatty acids, but 1) the glycerol itself is not split further, and 2) the glycerol is an alcohol, not a sugar. Also, even if something is split to sugar in the stomach (like starch), it is incorrect to say that it "contains sugar". If you cook up a mixture of starch (cont.)
(cont.) it does not act like a mixture of sugar and water, because it contains no sugar at all. For the cook, it is completely irrelevant that the body can split it into sugar later. Just like starch does not contain feces, even though it can be turned into them by digestion, it does not contain sugar :) So, to sum it up, there is sugar (both sucrose and other types) in more food than people think of, but by far not in all food.
@rumtscho "If you cook up a mixture of starch it does not act like a mixture of sugar and water, because it contains no sugar at all." - but isn't the sugar in the starch was causes various crusts/breads/etc to brown when cooked (I mean the chemical reaction)? (I'd really love to take this into chat 'cause this sounds fascinating but I'm at work :()
@mikeTheLiar this is indeed getting too long for comments, and unlike the digestion part, "Where does the sugar for maillard come from in bread" is ontopic. It's best to write it up as a separate question. I'll answer it later, both to give others the opportunity to get some rep and because I spent a bit too much time doing SE stuff today.
@mikeTheLiar You might also consider asking on biology.stackexchange.com for some of that; the issue of what your body actually does with all those macronutrients isn't really on topic here.
There are some great answers to your question already, but also some wonky ones. I'm new to cooking.se, but I think this sort of question would be more accurately and informatively answered at chemistry.stackexchange.com. Next time you have a similar question, consider posting there instead!
Yes, onions contain sugar, just like most fruit and vegetables. It is not simply a common phrase, it is true caramelization.
They have 4.24 g of sugar per 100 g in total (wet weight). For dry weight 40% is sugar. See the USDA nutrient database for more details.
Do you mean 4% instead of 40%?
No, I meant 40% of the dry matter. The 4 grams are per 100 grams of whole onion, which is mostly water. It has 1.1 g of protein, 0.1 g of fat, 4.24 g of sugars and almost 5 grams of nonsugar carbohydrates. The sugar is 40% of these nutrients.
Ah I see now, just seeing 4.24 / 100 = 40% confused me. Thanks for your explanation.
Onion does contain sugars when raw, but they are pretty much indigestible and tasteless. Cellulose (vegetable fiber), for example, is a complex carbohydrate which only ruminants can digest with the aid of bacteria in their stomach.
With caramelization, complex sugars in onion split into simpler ones, which are the ones we can taste, by the action of heat. Therefore, fried onion tastes sweeter, and so does tomato, etc.
When sugar cane crops are ready to be harvested, dry leaves are burnt in situ in order to increase the yield of sucrose by the same effect: a fraction of the existing complex sugars are turned into sucrose (saccharose).
Good answer, cota: mean cook?
I beg your pardon?
I also suppose that frying destroys some of the compounds which give the onion its pungent taste.
The answer is: An onion contains sugar whether you "caramelize" it or not. "Caramelizing" an onion (or anything else) helps to emphasize the natural sweetness of the onion. You're basically cooking off the water in the onion and concentrating the sugars.
Onions are very sugary. People eat so much sugar these days however, that they don't notice. When someone does something like the atkin's diet or similar, they begin to taste how sweet all those veg really are.
This has been flagged a couple times. I think it is an answer (it says right there, they're sugary) but it's just not the most helpful one. The sugary foods part comes across a bit soapboxy (there are a lot of other reasons we don't taste onions as sweet), and "very" could use elaboration/specificity, like rumtscho showed.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.082429 | 2015-04-17T11:58:34 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56735",
"authors": [
"Amani Elhusseini",
"Cascabel",
"Cathy VanCuren",
"Chef_Code",
"Curt F.",
"IMil",
"John Kalogredis",
"Lisa Carlstrom",
"Luis Cota",
"Michael McGriff",
"Steven Diaz",
"Susan Gall",
"Tamara Walker",
"User1000547",
"Vikki Wright",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134928",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134936",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134987",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34978",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34992",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62602",
"margaret stupples",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
67799 | How to make my scrambled eggs more yellow?
I make a very simple scrambled eggs combining two eggs with a knife of cream cheese.
Sometimes I've had this and it has been a warm yellow colour. Other times it has been a pale white colour.
My question is: How to make my scrambled eggs more yellow?
Not a cooking tip per se, but you might be able to find eggs in the food store which are advertised as "extra yellow". In some cases, the hens are fed corn or algae that contains astaxanthin to make the yolks more yellow. I personally find this expression of "consumerism" a bit strange, but now you at least know that there is such an option.
A drop of yellow food coloring will do the job.
Ah, we consumers and our expectations:
Egg yolks are yellow.
But in reality, yolks come in a range from pale yellow to deep orange. The colour is determined by the food (wheat makes lighter yolks than corn, for example) and can be influenced by feeding "colourants" for a darker hue. Some regions allow even artificial dyes, but a pinch of paprika will do nicely. Apparently the "expected" or "preferred" yolk colour is also a cultural thing, I found a source claiming that European customers want more orange hues while US customers expect deep yellow.
Organic and free-range eggs typically have a greater variation than those from large agro-industrial production.
So if your scrambled eggs are sometimes lighter, sometimes darker, either accept it as "natural" or check the colour of your yolks when you crack the eggs and for pale yolks add a colourant like a small pinch of
turmeric (what makes curry powder yellow) or
paprika (for more orange eggs).
If you use only a very small amount, it won't influence the taste or only very slightly so. Stir the spice in, then proceed as usual.
+1 for turmeric ... that stuff makes ANYTHING more yellow :)
@rackandboneman ...too right - even white-plastic cutting boards!
With my experience, Normally red shell eggs' yolks are yellower than white shell ones.
In Sri Lanka, the domestic hens lay orange yolk eggs. Yolk colour depends on the food that hen consumes.
I have noticed the eggs from my local farm-market, and more generally, free range eggs, tend to have yellower yolks, sometimes even orange ones (which are very tasty). Yolk with deeper color should produce scrambled eggs with deeper, warmer color.
I do not claim this is a guarantee, by any means, it's what I have seen but that's not proof but simple correlation. The hen's diet is supposed to have an effect on color, as seen in this question and this one, but other living conditions or separate factors like breed might well play a role.
What I would recommend is, if you keep a rough track of which eggs you buy - especially since sometimes you get ones with good color and sometimes not - and try out different options like size, color, free range, organic (all depending on availability), you might see if some brand tends towards the brighter color as you prefer. At that point you can preferentially buy the one that works best for you. Or else you might find that, I don't know, the color matters more than brand, or which season the eggs were laid in makes is noticeable.
And if you find yourself with eggs that are pale for whatever reason, take Stephie's answer and look into yellowing spices like turmeric or paprika for a bit of extra brightness.
The fresher the egg, the more orange the yolk. As the egg ages, the whites get milky and the yolk a pale yellow. Buy farm fresh eggs at a farmers market if possible. We have our own chickens so we only cook with fresh eggs.
Perfect scrambled eggs:
Whisk eggs together, add a pinch of salt per egg. Put scrambled eggs in a cold pan, put heat on medium and whisk/stir eggs in pan the entire cooking time start to finish. As the eggs begin to set, turn heat to lowest setting and continue to stir. I raise the pan off the heat if eggs seem to setting to fast. It should take about 10 min to cook the eggs. Add nothing else and serve. You will be shocked how creamy the eggs taste. The pan is tough to clean but worth it!
Do you have any supporting documentation of this? It's directly conflicting with the existing answer.
Sorry, yolk colour is an indicator of the he's diet, not of the age of the egg. (See for example here.) The pigments involved are relatively stable, cooking does not significantly change them and I found no reference to colour changes due to aging.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.082996 | 2016-03-27T10:04:08 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67799",
"authors": [
"Alayne Taylor",
"Andy W Henderson",
"Catija",
"Helma Fuchs",
"Holly Mushitz",
"P A N",
"Sandra Currie",
"Stephie",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162800",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162801",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162821",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41239",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"rackandboneman",
"user2121"
],
"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
} |
70859 | Are there particular palate cleansers for particular foods?
Whilst buying perfume for my wife, the assistant kept offering us a glass of coffee beans to 'cleanse our olfactory palate' in between smelling fragrances.
I had heard of 'palate cleansing' before, but never thought of it in an olfactory way, nor heard of using the smell of coffee beans.
Now there is some mention of palate cleansers on the internet, but I wondered if there was a particular craft of 'palate cleansing' when eating particular foods - or even if particular types of palate cleansers existed for particular types of foods.
My question is: Are there particular palate cleansers for particular foods?
The answer is, undoubtedly, "yes"... But otherwise this seems like a very broad list-type question. Some of them are acceptable here but they generally are discouraged.
Well you would want a basic for acidic and visa versa
I think this is fine in the sense of "does this sort of pairing exist?" - it's when you get to the point of asking for specific palate cleanser/food pairings that it'll get really dicey.
White bread or saltine crackers are used for many food tastings (and drinks ... I once participated in a cola taste-test). I've also had citrus sorbet in between courses in fancy restaurants (French and Chinese). I've also heard of milk being used when sampling hot sauces (which helps with the heat)
Pickled ginger is the proper palate cleanser to use with sushi, which helps keep flavors from mixing when you're trying several different kinds of rolls. So at least with sushi there's a specific palate cleanser, and I imagine there are others for other types of food.
but what makes it "proper" instead of simply traditional?
Even if it's just tradition, it still answers the OP's question - people prefer certain pairings with palate cleansers, just as they do with foods, and they're probably pretty subjective about it, just as they are with food.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.083386 | 2016-06-21T06:47:41 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/70859",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"paparazzo",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
70975 | What is the measure for scaling cinnamon if you double a recipe?
I love bread and butter pudding. We came across a recipe, and had plenty of ingredients, so decided to double everything, including double the cinammon.
This almost worked out perfectly, except that it suddenly felt like we had way too much cinnamon. It was almost as if we should have left the original quantity of cinnamon whilst we doubled everything else.
It seems to me there must be some scaling factor for cinnamon when doubling up a recipe. Something like 2x the recipe but just 1.1x the cinnamon.
My question is: What is the measure for scaling cinnamon if you double a recipe?
I bet you make the original recipe you will taste the same amount of cinnamon
It's perfectly possible that the recipe author really likes cinnamon, or was using old/poor quality (especially if it's a reader-submitted recipe). Perhaps link to it.
What was the amount of cinnamon in the base recipe?
It may also be the type of cinnamon that was used -- there are two main types, cassia and ceylon. Ceylon was the first cinnamon brought to Europe, but over the centuries, Cassia has become more prevalent (in part, because it's cheaper) ... but Cassia is high in coumarin, which has led to EU restrictions on cinnamon: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10538172/Traditional-Danish-pastries-threatened-by-EU-cinnamon-ban.html
If you never prepared the recipe as written (which appears to be the case), you have no basis to tie the way it tastes when doubled to doubling it, rather than to the proportions of the original recipe.
Based on many years of making many things in many sized batches, if I double a recipe and want it to taste the same as the original recipe, I double the cinnamon.
I conclude that the most likely case here is that the original recipe had a lot of cinnamon, and that what you tasted is simply the way it tastes.
Depending what travels the recipe might have had before you met it, there's also a not-uncommon error that occurs with US measurements sometimes - the confusing (by some transcriber in the past) of T and t in hyper-abbreviated notation, which can make a factor of 3 difference (T = Tbs =Tablespoon = 15 ml, t = tsp = teaspoon = 5 ml.) The copy of the recipe you are looking at need not be hyper-abbreviated for this to have happened to it at some point in its past
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.083553 | 2016-06-27T10:57:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/70975",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Joe",
"Paulb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
114204 | What is the 'malty' flavour added to tea to make it taste like biscuits?
I'm in Australia - and for my birthday I ordered some British tea - Yorkshire Toast and Jam. (Picture below.) Which was really nice, but at about 80c per bag, a little hard to justify.
I gave some to my wife and she said:
"That's just Berry flavoured tea added to normal tea"
That shattered my illusions a little bit, but then I got practical. I started mixing strawberry flavoured teas and English Breakfast tea to get that "toast and jam" taste. For the cost, it was pretty close, and I'll probably order some for my birthday next year.
My wife likes their other product - Yorkshire tea 'Malty Biscuit'.
So I thought to myself "I can engineer this one too!" But then I was dumbfounded. Short of breaking up actual malt biscuits to attempt to mix them with tea (leading to a crumby tea problem), how would you do this?
Now I imagine you can try adding some kind of original malt ingredient to it. But again you end up at the 'crumby tea' problem.
When I look at the ingredients list of both they just say "tea, flavouring".
My question is: What is the 'malty' flavour added to tea to make it taste like biscuits?
It could be just about anything that's toasted. In latin markets, you can get coconut water drinks with toasted coconut in it, and it really reminds me of the flavor of breakfast cereal, even though there are no grains in it. You could also toast some wheat berries or similar and steep that to see what flavors you get out of it.
Not something I've ever tried, but I'd be tempted towards either the bottled malt drinks popular in the Caribbean (eg Supermalt), or Horlicks.
Or, you can just buy "malt flavour" - Random google search for liquid flavour manufacturers - http://www.weberflavors.com/products/liquid-flavors/
Perhaps your 'crumby' malt could be done as a separate infusion first, then just the liquid transferred to the tea.
btw, those tea-bags are about £1.50 in the UK - you could probably find a cheaper supplier than Amazon US ;)
There's also malt extract and malt syrup (similar but not quite the same, I think), which are widely available in the UK at least. They have a sweetening effect so you'd want to reduce any sugar you add
Yeah, health food shops always seem to stock a lot of that kind of thing. Not the kind of places I frequent, as I'm very very dubious of their claims that I can buy specific "health" in a bottle ;))
I was thinking more of the home baking section of the supermarket, which is my natural habitat. e.g. Asda
Ah, never thought of that. You can tell I don't bake much, can't you ;) Looks like malty marmite.
Ovaltine is another malt mix that's similar and could also work.
In the Winnie-The-Pooh books, Roo and Tiggr both ate extract-of-malt sandwiches. I'm not sure why I mention this.
@ChrisH I use malt extract instead of sugar in wholemeal bread, because I like the flavour. I've found that no supermarket sells it, and even the wholefoods shops (e.g. Holland and Barrett) around here don't have it. As with most things though, you can order it very easily from Amazon. I buy Potters - presumably there are other producers, but this is cheap and tastes good. You're also going to need milk in the tea, of course.
@Graham strange that I found an Asda link, but Sainsbury's don't do it. Another use is in beer making, so if you've got a homebrew shop near you, they probably have it. I've made beer from kits that use a couple of litres of syrupy malt extract, but the dried stuff is probably more useful
@ChrisH True, but homebrew shops tend to sell it by the litre, which is a bit more than you need for a cup of tea. :)
@Graham I was thinking of the 500g bags of dried, comparable to a bag of sugar
Here's an ingredient list I found for English Malted Biscuits online:
Fortified Wheat Flour (wheat flour, calcium carbonate, iron,
nicotinamide, thiamin), Vegetable Oil (palm and rapeseed [in varying
proportions]), Sugar, Barley Malt Extract, Wheat Starch, Milk Powder,
Raising Agents (sodium hydrogen carbonate, ammonium hydrogen
carbonate), Salt, Flavorings.
Which confirms that Barley Malt Extract is a key ingredient. Yes and the insidious "Flavorings" conspires to thwart us. But why not try Malt first and see if that's evocative enough? In searching the Web, I found that there are brands of Malt-based sweeteners, which sounds perfect for tea. The other major source would be supplies for beer brewers, though I'd worry that they might be extremely concentrated or might not be flavorful raw.
Try adding cardamom powder. It's used in quite a few teas and biscuits. Add about half a teaspoon to one teaspoon for one cup.
OP wanted malt, not cardamom. Presumably if he'd wanted cardamom, that's what he'd have asked for,
In fairness to this answer, flavors are notoriously hard for us laymen to describe with specificity and there are many flavor/odor associations and if cardamom is in fact used commonly in malted biscuits -- I'm a yank and don't know -- this could be a useful step in making the tea taste like a malted biscuit. Especially since cardamom is a proven "not crumbly" ingredient in teas.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.083780 | 2021-02-10T09:57:03 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114204",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Graham",
"J...",
"Joe",
"Ross Presser",
"Tetsujin",
"Wayne",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
108759 | Can I adapt a baking recipe for a Dutch Oven to a Casserole Dish?
I'm cooking a recipe for a Bread that requires a Dutch Oven.
All I have is a Casserole Dish.
The recipe calls for 40mins then 20 mins in a 400F Oven in the Dutch Oven.
My question is: Can I adapt a baking recipe for a Dutch Oven to a Casserole Dish?
They are different terms for the same object, so yes.
In the images you have chosen the first is metal and the second ceramic; these would have different properties in terms of browning the food that comes into contact with the base and sides. But products branded as 'Dutch ovens' come in metal and ceramic, and products branded as 'casserole dishes' come in metal and ceramic too.
In addition, for the specific recipe you are using the author has added:
You can use any 6 quart dutch oven, cast iron, enamel, Pyrex or
ceramic bakeware (with lid) that can heat up to 500 degrees F.
So I would have no concerns about the equipment as long as it has the desired volume.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.084491 | 2020-05-31T09:42:27 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108759",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
90120 | What is the temperature of the massive pots of water at hotels for cooking 10 poached eggs at once?
I love cooking poached eggs at home.
Assumption: This is all sea level (+/-15 metres).
I went to a hotel with glass walls to the kitchen and watched the way they prepared the morning cooked egg orders.
On one stove top, they had an enormous pot (felt like it would cover all four of my stove-tops at home), gently simmering away at some (unknown) temperature. (The water had almost zero egg-white scum floating in it).
The chefs would drop eggs from cups into it, set timers, and then pull the eggs out after the timer had gone off.
This seemed to be an amazingly polished perfection of the process of cooking poached eggs. There could easily have been 10 eggs in at once, with room for fifteen.
My question is: What is the temperature of the massive pots of water at hotels for cooking 10 poached eggs at once?
If it's simmering (meaning you can see small bubbles), that tells you pretty much what temperature it is... so, are you using "simmering" in technical cooking terms where you can see small bubbles or if you just mean that it was over heat but there was otherwise no water movement.
It would be the same temperature for cooking one egg.
It was small bubbles rising from the bottom.
Nice that you are referring to sea level +1
In scale operations, a large 'rondo' is usually used, and as the comments above indicate it is at 'simmer' which is essentially 212 F / 100 C. A small amount of vinegar is added to the water, which helps the loose parts of the egg white coagulate and gives a nicer shape to the poached egg.
Since the kitchen you describe has glass walls, they are taking extra care for the showmanship part of the operation, having eggs in individual cups to drop in the poaching vessel.
A large vessel is used to reduce the temperature rebound of adding the cold (maybe close to room temp) eggs. As each is added, it does not significantly reduce the temperature of the rest of the water in the large pot.
The fact that the water was clear means the station cooks are under directions to continually add vinegar and skim the water. After each egg, some bits come off that have to be cleared out. If the kitchen did not have glass walls, the water would not be that clear during a busy brunch !
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.084600 | 2018-06-02T01:20:57 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90120",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"MarsJarsGuitars-n-Chars",
"hawkeye",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9523",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
73638 | What is the term for serving a soft-cooked fried egg that breaks when the meal is consumed?
Recently I went to a restaurant where they served home-made pasta with a soft-cooked fried egg on top, and then proceeded to stir and mash the egg and whisk the pasta into an incredible dish in front of us. (This Italian restaurant's most popular dish).
In the movie Spanglish, with Adam Sandler, he mades a club sandich, with a soft-cooked fried egg, that then breaks and goes through the sandwich. (Youtube is filled with videos imitating this scene).
This seems to be such a popular concept (and commercially lucrative). (I admit I love it.) I wondered if there was a food term for it.
My question is: What is the term for serving a soft-cooked fried egg that breaks when the meal is consumed?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mASVABRNeM4
fun fact: In the german cuisine exists also a meal like this, which is made of bread, ham and a soft-cooked fried egg. This sandwich is called "Strammer Max", which roughly means "hard dick".
There actually doesn't seem to be a special word for this as a technique - as common as it is (to add an egg to the top of a dish and use the runny yolk as sauce), it is usually just the dish name "topped with an egg" or "topped with a fried egg". Sometimes the egg is fried, occasioanlly poached, sometimes it is cracked on top of the dish and cooked in the residual heat - the goal of having the yolk serve as sauce remains the same, though.
Some dish variations specify the egg on top - in some south American countries, a steak topped with an egg is called a "horse-riding" or riding steak. I have heard of pancakes topped with a fried egg being called a "texas one-eye", though i can't find a citation just now. Pasta with a raw egg added, which is supposed to be cooked in the residual heat and make a sauce of the yolk - is pasta "carbonara".
Its a little funny, but as common as it is to find a dish with topped with an egg, so the yolk will double as sauce - it doesn't seem to have a name more specific. (And it is really common, all sorts of cultures have equivalents). You can say "topped with an egg", or use ElendilTheTall or ESultanik's suggestions for how to specify the soft-cooked nature of the fried egg, and people will probably understand you.
Edit: with the help of some comments from Andrew Mattson, Relaxed, and Chuu, we now have a potential term: steak "Au Cheval" (French) or beef "a cavalo" (south American) means a steak with an egg on top. The words look similar-ish enough to seem related in word appearance and meaning, yet from two different countries - which translate the term to horse riding or horseback steak, meaning the egg is on top of the dish. So with that commonality, we might take the term "Au Cheval" and take it to mean when an egg is laid on top of, or "riding" the dish. As a term it won't be too well known right now, someone may not be understood if you just ask for a sandwich or veggie hash "au cheval"... but if enough people see this definition, or start using it, it may become the official term for the cooking technique!
There's gotta be a French term, somewhere! :D
@AndrewMattson - ahahaha... if there is, I wanna know :D I think maybe it's too commonly used, so maybe nobody needed a term to describe it or thought it unusual enough to name it - since "with an egg" just covered the idea. Someone should make one up!
In French, “à cheval” means both (literally) “on a horse” and “on top of something” (or rather “in between two things” or “on both sides of something”). “Oeuf à cheval” therefore means egg on top of something and what is usually meant is a beef steak (the same dish is also sometimes called, arguably improperly, “steak à cheval”).
One of Chicago's trendiest restaurants is "Au Cheval" whose signature dish is a burger . . . topped with an egg. Nice to know where the name comes from.
I think the Japanese dishes come with an "onsen egg". Typically served on the side but eaten added to the dish.
In the US, where people care deeply about the exact consistency of their breakfast/brunch foodstuffs, the term is either over easy or sunny side up. Both denote a cooked white and a runny yolk. Over easy involves flipping the egg carefully to cook both sides, whereas sunny side up involves flicking the cooking oil onto the top of the egg to cook the top. The latter makes it somewhat easier to maintain a runny yolk.
Out of curiosity: Why would you need to flick cooking oil onto the top of the egg to cook the top while still keeping a runny yolk? I manage just fine without the oil flicking, or am I misunderstanding the desired end result?
Hmmm, maybe it's because of the "crispy browned edges of whites" that ESultanik mentions in his/her answer. Don't want those in my eggs. I fry my eggs at a lower temperature, add a teensy weensy bit of water after the whites start to solidify, and steam them to doneness with the lid on in the remaining minute or two.
I think OP is referring to the general concept of having an egg cooked that way that gets mixed in with the main dish, more than the term for the state of the egg, if I read the question correctly.
I wanted to answer that this is called "a la Holstein" since Wienerschnitzel topped with a fried egg is called Wienerschnitzel a la Holstein, but apparently the "a la Holstein" refers specifically to a Wienerschnitzel dish topped with not only a fried egg, but also anchovies and capers. Alas.
@WillemvanRumpt Flicking hot cooking oil (or butter) onto the top of a runny, sunny-side-up fried egg will ensure that the egg-white on the topside is evenly cooked and rendered "white" rather than translucent around the yolk. I do this before its service and consumption. It looks and tastes better that way. Yummy!
@PeterPoint: Good to know :)
Though I still manage to do that without any oil-flicking going on: Just close the lid and let it semi-steam to completion.
ElendilTheTall beat me to it; read their answer for more info.
I will add that, at least in the US, whenever a menu states that a dish is topped with a "fried egg," it almost always implies that the egg will have a runny yolk. You often see this on sandwiches (particularly hamburgers), and often as an optional addition. Typically, the egg will be shallow fried similar to what is sometimes called the "Spanish Method." This produces a solid white, runny yolk, and crispy browned edges of the whites. Ordering eggs "over easy," "sunny side up," or "soft poached" at most breakfast/brunch places will produce a solid white and runny yolk, but it will typically not result in the crispy edges.
Here in the UK you'd ask for it 'with a runny yolk'
Also 'soft boiled', and 'over medium' (which has a liquid yolk, but it's thickened some like what you'd think of as a sauce)
You see this with the Korean dish, BiBimBap (mix of cooked marinated meat and assorted vegetables on a bed of hot rice). It comes with a runny-yolked egg on top, which gets mixed in with everything. I think the more traditional method is to crack a raw egg into the steaming hot rice, and then the egg gets cooked when it's mixed into the rice, but for the sake of health departments and restaurant licenses, they cook it, minimally, before putting it on top.
Perhaps the best soft cooked egg to stir into a dish is the Japanese style "onsen egg", an egg traditionally cooked in a hot spring. This can be done perfectly every time at home cooking the egg in a sous vide bath of water at 168 F for twelve minutes then cracked over the food. A perfect poached egg drops from the shell.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.084825 | 2016-09-02T12:24:53 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73638",
"authors": [
"Chuu",
"Joe",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Megha",
"Peter Point",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Relaxed",
"Richard",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10493",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49585",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50262",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"immutabl",
"jiggunjer",
"user2483352"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
30761 | How much to reduce salt when using salted butter in place of unsalted butter
I normally don't keep unsalted butter on hand since I use it so seldom. So when a recipe calls for salt and unsalted butter among its ingredients would it be alright to use salted butter and reduce the amount of salt? And if so, by how much should the salt be reduced? In other words, how much salt is typically contained in a tablespoon, ounce or gram of salted butter?
I always go the opposite. I keep unsalted all the time and never by unsalted. You can always add salt but it's very difficult to take away.
unsalted butter doesn't keep long, and if I buy a pound I never manage to use it before it is bad. So I buy salted and try to adjust.
@KateGregory, I don't think I use a particularly large amount of (unsalted) butter, but I've never had it go bad on me. If you're stocking up, put the extra packages in the freezer, but the opened package should be perfectly fine in the fridge, and we even keep a stick out at room temperature for spreading purposes. It's just too hard to tell how much salt your butter is adding; plus, there are times when you don't want to add any salt at all.
All types of butter keep nearly forever in the freezer, and it does it no harm. Cut your butter into sizes used for baking etc, and store in a ziploc style bag in the freezer
What is 5/16 of a teaspoon? How do you, 'eye ball' that? Digital scales are almost cheaper than a set of teaspoons these days.
Depending on brand, it is approximately 1 1/4 tsp per pound (US), or a little more than 1/4 tsp per stick (4 oz).
For most applications, yes it is fine to substitute and adjust; you can just adjust the "salt to taste" step of your recipe in many cases.
There are a very few uses (such as yeast raised dough) where you want to be more precise. I would not use salted butter for a yeast dough by preference, but if I had to, I would calculate the amount of salt to remove from the other ingredients based on this ratio:
1 1/4 tsp salt / 16 oz butter
Personally, I think that bread can always use more salt.
@Sobachatina Maybe, but it will inhibit the rise as so things are a balance :-)
If you're in the US, labeling laws actually make it pretty easy to know exactly how much salt is in your butter, and yes, it varies by brand.
Salt is sodium chloride, it's 40% sodium by weight. Land O Lakes salted butter (my go-to brand) has 90mg of sodium per tablespoon. That means it has 225mg of salt per tablespoon, or 1.8 grams per stick, 7.2 grams per pound. Table salt weighs 5.7 grams per teaspoon, so Land O Lakes salted butter contains 1.26 teaspoon of salt per pound of butter.
I always bake with unsalted butter, but just now I am making a brioche according to a recipe that will take as much as 6 ounces of butter in one loaf. That’s a stick and a half, a BOATLOAD of butter. I wanted to make it special and use a highly rated, European style cultured butter. I’ve got the butter, but it was only available salted. That’s ok. This brand has 55mg sodium per tablespoon. That’s 660mg sodium for all of the butter in the recipe. 660mg sodium = 1650mg salt (NaCl), or 1.65 grams. The recipe calls for 3.3grams of salt to be added with the (unsalted) butter, so I’ll add (strangely enough) half of that, 1.65 grams.
If you're substituting the unsalted butter you have into a recipe that calls for salted butter:
If using metric units, add about 1.5% salt. That means for 100g of butter, add 1.5g of salt.
If using English measure, add 5/16 tsp per 4 oz stick of butter.
Similarly, if you're substituting salted butter into a recipe that calls for unsalted butter, remove an equivalent amount of salt elsewhere. Be more cautious going this direction, though; for example, if you're making a dish where butter is added separately from the salt, you should think about why the salt is being added separately before using salted butter.
What is 5/16 of a teaspoon? How do you, 'eye ball' that? Digital scales are almost cheaper than a set of teaspoons these days.
According to the folks at America's Test Kitchen, the salt content in butter varies and may increase or decrease the amount of water in the butter. If you use unsalted butter, there are few if any variations. I've baked muffins and cookies with both salted and unsalted butter and personally prefer unsalted butter in baking but salted butter when adding to a finished dish (vegetables) or making things like grilled cheese.
America's Test Kitchen/Cook's Illustrated is the only source I've seen for the claim about water content varying for salted butter (see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25014/water-content-of-salted-butter), and nutrition facts contradict the claim. So as far as I can tell, it's just the salt that matters, and water is a non-issue here.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.085531 | 2013-02-07T19:23:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30761",
"authors": [
"Amr11",
"Brendan",
"Cascabel",
"Charles Greene",
"Cornbread",
"Cory M",
"DaveG",
"Gloria Meyers",
"John Macdonald",
"Kate Gregory",
"Kyle A",
"Marti",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sobachatina",
"Spammer",
"TFD",
"W W",
"YaYa",
"george cummings",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103284",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159878",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71958",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71961",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73377",
"nxmehta",
"pinkdolphi",
"slot deposit 50 Jadi 100"
],
"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
} |
20167 | Training on molecular gastronomy and sous vide
I am looking for suggestions on opportunities for learning techniques directly from a skilled professional, preferably in a classroom setting.
I have been dabbling in molecular gastronomy/precision cooking techniques in my home for a couple years. I have relied on the Khymos online reference, videos from Texturas, and a few cookbooks. Fun as this has been, I feel I am at the point where I want to have an interactive session with someone skilled in the art, but as I cannot commit to a full-time culinary education, I need to find a recreational-level course. I would be willing to travel for a well-crafted session. Does anyone have any recommendations or ideas?
I'm not really sure that this kind of question is a good fit for us, and I think the lack of answers is highlighting it. You basically know what you need/want - personal instruction. Seems like you either want somebody to affirm this (which is kinda pointless for us) or to recommend somebody specific (which wouldn't be useful in a very general sense for us). As it stands, I'm not really sure what kind of answer is appropriate here.
Even in 2012 there was some question if this was a good question for the site, and I think three years later it's pretty clearly too broad - we don't really do sourcing/recommendation questions. There might be some ways to make this more specific, but in its current form it's attracted a couple pretty iffy answers in the last few hours, along with a kind of spammy one a few years ago.
I'm not sure if you've encountered this in your research but it looks like it might be full of good information.
I would personally buy this book and fully consume it, but I personally learn better that way.
José Andrés Puerta has an M.G. restaurant in your area (minibar) that appears to be more experiential. You could probably get a few good questions in during courses.
the Harvard class is only open to full-time undergraduate students (pity, as it would be perfect). I'm toying with getting the myrhold tome, but it is't interactive. I have eaten at the Minibar, and I had a complete blast, but they don't offer classes. Nice ideas all, but unfortunately, they don't quite fit the bill. Thanks, though.
On reflection, I will give you the bonus. Although your exact answer is not what I will do, it inspired me to hunt down the names of some of the chefs who worked at the Minibar, and I found one who is interested in setting up a workshop.
I am not working specifically with gastronomy (yet! I certainly hope to, and congrats on undertaking an awesome task), but when I decided I wanted to take my cooking to the next level I got a part-time job in a local nice-ish restaurant that was working with the advanced techniques I wanted to learn.
I more or less walked in and explained my desire to learn to the owner/executive chef, and he agreed to try me out for a couple of days. He liked my work ethic and I've been learning ever since.
I think amateurs can learn a ton on their own (and I still consider myself an amateur skill-level wise), but after a while I think your learning is accelerating by working in a professional kitchen.
Best of luck either way! Hope this helps.
HACCP Training needs to follow the requirements set out by the Codex Alimentarius. This is also requested by most (if not all) the GFSI schemes. Most food companies will have to start creating food safety plan as the Food Safety Modernization Act or FSMA comes into effect. Instead of it being Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) it is Called Hazard Analysis Risk-Based Preventative Controls (HARPC). There are some fundamental differanced between HACCP and HARPC. Please refer to http://www.ehaccp.org/content/haccp-vs-harpc
Hi Stephen. Welcome to Seasoned Advice! That's a serious supply of initialisms you've got there. I'm not seeing how it helps the OP find training though. Maybe I'm just missing it?
My name is James Chen and I am the new Business Development Manager for CREA Academy. I am contacting you to follow up on your expressed interest in taking a sous-vide training class with a sous-vide professional. Dr. Bruno Goussault teaches sous-vide courses for renowned chefs around the globe, including Joel Robuchon, Thomas Keller, Heston Blumenthal as well as the majority of the Michelin's three-star chefs in Europe.
We have recently opened up a class to take place January 31st-February 2nd, 2012 in the Washington, DC area. The cost per person is $2,400.00 for the 3-day training and the application form can be sent to you upon request.
During the training you will learn the origin and evolution of sous-vide; the why-and-how it made its way into the kitchens of the world’s top Chefs. You will learn the reason for which there is a right temperature to cook each different product and how to put it into practice using your own recipes. You will learn to master the times and temperatures to control the color, tenderness and flavor of your product. Part of the training is devoted to learning about the right equipment: How to select, calibrate, utilize and maintain them. There is no single way to cook sous-vide and because scientists love experimenting as much as Chefs, most of the time is dedicated to hands-on training. Under the direction of our Chief Scientist, you can experiment and taste to discover the many possibilities sous-vide has to offer. Over the three days you will see these techniques as they are applied to meat, poultry, fish, seafood, vegetables, fruits, sauces, herbs and aromatics. Lastly, the focuses will be on microbiology, bacteria, good food safety and shelf-life in order to achieve the best quality and the safest products. The class is mix of lecture & hands on activities which leads to a very informative and fulfilling experience.
Regarding the HACCP Plan, also necessary for the Health Department, we provide a 2-day service. The first day is about training your team to use, maintain and update a HACCP plan, particularly regarding the sous vide technique. The second day is about building your HACCP plan for your recipes made sous vide, with the Chef, Sous Chef and persons who will be involved in the sous-vide process in your kitchen. The total cost is $5,000 for HACCP Plan plus travel expenses and 2-night hotel lodging. Our specialty is the sous-vide technology, we do not provide the HACCP Plan without a three-day sous-vide training. If you are interested in getting the training & HACCP plan we can look at a package for better pricing. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any additional questions. I look forward to hearing from you soon!
You can find more information online at www.cuisinesolutions.com or contact me directly at
[email protected].
Thank you for your answer, unfortunately your bio does not include contact information or a webpage for me to visit. I look forward to learning about your training program.
Our website is cuisinesolutions.com and my e-mail is [email protected] I included it in my post, but the admins must have removed it.
It was not an admin that removed it, on this site, anyone with enough reputation can edit a post. Generally salutations and signatures are frowned upon and removed. However your contact information is clearly relevant to your answer, so I added it back for you. Welcome to the site. We have a number of questions about sous-vide on the site. Maybe you could lend your expertise on some of them: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/sous-vide
I've closed the question so it's kind of a moot point, but for what it's worth, I don't think this was actually spam: the OP did ask for things exactly like this.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.085963 | 2012-01-04T21:24:38 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20167",
"authors": [
"ANeves",
"Bruce Goldstein",
"Cascabel",
"Ernest Serrat",
"Hazel Feldman",
"James Chen",
"PaulaM",
"Preston",
"Thomas Sauter",
"Utsav T",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44657",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44658",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44820",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8661",
"moki",
"rfusca",
"user6136506",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
18670 | How can i tell if a pineapple will be sweet?
A lot of the times when i bring a pineapple home and eat it, i get a semi-sweet and sour taste. How can you tell when is the right time to eat your pineapple to get very sweet pineapple meat?
Related Question: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/860/what-should-i-check-when-buying-a-pineapple
I suspect you have little to no choice about varieties, so the question linked to by talon8 is probably your best bet. If you do have some choice... as an alternative to the wordy article provided by soegaard, Wikipedia has a more concise list of varieties, and this Purdue page has a much more comprehensive list. Upshot: smooth cayennes are on average sweeter than red spanish, though there's considerable variation among derived strains.
And actually, I think this is a duplicate - selecting a ripe one at the store is essentially the same as knowing the right time to eat one.
Usually you can tell when Pineapples are ripen, which will be sweet, when
Leaves are loose and can easily be picked from the top
The shell has golden colour (but not dark brown, these are getting rotten)
The aroma even from out of the shell is strong
A typical pineapple that is bought green and unripen, takes one to two days to ripe well. Don't put them in the fridge if you want to ripe them. Keep them out on the counter. As a street food vendor, we always keep them in the truck for one night prior to selling, that ensure the pineapples ripe enough and the juice comes out of it.
Hope it helps.
Actually, the fruit need to be ripe for sweetness, but a fully ripened fruit is not always necessarily sweet (bad crop, wild ones, etc). Ripeness is far easier to gauge than sweetness.
Once a pineapple is picked. It will not ripen any further. To find a sweet pineapple, tap the pineapple with your middle finger nail. If it has a solid sound it suppose to be ripe and sweet. A hollow sound means it is still green and sour. Tap several pineapple and compare the sound.
Is there something special about your middle finger? Why that one?
Is there any reference for this correlation?
First of all there are different types of pineapple: The difference between pineapple types.
Second you need to know how to pick the ripe ones: How to Select the Perfect Good Pineapple from the Grocery Store.
It's really best if answers have at least a bit of information in them, not just links.
There are pros and cons for this. See http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/526/outside-link-useage for reasons to include outside links.
I didn't say not to include them, I said that you should also include information in your answer. All that the linked meta question says is that it's okay to include links, not that it's okay for them to be your entire answer. Further, they actually discourage that: Joe says "additional related information". The key word for you is additional.
Feel free to edit the answer.
Feel free to provide an answer with information in it, so that others (including the OP) don't have to read wordy articles hunting for the actual answer.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.086569 | 2011-10-30T16:33:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18670",
"authors": [
"Brian Jorgensen",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"amateurCook",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40459",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40493",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"pims",
"soegaard",
"talon8",
"user110084"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
25766 | How can I filter out unwanted particles in my chicken broth?
I often like to cook an entire chicken in water in a crockpot. After the chicken is done cooking, I remove all the meat and then throw the bones & organs back in, pour some extra water in, and let it sit for a day on "Keep Warm".
Now the only thing is that I find that there's some brown particles floating around that I'd rather not be in there. I do my best to clean out the chicken before putting it in, but I'm still not entirely trusting.
Anyway, how can I filter this stuff out to just leave me with a liquid broth?
Please make sure your "keep warm" setting keeps it above 140°F/60°C, for food safety reasons ...
Yep. It's usually a light boil after about a couple of hours.
Also, what have you tried? There are several commonly used filters, from a fine-mesh strainer, cheese cloth, coffee filters, chinois (which are all filters), to an egg-raft used in making consumé. Then there are the non-traditional methods, using freezing or gelling agents.
I've tried coffee filters but the ones I tried kinda fell apart and it didn't work out so well. I have a fine mesh strainer actually on the way so I can try that, but wasn't sure if it would be too porous or not. I thought there might be some "known" way to do this that closely mirrors how the big brands do it.
Depends on how clear you want it. Personally, I rarely bother with anything more than the fine-mesh strainer. (The big brands no doubt do it in some manner appropriate to a food plant, but way too expensive for home use)
A piece of muslin/cotton/fine-tissue-of-your-choice will do the job nicely.
You can easily find it in kitchen stores or online.
After filtering the broth with cheese cloth you may want to cover the broth with a fresh piece of cheese cloth and set it in the fridge for a while (overnight). The oils left in the broth will rise to the top and form a solid layer which will come out when you lift the cheese cloth. This will allow your broth to last much longer.
@Cos Callis: good tip! I'll try that next time!
If it really bugs you, you could clarify the broth.
You can mix egg whites with minced (chicken) meat. Add it to your simmering broth and wait until it floats to the top.
What is the use of the egg white?
@nico, The proteins in the egg whites traps the floating particles. In Spanish, 'clara de huevo' is egg white and 'clarificar' is more or less filtering (they did that with egg whites).
makes sense! You always learn something new!
@nico, they clarified wine [Spanish] this way.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.086859 | 2012-08-21T15:36:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25766",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Bernmeister",
"Cos Callis",
"Peter Simmons",
"Vaishnavi Priya",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59095",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59097",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7937",
"joslinm",
"nico",
"zzzzzzz"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
18936 | Can a convection microwave be used to dry fruit
My wife has been wanting a dehydrator and our conventional microwave just went up. I did some research and found a new breed of microwave that I was previously unaware of, namely, the convection microwave oven. I'm wondering if I can kill two birds with one stone here and get both with my new purchase.
Can a convection microwave be used to dry fruit?
Previously, to dry fruit, she has just been setting the oven to a really low temperature for a couple hours and cracking the door ever so slightly. This has a mediocre level success and makes our house smell funny.
I would guess that you will get a the same limited success for a couple of reasons.
You might not have the correct heat required. Food dehydrators usually have an operating temperature around 140 degrees Fahrenheit. If you can get your convection oven to go that low, I don't think you would have a problem with accidentally cooking the food.
Heat however is only the first step. Dehydrators only use heat to coax the moisture out of the foodstuff. The key ingredients you are going to be missing is the air-flow and ventilation. A crucial component to de-hydrating is quickly removing the moisture (released by the heat) from the air surrounding it. The air flow allows for a higher evaporation rate since the moisture inside the food will be in a disequilibrium with with air surrounding it. The ventilation supplies the surrounding space with a constant supply or dryer air effectively maintaining disequilibrium. The greater the disequilibrium, the faster the food be de-hydrated.
If I were you, I'd make her happy and go get a good dehydrator with adjustable fan-speeds.
My convection microwave does go that low, and does have a fan for the airflow. So, if you are still to go shopping, it is possible to find such microwaves.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.087096 | 2011-11-13T19:55:45 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18936",
"authors": [
"Emilie Nasser",
"MSalters",
"Srik",
"cookiesfromhome",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41076",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5185",
"user3495690"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
52246 | Quick bread formula?
Hi it seems the recipes for quick breads like banana bread, pumpkin bread etc are all very similar. Is there a good guide for a general quick bread recipe where you just fold in the unique characteristic?
Ie: a recipe where you can just fold in 1 cup of bananas to make banana bread, or 1 cup of pumpkin to make pumpkin bread, etc.
Yes, from the book Ratio: The Simple Codes Behind the Craft of Everyday Cooking by Michael Ruhlman
Quick Bread = 2 parts flour: 2 parts liquid: 1 part egg: 1 part butter...Recipes vary considerably on how much baking powder to use. I've found that a good working rule is one teaspoon per 4 ounces of flour (a scant cup), or 5 grams for every 110 grams of flour.
Would pumpkin puree / mashed banana /... count as liquid? And is "parts" meassured by weight or volume?
Yes, within a certain degree of "judgement call". He goes back and forth between weight and volume.
Nice, thanks. Sugar isn't included in that ratio/recipe?
Nope, a difference between 'bread" and "cake".
Unfortunately, the available liquid content of bananas and pumpkin puree are different and affect the final qualities of the bread accordingly. Ruhlman's book addresses the banana bread option explicitly by recommending that you brown the butter first (which would eliminate the liquid content present in the whole butter) and that you reduce the the liquid (milk) by a quarter by weight for what would be 2 parts banana. Also, though Ruhlman tends to use some volumetric measures for smaller amounts like salt and baking powder, his fundamental ratios are based on weight. Ruhlman is the authority.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.087279 | 2015-01-03T18:47:35 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/52246",
"authors": [
"Beer Cellar Cooling System Ltd",
"Carrie Neubert",
"Jolenealaska",
"Marcus Leon",
"Stephen Eure",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123986",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123987",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7986",
"siew ying Lo",
"요사장"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
19671 | Save meat from chicken broth?
I made a chicken stock/broth with chicken parts including two chicken legs. After cooking the broth for three hours, is the meat in the pot considered edible?
Should you save it and use it for something like chicken salad? Or is it considered lacking in all flavor and nutrients after being cooked for three hours?
Edible? Absolutely yes.
Flavorful? ....you should taste it and tell us. Seriously, don't serve a meal to anyone, yourself included, until you've tasted it and it tastes at least decent. (Not trying to be snarky here, that's literally the best cooking tip I was ever given)
Nutritious? Probably somewhat--that chicken muscle is primarily protein after all.
Generally, soups are made with bones because bones can't be used for anything else, so it's more economical to get soup-flavor from bones (making the stock), then use meat for texture and to add variety to the liquid. I was taught to put meat into soups in the last hour of cooking. Many recipes I've seen call for taking out the whole pieces of meat and shredding it or pulling it before serving it in the soup.
I'd like to add another reason for using bones: that's where the gelatine is.
agreed--bones tend to have more umami in them than meat
Using the shredded chicken in something with a very flavorful sauce (I'm thinking enchiladas) where its flavor would be very background would be the best bet I think.
I freeze the soup meat and use it in chicken salad or casserole dishes where the sauce flavor is expected to be stronger than the chicken flavor
Fry/roast it, use spices and other ingredients copiously. It's bland but perfectly edible and roasting will restore (or more accurately, create from scratch, apart from the original) a good bit of the flavor.
I've served the chicken from making chicken soup, as did my grandmother, but it's generally fairly flavorless after the long cooking. The blandness was exactly why boiled chicken was the usual pre-fast meal for Yom Kippur in my grandmother's house. I'll often use the bottom quarters, supplemented with additional necks and backs, to make the broth, reserving the breasts to add to the soup for service, along with fresh carrots and some fresh dill fronds (the spent veggies from making the broth are also discarded with the cooked-to-death chicken, except for a whole onion which is a cook's treat in the middle of the night).
You can use it in many recipes but you will have to add seasonings as the chicken will be bland. One thing I use it for is chicken tacos, shred the meat a little, in a shallow pan add chopped onions, thin slices of red and green peppers, chopped garlic, and sautee with a little oil for a few minutes until onion is translucent, add the chicken a cube tomato and a little of the broth, add chilli powder, cumin, salt, and if you like it spicy either a chipotle pepper or mexican hot sauce, simmer covered for about 30 minutes, remove the cover and continue cooking until the sauce is thicker.
Now put it in a tortilla and add any condiments you like in your tacos, I prefer to keep it simple just cilantro and Mexican farmers cheese. Enjoy!
I shred and debone it all. What's not going back in the soup i make chicken enchiladas. I use store bought red enchilada sauce mixed with the meat along with a little mexican blend cheese. Then I rolled them up in wrap (about 2" round) place them in a baking dish. Cover with enchilada sauce and some more cheese. 350 F for 30 minutes +- and dinner or snacks are ready
I would use it only the same day it’s cooked and as it is without any additional cooking process (e.g. on top of cooked rice/mashed potatoes or in salad). .
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.087458 | 2011-12-15T04:03:32 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19671",
"authors": [
"Eric Hu",
"Nick T",
"Osama Kiani",
"Robin Cordova",
"Steve Garland",
"User152541524",
"Vikki Louth",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133744",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133990",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42865",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42876",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6818",
"isabel",
"rumtscho",
"zadrozny"
],
"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
} |
24769 | Baking time difference in pyrex versus metal
What baking time is optimal for recipes that are done in pyrex for banana bread versus metal baking dish?
Very similar to Baking in Glass Loaf Pan and Should I be able to make a tarte tatin in a glass dish?
Time is only a rough indication of whether any dish is "done", the biggest 'unknown factor' from your question is, "what temp are you baking at?".
I would suggest you use the following 3 tests to determine when your banana bread is done (regardless of whether you are using pyrex or metal):
The bread is very brown and solid on top
A toothpick or chopstick inserted into the bread comes out completely dry. (Even a few moist crumbs are evidence that your bread is not done.)
The bread has reached an internal temperature of 195°F to 205°F (90°C-95°C)
Each condition should be met in order, so don't bother with the toothpick until you see the rich brown color, then once the toothpick is clean, check the internal temp.
Everything Cos Callis indicates about times being approximate, and how to test if the banana bread is done is true.
However, there is a general pattern of the difference between glass an metal baking pans that is direct consequence to how ovens cook the food. Baked goods will typically cook somewhat faster in the glass pan, than in metal.
There are two ways to compensate for this:
Some people lower the temperature by about 25 F to make the time come out more evenly.
The other options is to watch the item closely to see when it is done, which may be somewhat earlier than in a metal pan.
Since what is most often baked in glassware are quick breads and savory dishes, neither of which are terribly sensitive, it really isn't something that needs to be worried about deeply.
It is a far larger factor with cookies, but they are almost never cooked on glass. Still, you can see the same effect because cookies bake faster on dark cookie sheets than light colored ones.
The reason that items cook faster (at a given temperature) in glass is that the major mode of heat transmission in an oven is infrared radiation, which is a form of light (with a wavelength too long to see, so it is invisible). This is the same reason holding your hand near an old style incandescent light bulb without touching it would still feel warm.
Glass pans are transparent to infrared, so all of the radiant heat is pretty well applied to the food. Metal pans are more reflective, so some reflects off. The darker the pan, the more they absorb, and the more quickly the food cooks.
This is not to say that convection and conduction to not also cook the food, but they are a lesser factor.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.087912 | 2012-06-30T23:36:14 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24769",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Sara C Rans",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84010"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
25150 | How do I know when fish cooked in parchment or salt is done?
I want to try fish (either fillets or whole) baked in parchment or salt. I have found several recipes but they specify a certain weight fish. How do I adjust the cooking time for the size fish that I have?
Thanks!
As derobert states, use a thermometer to measure the temperature of the fish. Start with parchment and when you get the hang of it, you can guesstimate the salt.
The baking time should vary with the thickness of the fish (or anything, really), not with the weight. This is because the heat is coming from the outside, and has to conduct through the fish to get to the center. Of course, for the most part, a heavier fish is also thicker, so a heavier one takes longer to cook.
One option is to use a food thermometer. Cook until the center reaches your target temperature minus a few degrees (the center will continue to heat even after you take it out of the oven, as the temperature inside the fish evens out). The USDA recommends 145°F for food safety, but often lower temperatures are used (many people consider 145°F overcooked).
Another option is to cut the filets to the size expected by the recipe.
If you want to try and estimate the time, the general rule is that heating time follows (approximately) an r² law, that is, twice the thickness, four times as long to heat through. Note that different materials heat differently, so two different species of fish may be slightly different. There is of course a a formula to compute this, but you'd spend longer in the lab measuring the exact properties of your fish than it'd take to do either of the other methods :-P
Cutting fish or piercing it wouldn't work with salt.
Thank you. I bought a whole red snapper today. We will see how tomorrow's dinner turns out:)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.088150 | 2012-07-20T18:07:27 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25150",
"authors": [
"ADTC",
"Ali",
"BaffledCook",
"Kevin Postlewaite",
"Margaret Ann Duhon",
"Marquetta",
"elmiracat",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57494",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57495",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57497",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"user57495"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
25184 | Pickles are really salty (lactic fermenation)
I decided to make pickles following a recipe that our crop-share association (CSA) suggested: Three Secrets To Crispy Pickles, And A 'Lost Recipe' Found.
After 4 days, I decided to sample my creation. While the pickles have a nice texture (crunchy) and aroma, they are quite salty (almost inedible). Are pickles that are created this way normally fairly (subjective) salty?
If my calculations are correct (4T salt / 1Q water = 79.2g / 946.4mL), the recipe uses 8.4% saline solution. The concentration might indeed by higher if one adjusts for the water evaporation that occurs during boiling and cooling. From my reading, other recipes use a 5% saline solution.
What is the ideal saline concentration for lactic fermentation?
Will the perceived saltiness of the pickle decrease as it ages?
Is there anything else that might have lead to this result?
I once got the top pickle off a newly-opened ~4 liter jar of pickles in the Ukraine, and that top pickle (which was mostly above the water line) had turned out extremely salty compared to those below the water line. If you have pickles sticking out above the water line, that may be something to be aware of when taste-testing a batch of pickles.
I quickly skimmed the article, and this was what I was looking for
"After a week, slice off a small amount of cucumber and taste. If you like the level of sourness that the pickle has reached..."
If the sourness of the pickles increases with time, then the answer to your second question is yes. I don't have the answers to the other ones, but when I worked in a restaurant, our chef taught me that sour foods, like tomatoes, respond very well to salt.
This is a trend I've observed with other sour things I've consumed and prepared. Salt-rimmed glasses for lime margaritas take the focus away from 'sour' and vice versa: licking the salt off a margarita glass without drinking anything would get intolerable quickly.
Edit: I found a physiology study that supports this: the perception of saltiness is reduced by sourness (acidity).
Accordingly, the magnitude of the chorda tympani response to NaCl is enhanced at alkaline pH and inhibited at acidic pH, i.e., in mixtures of NaCl with weak organic acids
The chorda tympani is the nerve that carries signals from the tastebuds at the front of the tongue to the brain. As the cucumbers develop more lactic acid, the acidity will reduce the perceived saltiness.
Edit 2: Some more information is available on the Gustatory System Wikipedia page for salt and sour.
Saltiness is perceived primarily by an ion channel in the taste cell walls. An ion channel is a type of protein that allows ions to flow across cell walls. The particular protein for salt perception is called ENaC. Sour perception is facilitated by 3 proteins, one of which is also ENaC.
Re Question 1: I'm pretty convinced that your first question should be something more along the lines of "What are ideal salt/lactic acid ratios for lactic fermentation?" It appears that you have two variables to play with:
How much salt you put into your pickling brine
How long you ferment the pickles for (controlling how much lactic acid develops)
I'd venture to guess that there may be several different sweet spots for a good balance, but that generally 'too salty' can be offset with more fermentation while 'too sour' can be offset with more salt (and an immediate halt to fermentation).
I am not sure there is an ideal concentration. There is a range. Beyond that, it is personal preference. Sandor Katz, in "The Art of Fermentation" suggests a 5% solution. That's about 3TBS per Liter, so, slightly lower concentration than yours. He also references a suggestion for "half-sours" at 3.5%. So you may want to make an adjustment. Though not specified in Katz, several other references I have state that "if the pickle tastes too salty, they have not fermented enough", which lends credence to a positive response to your second question.
I once experienced the same problem when making lactofermented sauerkraut. Then I acknowledged that if I could use sea water it would work perfectly.
So I bought sea salt and the problem ended. Commercial salt and non mineral water kills lactofermentation so it ends salty.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.088350 | 2012-07-22T16:06:41 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25184",
"authors": [
"Chris Becke",
"Fludd",
"Marina",
"Pastor Felix El-Schaeddhaei",
"Sammy Saosa",
"Stephen Evans",
"The Jeep Boys",
"TheGrumpyTurtle",
"Theodore Murdock",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144585",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57577",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57578",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58136",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58384",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9057"
],
"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
} |
25186 | Thinning copper-bottomed staninless pot
In copper-bottomed cookware, can the stainless begin to thin and allow the copper to leech through? My potato pot has discoloration at the bottom that another post suggested might be just from overheating. If copper did leech through is that dangerous?
If it is like the pans I've used, the copper bottom is attached to the bottom of the stainless "bowl" - almost impossible to wear through unless you clean frequently with a sandblaster.
Leaching from a copper vessel might be dangerous if it were routinely cleaned violently back to bright metal, or used to cook strongly acidic foods. If copper vessels are used routinely for cooking, they form a passive layer on the surface, and do not present a huge problem as long as malachite (green) does not form in the cooking area.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.088711 | 2012-07-22T17:32:54 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25186",
"authors": [
"Alexis Wilke",
"Eddie Penta",
"Joe F'n C",
"Mike",
"Tom Kelly ケリー・トム",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57583",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57601"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
25321 | Cored tomatoes measured before or after coring?
If a recipe calls for 3 pounds of tomatoes, cored, should you start with three pounds of tomatoes and core them, or should you have 3 pounds after coring? I would have thought that you start with 3 pounds of tomatoes, but the gazpacho recipe I made tonight seemed light on tomatoes when I followed that logic.
Normally the core is less that 1/6 of each tomato. What are you removing, exactly?
See also this question.
I was removing quite a bit more than 1/6 of the tomato. I was basing what I removed on this video: http://www.chow.com/food-news/54918/how-to-core-a-tomato/ . However, I had much larger tomatoes, meaning that the part of the tomato that was removed was quite a bit larger than in the video. Perhaps that is the problem.
I think that how much I am removing may be the key--see this question: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25564/what-does-it-mean-when-a-recipe-calls-for-coring-a-tomato
Generally, assuming a recipe in English, if you see the word order "3 pounds of tomatoes, cored" you should assume that you start with three pounds, and then core them. If you see "3 pounds of cored tomatoes", it suggests you should weigh them after coring.
However, the first is still rather imprecise, as the amount of impact from coring could depend on the size and variety of tomatoes, and how severely you cut. The second instruction would be slightly less imprecise, though variables like the amount of skin on each tomato will depend on their size. So, if I were writing a recipe, I'm not sure I would choose the first wording unless I also specified a size grade of tomatoes.
If the recipe was carefully tested, it probably was carefully tested based on the ingredients available in the region the author was from at a specific point in time. I read about a historical recipe for that started with "3 ears of corn" or something along that line, and the cookbook author who rediscovered the recipe quickly realized that the size of 1980s ears of corn was much larger than 1800s-era ears of corn. So keep in mind that a recipe is going to leave a lot of knowledge unspoken and dependent on context that may not match yours. If you feel the recipe was light on tomatoes, use more next time. Eventually it will be your recipe, rather than the author's.
Thanks! This was from the Cook's Illustrated Cookbook, which is usually pretty precise. But in this case, I ended up with less gazpacho than I expected. As you say, though, it depends on the size of the tomatoes, and some of the tomatoes were pretty large, meaning that the core was a larger proportion than maybe they expected. It was still tasty, though.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.088828 | 2012-07-29T00:01:29 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25321",
"authors": [
"DominiqueBal",
"Erik P.",
"FuzzyChef",
"Karptonite",
"Lemuel Maxwell",
"Pinser",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57947",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"user57948"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
25359 | Do I have to use butter in a "butter yellow cake?"
My boyfriend wasn't looking at the store and picked up a "Butter yellow" cake mix instead of "Golden Yellow." Do we have to make it with butter or can we just leave it out and just use oil instead? Or do we have to go buy the right cake mix. We don't want to be left with a box of cake we won't use
How are you supposed to prepare the cake? If it involves creaming, you can't use oil, you need a solid fat. (Shortening, margarine or taste-free lard will work in place of the butter).
@rumtscho Generally a boxed cake mix does not require creaming. You just put the mix in a bowl with water, fat and eggs and mix it up. The cake mix is specially processed such that all the dry ingredients dissolve very quickly into the water and help create an emulsion with the fat and eggs without a significant amount of mixing.
For a boxed cake either type of cooking fat should render a similar result. The final flavor will be a little different, but it shouldn't make a huge difference and probably won't be much different than a mix that calls for oil in the first place.
If you wanted to keep the flavor similar while avoiding dairy you could try using butter flavored shortening instead of oil.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.089054 | 2012-07-30T22:13:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25359",
"authors": [
"Boop",
"Mike Deck",
"Nick Weinberg",
"Tinman",
"erilee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58038",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58039",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/697",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
25387 | Melting chocolate
I notice that professionals tend to always melt chocolate in a basin over steam to prevent burning. I have over time become lazy and melt chocolate in the microwave on defrost as this is SOO easy also doesn't burn it. But I am wondering if the act of microwaving it would interfere with the structure of the chocolate?
When you say "structure" do you mean that you're trying to melt the chocolate but leave it tempered? Or are you just doing things like stirring the chocolate into baked goods, in which case you're not really using any structural properties of it at all?
If all you're trying to do is melt it, then there's no structure you can mess up. The only harm you can cause is by scorching or burning spots, which might happen if your microwave is uneven and you heat too fast without stirring. But otherwise, the microwave is a great way to melt chocolate. Open it up and give it a stir now and then, be careful not to overheat (sounds like you are), and you'll be fine!
It very well might destroy the structure of the chocolate. Since cocoa butter has a crystalline structure, when it cools it will set differently based on how how it was.
If melt chocolate over water, you're guaranteed (more or less) that none of it will reach a temperature over 212 Fahrenheit. If you melt it in the microwave, due to the nature of the microwave, there might be spots well over the boiling point, and spots that are well under the boiling point. It won't be burned, but when it cools, you might not get the uniform texture that you're guaranteed to get using a double boiler.
See below on how temperature affects chocolate texture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chocolate#Tempering
As the wikipedia article you linked says, all of the crystals melt by 45°C (113°F), so it's quite easy to get rid of all the structure in a double boiler too. And it's not completely clear, but it doesn't sound to me like the OP is really trying to temper her chocolate anyway, so given that she's using the microwave on a low setting, and can easily stir it at the end, I doubt your concerns apply to her.
Yes I am not at this stage trying to temper chocolate. That looks far to complicated and fiddly to do in my small kitchen.
I Agree with Jefromi. However, if you are also talking about the structure of the chocolate crystals, you might want to stir in some well tempered chocolate after you melted the chocolate. In this way you add 'good crystals' to your melted chocolate to improve the crystal structure.
Yes, if you intend to retemper overheated chocolate, seed crystals are good. But an important point is to only use them while the chocolate is in the tempering stage, not above or below.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.089195 | 2012-07-31T22:24:32 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25387",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Dave M",
"Ellie",
"HenricF",
"Jose Manuel Abarca Rodríguez",
"MathiasRenaud",
"PGCodes",
"Suzanne Thorsteinson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11095",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58095",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58097",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58137",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
25419 | cheese fondue not binding
I am planning on making a cheese fondue this weekend.
How ever last time I made it the cheese (Emmental and gruyere) wouldn't fully disolve into the wine base. It basically was a winey sauce with stringy cheese in it. Aside from the wine (reisling) and cheese the pot was rubbed with a garlic clove and it called for a little lemon and kirsh and a bit of corn flour for thickening.
When I had fondue at a restaurant last time the sauce was a lovely consistency and stuck to the bread nicely without stringy pieces of cheese.
Try swapping some Fribourg Vacherin cheese for the Emmental - it's nice and creamy and the standard for a 50/50 fondue here in Switzerland 8) Use a medium heat to melt - you don't want to burn the cheese!
Stringy or seized cheese in a fondue can often be caused by overheating or too little acid. Using a dry wine may reduce the need for any additional acid.
A good method for a simple cheese fondue is as follows:
prepare the pot
mix the wine and starch then bring to temperature over medium heat.
add cheese and stir continuously for 10-15 minutes until smooth.
season with lemon juice (optional), nutmeg, etc.
keep warm, but do not boil.
Thankyou. Maybe I let it get too hot then that may be the answer in my case. I think when it gets stringy I try to 'fix' it by heating it even hotter. I will try a cooler approach this time :)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.089428 | 2012-08-01T23:03:16 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25419",
"authors": [
"Abhijeet Melkani",
"Ellie",
"Laurel Rose",
"Lotis",
"Reuben Mallaby",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11095",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58171",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58182",
"tinym"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
19116 | What kind of wood puts the most flavor in the meat?
I want to smoke a few boston butts, but I want to know what wood has the strongest flavor, and I will be smoking them for 12+ hours, very slow and low cook.
The question you probably meant to ask is what wood(s) would go best with your meat. Sean's answer, though it ultimately recommends the same wood as Michael's, is better in that regard: it explains why you'd choose hickory besides strength of flavor.
I would go with hickory; it always taste strong, and it is the best for me.
The strongest wood is not always the best wood. Mesquite is by far the strongest smoke wood. But it can be a disaster on anything but beef or fast-cooked foods. Hickory is a good complement to barbecued pork, and is the traditional wood for Carolina barbecue. I like to use hickory and cherry with pulled pork and ribs, myself.
I love smoking, and this is of course a matter of taste, but I think I got the best results with pieces of apple, cherry and peach, soaked overnight.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.089581 | 2011-11-24T07:47:11 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19116",
"authors": [
"Amritha Nair",
"Cascabel",
"Mark",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41801",
"scubaFun",
"vijay"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
19688 | At what stage shall I add whisky for Irish coffee?
When preparing Irish coffee in a saucepan (caramelizing sugar&coffee, then adding water);
Should I add the whisky while coffee is still being heated in the saucepan or after putting the coffee in glasses?
Depends on whether you want the whiskey (only Scotch is "whisky") to be flavoring or kick. Given your description of the preparation, I suspect the former.
Canadian Whisky is also Whisky.
At the end, after pouring the coffee into glasses. Alcohol evaporates entirely at 78'C but begins to evaporate before that, so any unnecessary heating should be avoiding. The coffee is cooled slightly by being poured into a glass, so that's the optimum time.
Source: being Irish.
+1 for source. Personally, I'm not sure what the point of the coffee and cream is :-)
In this recipe the whiskey and sugar is caramelized as the first step.
http://www.alcademics.com/2011/03/irish-coffee-its-all-in-the-cream.html
That said, the Irish Coffee I know, use brown sugar without any caramelizing step. So I am a little curious to know your recipe.
Thank you for the link. Currently I first caramelize sugar and coffee, then add water. After putting it into glasses I add whisky, then half cream on top. But as I learned it many years ago, I can’t remember exactly at what stage to add whisky according to this recipe.
I prefer spiking the cream! It's a great pre-mimosa brunch beverage. I served it at our baby shower and at Easter brunch. Here's my recipe:
Darryl’s Irish Coffee
Makes 4-6 small rocks glass servings
Total time to prep: 10 minutes
Supplies:
Bodum 8-C French Press
Water kettle with water just off boil at 205F.
1/2-cup of fresh ground French Roast coffee ground very coarse
Mixing bowl that you have put in the freezer
Wire whisk
1-cup of heavy cream
1-teaspoon powdered sugar
1/2-cup Jameson Irish Whiskey
4-6 each 6-oz Gibraltar rocks glasses
Process:
Bring water to boil and then turn off the heat to allow it to cool to 205F.
Add ground coffee and water to the French press. While the coffee is steeping, move
on to making the spiked whipping cream.
Take mixing bowl out of the freezer. Pour in the cream, powdered sugar, and whisk until it becomes soft whipped cream—do not over whip.
Whisk in Jameson to the cream and it should become loose and slightly pourable—not too thick.
Press the plunger on the coffee
Pour coffee into rocks glasses filling three quarters with coffee.
Using a teaspoon add two to three dollops of the spiked Irish Cream.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.089709 | 2011-12-15T22:25:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19688",
"authors": [
"BartekChom",
"Becky",
"Chris Cudmore",
"Christina Carlson",
"MechanicalMan",
"MissesBrown",
"PastryPup",
"Saitaina Moricia-Malfoy",
"Wanda Hudler DeVore",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42907",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42915",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52940",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/671",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8120",
"kdgregory"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
22847 | Which thickeners work well with dairy?
I know from experience that arrowroot doesn't work very well, so I'm curious to know which ones actually do.
Thanks a lot for any help!
Curious, what goes wrong when you try arrowroot with dairy? (Also, you could certainly use flour, as in Béchamel)
I have never had a thickener which didn't work with dairy. I haven't tried arrowroot, but starches are generally very good. Could you pleas post details? What were you making, what ingredients did you use, what temperature, and what was the end result?
I wanted to thicken some stock with arrowroot that I poured over ground beef, which I had sautéed in butter, and it turned into a slimy mess. It was done over low temperature. Perhaps it was something else, but Cook's Thesaurus mentions this effect as a downside. http://www.foodsubs.com/ThickenStarch.html Maybe the answer is "everything except arrowroot"? :)
also consider using bread as a thickener in some recipes.
Your answer of "everything except arrowroot" is spot on. You should use a corn starch slurry in all likelihood. It is less expensive and more commonly available and will not create a "slimy" consistency; corn starch is also purported to have a creamier texture.
Arrow root also may have been overcooked by your preparation as described in your comment as it has a lower temperature that it needs to reach relative to other thickeners. Keep it handy for your acidic sauces, but keep to corn starch for the dairy. A benefit of arrowroot in clear sauces is that it won't make the sauce cloudy as will corn starch; however with dairy this is not a concern.
Thanks! I looked it up in Modernist Cuisine I see a correlation between the texture of the thickener itself as being "creamy" and it being recommended for use with dairy (corn and flour). So I guess there's that, and the taste of the thickener that you need to take into consideration.
@cptloop as long as you add in the slurry to simmering liquid (I typically pour it slowly while stirring the pot) then bring to a boil, simmering will remove the starchy taste
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.090063 | 2012-04-06T20:28:06 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22847",
"authors": [
"Ben",
"Iunknown",
"SRS",
"cptloop",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51559",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51560",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7684",
"mfg",
"rumtscho",
"smcg",
"user57777"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
21698 | Which other spices besides cloves will react with plastic?
I am reading that cloves can cloud the plastic in my grinder at Cooking for engineers
Does this happen with any other spices?
...cloud? ... cloud?! I had a case of the plastic sieve insert in a can of clove powder melting within a year or two. The can (metal) and insert were the original packaging.
I've had a good look and as far as I can see only cloves and allspice have this property. Most websites specify that it's due to an oil present in cloves however according to Wikipedia the main chemical components in clove oil (admittedly not cloves but fairly similar) are:
Bud oil is derived form the flower-buds of S. aromaticum. It consists of 60–90% eugenol, eugenyl acetate, caryophyllene and other minor constituents.
Leaf oil is derived from the leaves of S. aromaticum. It consists of 82–88% eugenol with little or no eugenyl acetate, and minor constituents.
Stem oil is derived from the twigs of S. aromaticum. It consists of 90–95% eugenol, with other minor constituents.
As neither eugenol, eugenyl acetate nor caryophyllene have this property the oil that does cause 'plastic clouding' must be fairly low.
Likewise the main chemical components of allspice oil according to Essential-oils.co.za are:
eugenol, menthyl eugenol, cineol, phellandrene and caryophyllene.
None of these chemicals have chemicals with that property. However many of the chemicals in allspice and clove are also present in nutmeg, black pepper and cinnamon.
Is it known if this clouding only affects certain types of plastic, and whether the clouding affects the nutmeg (ie is it still safe to eat)? I'm wondering if covering the clear plastic with some sort of varnish will help...?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.090259 | 2012-02-24T21:01:57 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21698",
"authors": [
"Andrew Sun",
"Jake Black",
"growse",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48176",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48305",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
19268 | What kind of rice to serve with Indian Butter Chicken (Murgh Makhani)?
What kind of rice to serve with Indian Butter Chicken (Murgh Makhani)?
Are there any kind of preferred techniques, or spicing perhaps?
Basmati is classic. I am particularly fond of brown basmati rice, which has more flavor than white basmati, but it takes longer to cook and will go rancid after 6 months. If basmati is not available, any long-grain rice will suffice; short-grain rice tends to be too sticky.
As for technique, rinse the rice until the rinse-water runs clear. For every cup of rice, use 2 cups of water and 1/2 tsp salt. Bring the water to a boil; add the rice and salt and reduce the heat to a simmer. Cook covered until the liquid has been absorbed and the texture of the rice is tender.
For additions to the rice, you have LOADS of options. You can add a pinch of saffron to the water for a vibrant yellow color and distinctive floral aroma (if you just want color, add 1/2 tsp ground turmeric). You can add chunks of peeled ginger, cracked peppercorns, whole peeled garlic cloves, whole cardamom pods, whole cloves, whole bay leaves, whole kaffir lime leaves, and/or whole stick cinnamon -- amounts and combinations are entirely up to your taste (just remember to remove any bay leaves before serving; remove the others or not as you like, but bay is inedible). You can also add cooked vegetables, such as peas, butter beans, pearl onions, and/or carrots.
Although I have never tried it, I doubt brown rice is a good complement to Murgh Makhni (or other curries)
I believe that it is de rigueur to use basmati rice when serving northern Indian/Pakistani sauced dishes.
Any chance you might elaborate on your preferred way to cook basmati rice?
With Murgh Makhni, I would like Simple, white rice, as the curry itself is quite spicy. Maybe with onions and a hint of garlic
Sautee some finely sliced onions and cumin, add a pinch of mild curry powder, or turmeric for colour, add a handful of frozen petits pois, cook till peas are warmed through, mix in with basmati rice, and you have the easiest pilav ever.
I don't see how this is an answer - it is a recipe for a different dish. Or are you suggesting that the OP can use this as a side dish for the chicken? If so, how is this very concrete recipe a "preferred option", is it just your favorite, or is this combination of rice with peas traditional in some region?
@rumtscho The OP asked for techniques or spicing, and other answers included possible additions. Yes, I am suggesting this as a way to serve rice to accompany chicken. It also goes well with other curries, but works best in complementing creamy curries, in my experience.
As to whether it is a specific dish or an easy way to jazz up rice, it's much of a muchness to me. Peas pilav is very popular in North India, and peas are a frequent addition to fried rice too. Adding mildly spiced peas and onions to cooked rice is just my favorite way to get the effect of making pilav without the effort.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.090432 | 2011-12-01T01:41:57 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19268",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Finn",
"Midhat",
"Sidharth Ghoshal",
"Sonia Balagopalan",
"Sue Stolze-Beland",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41899",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41932",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84408",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
18477 | What should I know about the peels of raw fruit and vegetables?
I've not been paying much attention to what I ate, but now I have just become a vegetarian and want to try eating much more raw foods.
I know that in many fruit and vegetables, most of the important nutrients are found in the peel or directly below it; however, it is also commonly known that for example the green of tomatoes contains a poison and must be removed before consumption.
I'd like to know what other fruit and vegetables contain potentially bad substances when eaten whole and raw (or put in a blender etc.), and what to look out for.
Also, many people remove the skin of mushrooms before eating them; is this actually advisable?
If green tomatoes were toxic, there would be a whole lot of dead people in the south (including me).
The OP said "the green of tomatoes", not green tomatoes... I think he's referring to the leaves and stems, which has at least some truth to it.
Why would anyone want to eat tomato leaves and stems?
I had a friend remove mushroom skins because of a specific pesticide allergy.
@baka: I'm talking about the little green spot on top of a tomato where the stem is attached. It's about .5 cm wide and extends into the tomate by the same amount. It's a good idea to cut it out before eating the tomato (for example, German hotel and youth hostel kitchens will always do that.)
I think parsnips vs carrots is another example. As a child I was told that parsnip peels contain a higher concentration of carcinogen so you have to peel them, but carrot peels are ok to eat raw, its just preference to peel them.
@Felix: I thought people just cut them out because they're tough, and unpleasant to chew. I don't bother removing them with smaller tomatoes.
There's actually nothing wrong with using the leaves from tomatoes, if added at the end of cooking they return the fresh flavour of uncooked tomatoes that is lost through heat. The 'toxic' chemical in tomatoes passes through your system undigested and actually binds to cholesterol and brings that with it when excreted:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/dining/29curi.html?pagewanted=all
Not sure if the OP is still around, but to anyone else reading, is it possible he mixed up the information about green spots on potatoes, applying it incorrectly to green tomatoes or green areas on ripe tomatoes?
@MargeGunderson: no, I was asking about the spot where the tomato is attached to the plant – the one green spot that is usually cut out by professional cooks.
In my experience, whether or not you peel a fruit or vegetable has more to do with how easy it is to digest than any level of toxins. If you're going into the realm of herbs, however, then you need to be more careful, as some are quite potent. But as long as we're sticking to fruits and veggies, here's my advice, and it's pretty simple:
Clearly things like melons, and corn don't have edible peels, simply because their outer layer is too difficult for us to masticate, and then digest... Things like citrus peels can be digested, but not when they're raw. They need to be pickled, cooked (think of marmalade) or turned into a zest. When it comes to soft, thin peels, like apples, pears and kiwi, it's more of a personal preference. Some don't like the feel of a furry kiwi slice going down, but I don't mind it, so I slice it right into my cereal.
In the realm of veggies... Yes, stems are great for you. If it's really difficult to chew it, it's not going to be broken down enough for your stomach to handle it, and extract anything useful from it. Ex: Broccoli stems - they'll benefit even from some light steaming, and they're GREAT for you. But raw? Rather difficult. The florets however are a classic raw snack. That's my general guideline. Same with artichokes. They need some kind of cooking in order to be digested. But carrots? Kale? Celery? Simple chewing pulls them apart enough to make the extraction of nutrients easy for the body.
Hope that helps!
Mindy
P.S. A great tip for raw kale - not everyone likes the consistency of raw kale because you have to chew it for soooo long. BUT, if you massage it with a bit of lemon juice, and a touch of olive oil until it softens, and the color brightens (5 minutes or less), it's easier to chew, very tasty, and you haven't cooked any of the nutrients out of it!
Most of what you have stated as "commonly known" is not commonly known and/or probably false
Many things "commonly known" as poisonous are not very poisonous, and it is usually excessive consumption of one item that makes you sick (yes there are some very poisonous plants, but most markets don't stock them in their poisonous state).
The skin of most fruit and vegetables is "dead", just like human skin. Can't imagine it is better than the interior? Your parents probably made you eat the skin/crust etc. to gain some control and satisfaction (a simple battle to win).
There is often more to be concerned with how the food was grown, and how clean it is before you eat it. Bacteria and other pathogens may have been transferred to it during transport or at a busy market (snotty kids with grubby hands). Hence peeling and/or cooking can be a good idea!
E.g. Commercial mushrooms have often been cited as needing peeling because they grow in crap, but in many mushrooms farms the soil is quite sterile. A quick rinse is all that is required to remove any dust etc. (also, they do not soak up water, another popular myth)
The only thing I have stated as "commonly known" is that the green of tomatoes contains a poison. Well, it's a nightshade plant and they all contain Solanin, which is indeed poisonous. ...Also, my parents didn't make me eat the skin of any vegetable, how did you get the idea? Please read my question more carefully.
Many varieties (maybe not all) of mushrooms will soak up water, if left in water for an extended period of time. A quick spray / shake or pat dry won't water-log them, which I assume is what you're referring to.
Solanin comes from potatoes, the chemical in tomatoes is tomatin and it's not really toxic.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/dining/29curi.html?pagewanted=all
@Felix_Dombek I read you question very carefully, green tomatoes (in my country) contain a "poison" but it does not effect us, so is it poisonous? The paragraph about peel contained the word "probably", it's a "commonly known" that most parents force their children to eat the skins etc :-) In summary there is no such thing as "commonly known" and most "facts" about the health benefits of fruit and vege and their components are just barrows pushed by people with agendas!
@Joe Yes, why would you put any vegetable under water for any length of time? You just need to quickly rinse it. Anyway some tests on common mushrooms show they only absorb less than 10% by weight anyway!
@TFD : because that's the recommended way to clean leeks, lettuce, and leafy vegetables, can help revive wilted carrots, and works rather well for potatoes and plenty of other vegetables.
@Joe That depends where you live. Here potatoes are generally pre-washed, so no need to put under water. Leeks are pretty clean, hardly need any washing, and lettuce goes in a salad spinner as you shower water through the spinner
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.090938 | 2011-10-20T09:25:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18477",
"authors": [
"Aljaz",
"Felix Dombek",
"Flimzy",
"Grace",
"Joe",
"Manako",
"MargeGunderson",
"Stefano",
"TFD",
"azani",
"baka",
"cookiesfromhome",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39981",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40547",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7718",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
18823 | Spooning cake mix
Many recipes I have say to 'spoon' the cake mix into the tin. I was just wondering if there is any difference between 'spooning' the mixture in or just pouring it?
Normally, you spoon cake mixes in because you need to be very careful to preserve all of the air you have incorporated into the mix. This air is very important to the structure and overall appeal of the cake.
It's not to say that you can't pour in the mix, it is just not best practice.
Quite frankly, there are some cakes where it won't really matter. If you are baking a standard Duncan Hines or other store bought mix, it doesn't really matter. Those have so many emulsifiers and extenders that you would have to work at deflating them.
However, if you are doing scratch cake mixes, you have to treat them like a nice man treats his wife, that is - very gently. Very, very gently. Hence, always spoon the mix.
Hope this helps
It seems like this wouldn't matter for all scratch cakes either - some batters when spooned pretty much just pour out of the spoon instead of the mixing bowl.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.091485 | 2011-11-08T07:17:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18823",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Pieter-Henk",
"bcoughlan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40789",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40792"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
19122 | Is it possible my cream was too cold prior to whipping?
I've whipped cream before. I recently bought whipping cream (a brand I'm not familiar with) and placed in the fridge prior to whipping. When I took it out of the box, it was a somewhat solid consistency (not liquid at all). So I tried whipping it and every time, it separates into curdle and liquid before even forming soft peaks.
Is the problem because the cream is solidified? instead of a liquified version where the air can encorporate. In this case, should I bring it outside first to see if it will liquify somewhat? Or should I just toss this container and buy my regular heavy cream instead.
I think it's bad. Have a taste. I've never seen whipping cream solidify at normal fridge temperatures.
Unless it's frozen, there's no really no such thing as too cold for whipping cream! Olga's suggestion that the solids rose to the top sound most likely, in which case you should be able to just fold them back together before whipping.
Sometimes whipping cream separates a little bit in the package and forms a solid layer on top of the liquid cream. This is normal and should not effect its whipping properties.
The few times I have had a hard time whipping cream has been on really hot days or when the cream doesnt contain enough fat. The cream has then separated in the same way as you described. Your cream should have about 40% fat.
You should easily be able to tell if the cream has gone off by smelling or tasting it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.091602 | 2011-11-24T18:48:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19122",
"authors": [
"Chris Cudmore",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Nick C",
"avnee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41560",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"user2495"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
81309 | What is this leaf vegetable? It tastes like cress but looks different
My girlfriend got this at a Turkish supermarket in Berlin. It's quite spicy and tastes like garden cress or a bit like radish. I looked up cress varieties but couldn't find this particular leaf shape.
It looks like a variety of watercress to me.
You're probably right, I was misled by some pictures which looked different. A picture search for watercress shows that some variants look almost exactly like this.
Gardening might be a better place to ask this.
@GdD. I agree it looks like watercress to me.
I think you have Baby Argula or Rocket. Check out this site for Turkish greens.
http://www.turkish-cuisine.org/ingredients-7/ingredients-used-in-turkish-cuisine-66/vegetables-69.html
This is coriander, watercress grows on a longer stalk.
The taste of coriander doesn't match the poster's description. Besides, this looks more like radish than coriander to me.
Definitely not coriander/cilantro. The leaves are not at all the right shape (they're oval and not lobed), and they're not branching off of long stems.
Agreed with the others. The shape is not remotely close to cilantro and the flavour description doesn't match, either.
There is a faint similarity to vietnamese and/or sawtooth coriander, but still different - and FAR from "cilantro" coriander.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.091751 | 2017-04-30T16:16:05 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81309",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Felix Dombek",
"GdD",
"LMAshton",
"bli",
"dougal 5.0.0",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7718",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
24397 | Heated up oil for frying, stirred it, tiny bubbles appeared and rose slowly but with very loud popping sound - why?
Last night I tried deep frying stuff for the first time.
As the oil heated in the pot, I thought it would be a good idea to stir the oil (I was really scared of it catching on fire). It was probably around 250F when I stirred it. Big mistake, should have just left it along.
For a few minutes after I stopped stirring, tiny little bubbles appeared in the pot, like the ones you would see in water just as it started approaching a boil. There weren't a lot of them, but they made these sharp, loud explosive popping sounds.
Why were they so loud and what is the science behind this happening?
Thanks!
Matthew
Was there any water on your stirring implement? How vigorously did you stir? What material was your stirring implement made out of?
I stirred with a set of stainless steel bbq tongs. I'm nearly certain there was no water on the tongs when I stirred the oil, and just gave the oil a brief (~10 seconds) swirl, nothing vigorous. The tiny bubbles appeared from the bottom of the pot, then subsided after the 2-4 minute firecracker-sounding show.
It definitely sounds like you had some water on whatever you stirred the oil with. When water droplets get in the oil, they sink since oil is lighter than water. Then the water droplets turn to steam because the boiling point of water is much below the boiling point of oil. At this point, the steam rapidly rises out of the oil and escapes with a noise and a splashing of oil.
It's good to be aware of the temperature of your oil when deep frying, but the oil will start to smoke long before it spontaneously combusts. Use a thermometer, and know the smoke point of the oil you are using, and you will be OK. The real danger is oil touching the burner, or the oil spilling on you, rather than the oil in the pot exploding. Stirring is unnecessary because the density of oil reduces as temperature increases, allowing the hotter oil to make its way to the top (but in a nice controlled manner, unlike water).
Excellent sciencey answer, exactly what I was looking for. If there was any water on the tongs I used to stir, it would have been a very, very small amount (~1ml, washed and I did dry before stirring). The tiny bubbles that appeared came from the bottom of the pot, but were relatively evenly spaced out over the entire bottom of the pot and lasted around 2-4 minutes before subsiding. Would this happen if there was only about 1ml of water on the tongs when I stirred?
His explanation matches my intuition of what happened as well. If you're absolutely certain that the implement was dry, the water could've been at the bottom of the pot before you poured in the oil. In that case, the pot was just too cool to boil the water yet. The stirring was a red herring in this case.
The stirring may have been the catalyst to send super-heated water into a boil. It's all speculation though.
Any ideas why it was so loud?
@matthew it was so loud because these were real explosions, only small ones. It was gas (most probably steam at this temperature) suddenly increasing in volume a lot.
A vegetable oil is not a single fat, it is a mixture of many different fats with different boiling or pyrolysis temperatures (fat molecules are so big that they fall apart before they can reach their boiling point, this is called pyrolysis). The temperatures for deep frying are very high, much above 250 F. 200 C are normal, but inexperienced cooks can easily reach 250 C and above if they can't recognize the signs of overheating. I suspect that at this temperature, you had superheated fats in the oil, just the way you get superheated water. If you plunge a stirrer into the pot, you provide the oil with nucleation sites, the same way it does with water. The fats pyrolise to gaseous components at these nucleation sites, and create the bubbles.
Of course, if the tongs were wet, you would have gotten steam bubbles too, just as @michael explained. And even small amounts of water can create a vigorous foaming. But you will also get some bubbles with dry tongs, and I think that my explanation covers this. Even if they were wet, you will get both effects (nucleation sites for the oil and water turning into steam) at once, rather than just the steam. Especially with you insisting that the tongs were dry, I think that this effect created a large proportion of your bubbles, if not all of them.
From the practical side, splatter is expected and unavoidable with deep frying. The bubbles you get with the tongs are nothing compared to what happens when the food (which contains a fair amount of water) hits the pan. Do it somewhere where you can clean well afterwards. Be on your guard for signs of overheating - if you notice a slight vapor above the pot, this means it already has reached its smoke point. It is best to measure with an infrared thermometer (or a candy thermometer, if yours can withstand the high temperatures). Be aware that it is very possible to reach the self-ignition temperature of oil and cause an oil fire! Always leave at least three inches of the pot empty and keep a pot cover at hand - this way you will have the time to throw the cover on the pot at the first sign of a spark. As a nice side effect, the walls of a tall pot also contain lots of the splatter (you'll still have to clean the stove afterwards, but maybe not the kitchen walls).
Thanks, great science and practical advise. I'd upvote if I had enough rep (new to this community). I used a fry thermometer though and the popping happened at around 250F while I was heating it so I don't think it was from the oil being superheated. There must have been trace amounts of water on the tongs when I heated. I know the bubbles are expected putting stuff in, but it was surprising to get such loud, crisp popping sounds - with a frequency of pops mimicking that of popcorn.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.091896 | 2012-06-12T18:55:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24397",
"authors": [
"Adri.",
"Eric Hu",
"Funk",
"Matthew",
"Shaggy",
"baka",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10578",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55547",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55548",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55585",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6818",
"michael",
"rumtscho",
"user55555",
"viana"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
19209 | Do you guys know that there is no such thing as an amateur chef?
They are called cooks. It's like saying there are amateur heartsurgeons.
am·a·teur
[am-uh-choor, -cher, -ter, am-uh-tur]
noun
1.
a person who engages in a study, sport, or other activity for pleasure rather than for financial benefit or professional reasons.
Chef is a word with multiple definitions:
the chief cook, especially in a restaurant or hotel, usually responsible for planning menus, ordering foodstuffs, overseeing food
preparation, and supervising the kitchen staff.
any cook.
In common usage chef is most commonly used to refer to a cook of great skill or accomplishment. Many people each year attend the formal education required to become a chef, at Le Cordon Blue etc, merely for the personal joy of cooking for themselves, their family and friends. These people are both 'chef's' and are 'amateurs'. Today many 'amateurs' have advanced their culinary skills to the point where they are indeed deserving of the title 'Chef'.
I would deny no one with the passion for the art of cooking the title of 'amateur chef'. This is, after all, how Julia Childs started out....
I didn't know whether to berate you for feeding trolls, or upvote you for giving a good answer to a bad question... After all, I went with the upvote, because your calmness and patience is admirable.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.092465 | 2011-11-29T06:34:06 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19209",
"authors": [
"Daniel",
"Gwen",
"Kyle Kanos",
"cloneman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41760",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41761",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41783",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41795",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho",
"talon8",
"user2121"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
29570 | Is it worth checking beans for stones?
I've heard from many sources to check beans for stones before soaking/cooking them. I've been cooking with beans for years (mostly black beans, chickpeas and lentils), and I've never encountered a stone before or after cooking. Is the stone thing a myth, or no longer the case with modern agricultural technology?
I've found stones before, but in rice and coffee. I suppose it's quite rare. I am most paranoid about finding stones in my coffee since it's not worth damaging a $700 grinder...
Not sure if it was a stone, or a really deformed bean in the last bag of black beans I looked over. Over the years, I've seen some things that I'm pretty confident were stones (multiple times; black beans, red beans, etc.) I can't say that I've ever seen a stone in lentils ... but that's mostly anecdotal as I only cook lentils at most twice a year. Either way, a minute or two looking over the beans is way better than a cracked tooth ... had that happen once (partially thawed Snickers bar that I didn't know had been frozen) and I hope to never have it happen again.
It's the $700 dentist bill that you are avoiding, your call
I remember looking for them (and finding) when I was a child. But don't do anymore. I'd focus on agricultural technology changes.
FWIW, I encountered a stone in a burrito from a restaurant once.
I've found stones in dried beans, so it's no myth. Not common, but I'd say I find one every year or two. If you simply swallowed a small stone, it would almost certainly pass without harm, but as TFD pointed out in his comment, biting down on one could be an expensive and painful dental experience. What I do is spread the beans out on a kitchen towel in a single layer. For dark beans, I use a light-colored towel and vice-versa for light beans. It's very easy to spot any foreign objects that way and it takes less than a minute, so it's worth doing in my opinion. You can then easily toss the beans into a pot by just picking up the four corners of the towel and dumping them in.
I should add that I've found little balls of dried dirt far more often than actual stones. Those would most likely dissolve and get washed away when you rinsed the beans, but it demonstrates that stones can be in there.
Addendum: Yesterday I made black bean soup. In a one-pound package of dried beans, I found no less than five stones. Definitely very unusual, but it serves to underscore the point.
In Mexico I get stones all the time. Thankfully they are normally not as hard my teeth so I havn't broken a tooth yet.
I havn't had this occur in Canada only when buying them in Mexico. Almost every pack has atleast one if not more.
Flor de Maya was the most recent one I got stones in. I think it is more common in Mexico.
Quite to the contrary - it is the modern agricultural technology that causes the stones. Modern methods would mean of the past 50-60 years and longer-combines have been used for many many years now. Hand harvesting would of course be picking beans right of the vine would not yield any stones.
This answer would be better if you more directly answered the question - you've left it implicit that there are still stones in beans and it's worth checking for them.
When I make pintos I find no less than 5-6 stones. When I make field peas I don't find anything. What's the difference? Pintos are store bought. Field peas are home grown, hand processed.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice. The reason I edited your post is that as written, it was a bit difficult to see as a direct answer to the question. We're a Q&A site, not a discussion forum, so it really is all about answering the question. You're free to do as you like with your posts, but I do think your answer would be better received in the form I edited it to.
I have read all of the comments. I was answering to the fact that store bought beans have stones. My home processed beans do not. I have better quality control doing my own beans vs store bought.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.092626 | 2012-12-30T00:07:00 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29570",
"authors": [
"Carey Gregory",
"Cascabel",
"Cliff",
"Connie Lutz Keller",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Jimmy",
"Joe",
"John Lecey",
"KatieK",
"Kelly Cruz",
"Kevin",
"Lindsay Pace",
"Megasaur",
"Spammer",
"TFD",
"Tsai Jin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137831",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161253",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68775",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96132",
"stephen r bradley",
"user68896"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
70489 | How long is too long to presoak grits?
I presoaked 1 C of Quaker Old Fashioned grits last weekend, but didn't get a chance to cook them. They have been in the fridge all week in the same water. Is it possible that anything inimical has grown while they were sojourning in their cool bath?
Was there any salt in the water?
Yes, a couple of pinches of diamond kosher salt.
Yes it is indeed possible.
The available starches that have dissolved in the water are a super convenient place for the bacteria that is naturally found on foods to grow.
I'd say for grits 2 days soak is the limit, they can start to fall apart after that.
The ultimate test is the smell test, if it smells sour then it has started to turn. This is how I determine if I have oversoaked legumes or grains (life happens!)
Adding a little vinegar to the water may help prevent this for a couple dozen extra hours, but as you likely realize, soaking for no more than 8-12 hours is the way to go.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.092980 | 2016-06-05T21:33:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/70489",
"authors": [
"JamesCW",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37981",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7490",
"thrig"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
17944 | How should I cook a ham bone for chili?
I want to make chili using a ham bone (with a little meat on it). How should I cook it to make good use of both the meat and the bone?
If you're going to simmer your chili for a long time, just throw it in there. If you made stock with it, you'd still be just simmering the bone for a long time to extract the same flavors. (I'm not advocating not using stock here, just that I wouldn't make stock for the sole purpose of getting flavor out of the bone. Use the stock you would otherwise.).
Simmer four plus hours and then pull the bone out, tap the meat off, and enjoy the chili (although I like to cool chili down, put it in the fridge, and eat it the next day better).
If you're going to make the stock with it though, @Cos definitely has the right idea with the pressure cooker.
+1: You'll get plenty of flavor out of the bone without making stock separately, and save plenty of time!
I am guessing that you are thinking of a "Green Pork Chili" along the lines of this recipe.
IF so, the best use for your ham bone is to make a pork stock to substitute for the chicken stock. I would put the bone, with about 6-7 cups of water into a pressure cooker and use the pressure to extract all of the flavor that the marrow has to offer. 15-20 minutes under pressure should leave you with a clean bone and pot full of juices. Strain out the bits using a cheese cloth and boil the broth till you have the required volume (5 cups in the case of the recipe I linked to) and go forth from there.
That sounds pretty good, but the bone is too long for my pressure cooker. I don't think I have a good way to cut the bone into smaller pieces.
a hack saw (clean, preferably new...at least the blade, they are cheap) is a good choice.
I would make a stock with it and use that for a portion of your liquid in the chili. toss it in a big pot of water with some chunks of aromatic vegetable (onion, celery, carrot, garlic) and whole herbs (thyme & rosemary) and spices (i'd do cracked black pepper and 4 or 5 whole allspice pods) and cook for 2-4 hours. strain all the chunks out and use the liquid.
if you don't want to go through all that, you could probably also just drop the bone into the chili pot and let it all cook together. just remember to take the bone out of the pot before serving. unless you're into that kind of thing.
To clarify, what do I do with the meat that's on the bone?
if you cook it that long, there's not going to be much meat attached to the bone.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.093100 | 2011-09-22T22:38:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17944",
"authors": [
"Alan L",
"Cascabel",
"Cos Callis",
"baka",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7508"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
85413 | What can I make with vinegar-soaked chilli peppers?
I misread a fermentation recipe and ended up putting a pile of chopped chilli peppers in a jar of vinegar with huge helpings of rock salt. It’s been left overnight, unrefrigerated.
Can I recover this into some kind of hot sauce?
Do you have approximate measures of how many chillies and how much vinager and salt did you use?
About 200ml vinegar and 3 heaped tablespoons of salt.
This sounds like it would be an excellent condiment on deli-style sandwiches, serving a similar role to giardiniera. Just make sure to be careful with portioning, as vinegar/salt/spicy is a combination of flavors that could easily take over if you use too much.
Some ideas:
Use it in small quantities for any preparation that requires a mild chilli kick and acidity. For example, when making homemade Mayo we use a teaspoon of vinager to stabilize the emulsion. The quantity of salt in one teaspoon will not be drastic neither. I have made chilli mayo in the past and is lovely to go with fries or meat. Another idea is to use a couple of spoons to poach eggs. Sure, it will take a bit of work to finish 200ml this way.
A beautiful recipe that requires around 50g (so 1/4 of your prep) is Sicilian Caponata.
Make fresh cheese. If you make a batch with 3-4 L of fresh milk, you will probably need that much vinegar and salt in the recipe. Don't worry with acidity or saltness because most of that stay in the whey which you strain after. The chilli will definitively go well with that.
Carolina Barbecue Sauce. North Carolina is known for its spicy, vinegar based sauce. All you need to do is add a little ketchup, and some brown sugar and maybe dilute with some more vinegar. Look up a recipe and adjust based on what you’ve already added, and adjust to taste.
Not much. It's going to be too salty to be a hot sauce, you could try and sieve out the solid pieces of chili and re-use them, I don't imagine you're going to get a good result from that as they'll already have lost flavor. I can't think of that many applications, you'd use it whenever you need very salty, vinegary chili.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.093335 | 2017-11-03T08:25:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85413",
"authors": [
"greedyscholars",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7533",
"jl6"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
29949 | How should I order unknown wines in a tasting
I hope this is not too off-topic.
We are doing a wine tasting soon, where everyone presents a wine (assume all red, dry). As there will be a wide variety of types, I think the order is quite important (e.g. not having light wines directly after very heavy ones).
What might be the best way to define an order from the information given on a typical bottle of mid-range wine?
Light first, see e.g. this list for ordering them by varietals, if you have old world wine you need to decode areas to probable varietals :-)
So for reds that would make a list like this.
Pinot Noir
Sangiovese
Tempranillo
Grenache
Zinfandel
Merlot
Shiraz / Syrah
Cabernet Sauvignon
Just to add, if you have a blended wine, you may have to rely on tasting notes from the vintner to get an idea of where it should fit in the spectrum. But as mentioned by Stefan, you can try and weigh that against a guide like the one linked. Have fun with it, you're not a certified sommelier so no one expects perfection :)
Note that individual wines are often heavier or lighter according to the style of the vintner. So use some judgement. If nothing else, wines which are very dark in color tend to be "heavy".
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.093517 | 2013-01-10T14:30:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29949",
"authors": [
"Annerex",
"Foo",
"FuzzyChef",
"Judy Balunda",
"Matthew",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69789",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8339",
"nichole"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
97098 | Cleaning 'cement' from grill
I've been a bit lazy in the last couple of weeks and left some ash in my grill. I was cleaning it today and noticed a hard cement-like substance. I believe this is the dreaded corrosive 'cement' I've read about which is the result of ashes absorbing moisture.
I've scrubbed it with paper towels but it's not coming off.
Any recommendations on how to clean it?
What kind of grill is it? What material is the ash stuck to?
It's a steel grill.
IN your grill? ...where the coals go? ...or ON your grill, where the food goes?
In the grill where the charcoal goes.
If it is just steel then a stiff brush ought to do it, or steel wool. I'd be tempted to hose it down a few times, the water ought to loosen the ash before sponging it off. If there are coatings on it then using getting it wet makes the most sense as abrasives could damage the coatings.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.093655 | 2019-03-25T14:45:08 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/97098",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Jacob",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7569",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
18850 | Should I include egg shells in my stock?
I've been making stock from vegetable scraps I've been keeping in the freezer (mainly carrots, celery, onion, tomato, and parsley). I read elsewhere that one could include egg shells in stock. Is this a good idea? How many should I include?
Stock is very susceptible to the "garbage in, garbage out" principle, you only get a mediocre stock by using "scraps".
Should I throw this stuff out instead of bothering, then?
I don't know what you mean by "this stuff". For scraps: If you just freeze good quality veggies while still fresh, and then use them at once in stock, it's OK. If you cut off the almost-bad parts and freeze, or freeze veggies after they have withered, and then make stock, stop that, it's not improving your stock.
I freeze the peelings and ends of fresh carrots, the skins of fresh onions, and the roots and ends of fresh celery. Last time I did this I added in a whole fresh onion because there wasn't much onion in the scrap container, whereas the amount of carrot peelings would have made up the mass of several whole carrots.
My rule is that if I wouldn't eat it as it is, it doesn't belong in a stock. Carrot peels and celery ends are removed because they are too dry to be good, and onion skins are practically inedible. The whole point of a stock is to make a flavor concentrate, and recycling the things you wouldn't eat means you concentrate flavor which is missing, wrong, or gone bad.
A better use for egg shells are is to de-acidify the terrain of plants.
Good on you for keeping your scraps and making stock yourself. However as long as you are freezing the items chances are you will always get a cloudier stock than if you had used fresh. The freezing breaks down the cell membranes and will cause smaller particles to float about. Of course you also get more flavour so it's a give take thing. Egg shells are just old school "I refuse to throw anything out!" French thinking. As you could use them in a raft as stated from others, and the stock should only simmer (90-100F) that means salmonella issues from the shells. Salmonella dies at 140F+
@rumtscho I know this is super old but (and I don't know it's true) but I was always told to use the onion skins to add color to stock.
I've not heard of egg shells being used that way. I'm not sure what they would add.
The classic way of clarifying a meat stock to make it crystal clear (ie: for a consommé) is to whisk egg white (and I know at least one chef who adds crushed up egg shell to this mix) and finely ground meat into the cold stock and then gradually heat it. As the added ingredients cook they rise through the stock trapping all the bits that make it cloudy and the gunky 'raft' can be skimmed off the top.
Adding egg shells to a brown stock is a great way of clarifying the base. It creates a 'raft' which helps absorbs the impurity's which would otherwise spoil your stock.
Egg shells? I have heard of egg whites used this way, but never the shells. How do they absorb, and don't you risk ending up with crunchy pieces of shell distributed through the stock?
All the ends and bits of vegetables, including onion skins, etc., are the most nutritious parts of the vegetable and lend flavor to the stock. It's great if you can save them and add them in.
As for eggshells, it's some of the most bio-available form of calcium (add a little vinegar when boiling), very similar to our own composition. I haven't tried it yet, but will be saving my shells from now on. It always felt a little weird to throw them out, and am excited now that I can stick it in the freezer collection bag.
You take raw eggs and crack them into the stock in the beginning, right after adding the COLD water. Put everything into the pot, add cold water (using cold water allows all of the plants to release all of their flavonoids), and then you crack the eggs into the pot, breaking up the shells in your hands and throwing them in as well, and then stir it aggressively for a few seconds. Next bring it to a boil and then lower the heat to a gentle simmer.
DO NOT STIR the stick from this point on, as it will cause the rest to break up. Once the stock has boiled for the desired length of time, you can carefully break through the raft with a ladle, and then insert the pale into the same hole every time, and scoop out the clarified stock. The raft filters the stock as it boils, causing it to clarify beautifully if done correctly. This is how consomme is made. It is frowned upon by health inspectors, but you can also use a siphon to remove the stock. You break a hole in the tray the same way as before, and then insert a tube into the stock, and give a good stick to get the stock flowing.
You need a container for the stock, and a secondary container to switch the siphon over to once the clarified portion of the stock gets really low. The siphon will start to pull out a cloudy stock, or a stock with debris in it, once or gets down into the bottom of the stock. Use the second bucket to catch this. Nothing is quit as satisfying as a week done, clarified stock.
A classic way to clarify stock is to stir in some beaten eggs and then bring the stock to a simmer. The egg proteins coagulate, rise to the top, and form a sort of strainer that filters out the bits and pieces that would otherwise make the stock cloudy. I've seen some recipes that instruct to you to break up the egg shells and mix them into the eggs before adding to the stock. I always assumed that the shells just add bulk and structure to the egg raft, helping it to hold together and form a better filter.
The use of a raft (as correctly described by @Caleb) is for the production of consomme. If you do this, be VERY careful afterward (when separating the consomme from the raft and stock materials). If the raft breaks, all the 'crap' will come out and cloud your product.
If you watch the Travel Channel episode on The God of Ramen -- renown ramen soup shop in Japan -- you will see that the chef there uses the egg shells to clarify the broth. That is all that is said about it. You will see the egg shells floating atop the soup, which also has lots of ground pork and other ingredients simmering along with them.
When they serve the soup, they ladle it into a strainer first, so that the broth is clear.
I was told by my head chef who hails from italy that putting the shells in your stock with actually make it darker. He said there is a specific vitamin in the shells that does this. Havent tried it yet though.
Like many other posters, I think egg shells will not change any culinary property of your stock significantly. However I do have heard about egg shells being used by people who want to increase the nutritional value (egg shells are rich in calcium)
However I never use them since I rather go with more a pure and traditional taste. Something for example that seems being forgotten (specially at homes) but still enhance the stock are chicken feet. If I were making chicken stock, I would make sure that above all things, the feet are not missing.
Eggshells will absolutely not harm you. I have a friend that I used to work with at his catering Company. He is a chef from Scotland. Where he went to culinary arts school. He was also the head chef at HCA. Very good at what he does. He always used eggshells in his stock. And like I said he is the best.
The OP asked if including egg shells is a good idea, and how many they should include. This sounds more like a comment than an answer to that question.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.093789 | 2011-11-09T08:19:35 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18850",
"authors": [
"AVT Gavia Foods Pvt Ltd Digita",
"BrianWilson",
"Bryan B",
"Catija",
"Chef Flambe",
"Michael Hoffman",
"Sneftel",
"Tom H",
"billkw",
"edie Strother",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135607",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40842",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55822",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87506",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8766",
"mrwienerdog",
"nico",
"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
} |
19741 | Did I blanch baby-cut carrots correctly?
The Cook's Illustrated How-to-Cook Library suggests blanching 3/4 lb baby carrots for crudités in boiling salted water until bright orange, about 15 s. I added a tablespoon of salt to almost four quarts of water and blanched almost 2 lb of baby-cut carrots for 15 s. They didn't change color in this time, but they seemed bright orange from the start. After shocking in ice water and draining, I tasted the blanched carrots against the original raw carrots. They tasted roughly the same. Maybe the blanched ones were slightly less bitter but I'm not sure I would consistently say that in a blind taste test. What difference in taste should I have noticed?
Did I do something wrong? Should I have left them in the boiling water for longer than 15 s? The National Center for Home Food Preservation suggests 5 min for small carrots, but that's for a freezing application rather than raw consumption.
My guess is that you dropped 2lb of carrots into the water. This drops the water temperature under the boiling-simmering point. So, you're not blanching correctly. You should have taken about 3/4lb portions and blanched them successively. (Or you should have used more water on a bigger stove top.)
The actual amount of vegetables you can blanch at ones depends on how big your pot is. The 3/4 lbs BaffledCook suggests are about correct for 4 quarts of water, but remember that it will vary with the pot you choose. Try to always have at least 10 times more water than vegetables (by weight), more is always better.
What should it have tasted like?
You want a minimal change in flavor when compared to the raw vegetable. The texture should become much softer, but retain a trace of crispness, if it gets mushy, you've cooked it for too long.
The Cook's instructions uses a much smaller carrot! Turn the page-they are cut in small sticks-I think that is why the 15 seconds wasn't enough
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.094459 | 2011-12-18T06:56:28 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19741",
"authors": [
"Michael Hoffman",
"Samer_Azar",
"Tinkinc",
"Tracy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43055",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7603",
"rumtscho",
"user154516"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
24368 | What cut of short rib do I have, and how do I prepare them?
I have beef short ribs that I'm not sure how to prepare. I'm not even sure what cut they are. They consist of only bone and intercostal meat. The blade fat and meat have been removed. They are then cut in ~2" wide strips. They are not "flanken" ribs. As far as I can tell this cut doesn't really exist. In short they look like long strips of pork spare ribs, but are beef.
I was intending to grill them, but with the way they are cut I think they will be too tough. Should I braise them? Should I remove the bones and just braise the intercostal meat?
Perhaps you got what Argentines call tira de asado, which looks like this.
If so, Argentines salt it well and barbecue it on a slow heat for about an hour, the majority of the time with the bone side to the heat. At home I would try cooking it in a very low oven for a couple of hours. Slow braising would also work.
If what you have lacks even the thin layer of meat you see in the picture then you got tira de asado after they took off the tapa (cover) de asado. Then you basically got stock bones. Make soup. (But skim off the abundant fat that will accumulate.)
What I have is similar. However the lengths are about half as wide and the meat and fat have been removed (the tapa de asado as you say).
Do they look like this?
If so, the traditional preparation is to braise them for a good long time at a low temperature (use a slow cooker, and keep it just simmering) in beef stock and onions. When they fall off the bone, take them out and remove any gristle, and re-assemble (for appearances sake).
Take your braising liquid, strain it, and boil it until it starts to thicken up. Add acid to taste (balsamic or wine).
I like to serve it on a bed of barley, and pour the sauce over.
This is tough meat, but very flavourful and it needs to cook slowly at a low temperature to soften the fibres.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.094649 | 2012-06-11T18:29:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24368",
"authors": [
"AkronDave",
"Jim Pollard",
"Joshua",
"Man",
"Swoogan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55465",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55466",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55470",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55529",
"user1709076"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
41197 | Flavorings for clear gelatin
I'm planning to make a sort of diorama, and the 3D nature of it is going to require suspending things in clear gelatin.
Are there flavorings that would work that wouldn't significantly affect the color and opacity of the gelatin, or its setting strength?
I have seen clear mint extracts, usually used for candy making... this should do what you want, I think.
A lot of flavourings are clear to begin with. They are colored artificially to make them look "real". I brew beer and I have seen several alcohol-based extracts to use as flavouring that are clear. They are pretty concentrated and are not expensive. I have used a blueberry flavoured extract before that was clear. Surely you can find something online. If you are having trouble finding something, you might check a local homebrewing store or one on the internet.
Thanks ... I went with orange extract that was oil based (not alcohol) that has a decent flavor ... and I added a bit of sugar.
Also, I should mention that you need to add the flavoring while the gelatin's still hot -- if you don't, it'll cloud up. This seems to be true with alcohol-based flavoring, too. If you stir and give it a chance to warm back up, it'll clear, but I'm not sure if it's quite as clear as before the extract ... I'm going to have to do some experimenting. (my many failures mean I have to try again for next year, so hopefully I'll post an update before next January)
You can use Lorann flavors, they don't affect the clarity of gelatin:
Found them here: https://gelatinartmarket.com/products/assorted-gelatin-art-flavoring-lorann-oils?variant=14121096455
Add white grape juice/green grape juice to make the color of you jelly clear.You can also ad condensed milk to make it sweet or you can add syrup or sugar!
Condensed milk would make it white (possibly translucent), but sugar ought to keep it clear!
Hello luna and welcome! In the future, please edit your post rather than add a new one to expand on your answer. As a new user, we invite you to take the tour and visit our help pages to learn more about how the site works. Both can be found under the question mark (?) dropdown at the top of the page.
Dairy products would have the opposite effect of what I was trying to do -- although I have used a panna cotta (using coconut milk) before to place a white layer under colored gelatin to make sure the colors stood out well.
You can add grape juice to gelatin to make grape flavored jelly.
Does this come out like the kind of Grape Jelly you would use for a peanut butter and jelly sandwich? Is there a webpage that you could link to tell us what the correct ratio would be?
@elbrant : you would use white grape juice, not concord grape. But it still has a bit of color to it. White grape and white cranberry tend to be more clear than apple juice, but they still have a bit of color to them. (more noticeable when you're dealing with larger objects)
@Joe I was thinking more consistancy than color. Does combining Grape Juice and unflavored Gelatin combine to create something similar to commercial quality Grape Jelly? (I was also trying to coax our new user to expand on their answer.)
@elbrant : Maybe if you got the consistency right, but jelly is made with pectin. Gelatin sets up much firmer at room temperature, at least at the concentrations I'm dealing with
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.094955 | 2014-01-15T23:31:33 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41197",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"Erica",
"Fair Value Spammer",
"Joe",
"Juliiii12345",
"Mike Osborn",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"elbrant",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95964",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96020"
],
"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
} |
22243 | Are substitutions for vodka allowed when making a vodka cream sauce
If I am making a vodka cream sauce and I realize that there is no vodka (or not enough) to make the recipe, what would an acceptable substitute be?
Related: why add a shot of vodka to a cream sauce?
The purpose of vodka in a cream sauce is to enhance the flavor by allowing spices that are not soluble in water to dissolve into the ethanol contained in the vodka. A suitable substitute would be any mild flavored strong alcohol.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.095246 | 2012-03-13T23:35:27 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22243",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"AngieRudduck",
"Craig Curtis",
"Jake McMillian",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49950"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
96407 | How to treat a cast iron pan that only gets occasional use
I have a small cast-iron pan that I use a few times a month, sometimes more, sometimes less. Most advice about how to season a cast-iron pan involves lightly oiling and wiping it down, after it's been cleaned, before putting it away. This seems to assume that the pan gets used every few days. Since I don't use it very often, my concern is that any oil that remains on the pan might go rancid before I use it the next time, and that it will affect the flavour of whatever I cook. Is this something I should actually worry about? How do other people treat a cast-iron pan that only gets occasional use?
My (carbon steel) wok is used with that sort of frequency and doesn't go rancid. What I do is (you may want to modify a little for the fact you're on cast iron):
Rinse and dry it.
Get it fairly warm.
Pour in a little oil (sunflower as that's what I mainly use).
Swirl/wipe the oil over the surface.
Heat until I think it starts to smoke; turn off the gas.
After a few seconds wipe of the excess with a paper towel.
After a few minutes wipe it off again as some oil will have magically appeared
Heat until it just starts to smoke again (fairly slowly to allow the heat to even out).
Allow to cool before putting away.
Now this isn't a very hard seasoning, but it does a good job of stopping the pan from rusting and stopping food from sticking next time it's used. The final amount of oil is very small, which helps.
I'd say that the important step is that after you rub it with oil, you heat it 'til it just begins to smoke -- that will polymerize the oils and keep it from going rancid
I've been using the same cast iron skillet since 1989 (yep, that long). After I cook in it, I do a thorough rinse with hot water and a scrubby of some sort. No dish soap. No scouring pad. I typically have a film of oil remaining. I put the skillet in the oven (center rack, upside down) and set the oven to 350F. Once it is preheated, I turn the oven off and let the skillet dry in the oven overnight. This routine has kept my skillet in good condition for decades. I'm sure someone will say that I'm not doing it "right", but the method is simple and it has worked for me over and over again.
I use my cast iron with about the same frequency as you, about once a month.
Rinse it with hot water to remove dust
Cook (possibly adding oil)
Scrape food off under hot water with spatula, fork, knife, Lodge scraper, etc.
Scour with stainless steel scrubber (no S.O.S. or detergent)
Heat on stove for 5m until all water evaporates
Pour kosher salt (rough) in center and rub a minute with a paper towel or napkin
Rinse with hot water
Heat on stove for 5m until all water evaporates
Add a dab of coconut oil and rub with a paper towel
Store
Repeat
The coconut oil doesn't get sticky like canola oil does. You could skip the salt rub if it's not that dirty or you don't care about old food.
If you already scrape under hot water AND scour with a scrubber, why also scrub with salt? Does it do something different?
There are still gross bits that are stuck. The salt turns black. I'm OCD about clean dishes.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.095327 | 2019-02-18T16:32:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96407",
"authors": [
"Chloe",
"FrustratedWithFormsDesigner",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9679"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
23539 | Reusing pickle brine
So I just finished a jar of home-made pickles. They were excellent! Not too salty, a bit spicy, very good. They were so good that I'd like to get some more pickles out of that jar. I was thinking of pickling some eggs in that same brine. Is reusing brine ever done? Are there any reasons I shouldn't do it? I've never heard of this being done, but I don't see why not.
While reusing brine is probably fine in many cases, it's tricky from a food-safety perspective. It seems like there are lots of threads on the internet these days about reusing "pickle juice," and there are great reasons to take your brine and use it in some recipe for salads, dressings, sauces, etc. that you'll consume soon after making (or at least sterilize by cooking).
But reusing brine to make more pickled foods? That's another issue entirely.
If you've made homemade pickles or canned goods, you know that most reputable recipe sources have huge disclaimers saying: "Warning! Always be sure to follow recipes exactly, and do not deviate from the given proportions."
If you make traditional lactofermented pickles, you need a certain salt concentration to inhibit growth of dangerous microbes in the first few days of fermentation. After that, the acidity created by fermentation will prevent anything bad from growing. If you make "fresh pack" pickles or refrigerator pickles, you depend on a certain concentration of acid (usually vinegar and/or lemon juice) and salt to prevent bacteria growth.
Particular concentrations of acids and salt are critical to keep your food safe, especially if you plan to store it for more than a couple days, even in the fridge. Refrigerator temperatures slow the growth rates of bacteria, but they don't stop a lot of bad things from growing completely. If you drop a bunch of fresh vegetables in old brine and come back in a month or two expecting pickles -- you'll probably have some great-tasting stuff. But it could also be carrying harmful pathogens.
The main problem is that brine has salt. Due to osmosis, salt will draw water out of things with high water content (like vegetables, eggs, fruits, and just any food you might think of pickling). If water is added to your brine as it "leaks" out of the added food, you reduce the salt concentration as well as the acid concentration, perhaps leaving an unsafe solution to make further pickles.
Pickling recipes know this and will build in extra salt and/or acid into most recipes, knowing how much water on average will come out of particular foods. By adding a second or third or fourth batch of food to that solution, the brine will become increasingly watery.
Boiling or heating the brine -- as suggested in other answers -- probably doesn't help much. Your pickling brine was already designed to prevent growth of pathogens, with proper concentrations of salt and acid. You shouldn't be worried about pathogens in the brine, but rather pathogens in the new food you're adding. Cooking your new food first can help, but that sometimes ruins the texture of many pickled foods.
Also, even boiling the food many not be sufficient if the reused brine gets too weak. Botulism bacteria, for example, has spores that are not destroyed even at boiling temperatures. With proper acidity (and salt), they won't grow. But if you mess with the recipe, they could. At even lower acid levels, you could grow all sorts of stuff, Listeria, for example. At refrigerator temperatures, it might take a few weeks or months to grow to dangerous levels, but long-term storage is exactly what people tend to do with pickles.
The only way to reuse brine safely would be to ensure that your new brine has the same characteristics as the old one: especially equivalent acidity and salt content. If you really know what you're doing -- i.e., are an experienced pickle maker and understand how to vary recipes while ensuring safety -- you might be able to calculate how much salt and acid to add to keep your brine safe while adding new food. (Trying to re-ferment lactofermented pickles is unreliable, so I'd discourage that route to obtain new acidity.)
In the vast majority of cases, reusing pickling brine won't result in any problems, especially if you keep it in the refrigerator and only put the new food in for a few days. Commercial brines, in particular, often have excess acid and salt beyond that necessary to ensure safety, so reusing them once may be unlikely to cause problems. But it's actually not a safe practice unless you know what you're doing, particularly if you store the new food for any length of time. Whatever you do, do NOT leave pickles made from reused brine at room temperature, even if you've heated the brine and resealed the jars. Without the guarantee of proper acidity, you could end up with botulism toxins or other dangerous spoilage bacteria.
I was just about to ask this question but found this post and your excellent answer. I agree reusing the brine many many times would clearly increase risk as you outline. But for a very full sour brine, reusing once by adding more cucumbers? Sure very water intense vegetable, but if the brine stays at half sour and above? Maybe add some salt or a touch of vinegar?
@jdods - As I alluded to, if you keep the food in the refrigerator, it's probably fine. Officially, according to food safety recs (which I try to follow in my answers), it should be fine for several days. Likely, as you note, with most brines the food in the fridge will be good for much longer. The problem is that it's unpredictable unless you actually know the concentrations of acidity and salt. For casual short-term pickling it might be fine. But pickling by its nature is about long-term food preservation. If intending that, it's important to follow standard recipes.
I have done some experiments pickling eggs with left over cucumber pickle brine.
Just to be safe I reboiled the brine to sterilize it.
It tasted great.
I don't do this with my eggs anymore simply because pickled eggs have more potential than cucumbers. I pickle my eggs now with different vinegars, like balsamic, for more interesting flavors and colors.
Does reboiling brine affect the flavour? Also, would I have to add more water, as I imagine that boiling the brine will cause some liquid to be lost to evaporation?
I didn't notice a difference in flavor but I didn't do a side-by-side comparison. There are few flavor compounds in there that I would expect to be unstable. I didn't need to add water- it only has to boil for a few minutes to sterilize it. It will lose only a negligible amount of water in that time.
I am not sure about switching to eggs, but I have known several people who reuse brine for more pickles. Warm the brine in the microwave (not to boiling, but to about 120F) add some cucumbers and re-seal the jar. When the brine cools it will seal the jar and you will have fresh pickles in about a week.
Why the microwave? Wouldn't the stove, with a candy thermometer, be much easier and more precise?
precision isn't really called for. Just 'luke warm' will do. For this the microwave is just easier.
I guess I'd expect that too much heat could kill important microbes in the brine; but maybe that's not the case. I've never researched nor done pickle making. :)
@Flimzy- most pickles these days are preserved with salt rather than fermented, therefore, killing microbes is a good thing.
@Sobachatina: Yes, these pickles were made with salt.
Is the only reason to reheat so that it will reseal the jar as it cools?
No, the warm also helps to jump start the brining.
I re-used pickle brine for pickled eggs for yrs. When the pickles are done i just pop in some hard boiled eggs. I have never had an issue and they have always turned out well. many times i have 2or 3 different pickles brines from assorted jars around the same timeline and will pour them in together and make a bigger batch. Again never any issues, maybe I am just lucky but I am about to do it again today !
If you get concerned about bad bacteria growth just think outside the box. add a bottle of Frank's hot sauce, some sliced onion and garlic to the brine, pickling spice. red pepper, black pepper and sea salt. I use mine over and adding more vinegar will make them more potent. I love apple cider vinegar. But get creative with flavors you enjoy. Eggs, cabbage, sausages ( fully cooked ) onions, beets, garlic, it's all amazing and healthier with a good pickle.
Enjoy!
The OP seems interested in preserving the flavor of a jar of pickles they enjoyed, and your proposed solution seems like it will radically alter the flavors, essentially to make a new batch of pickles to a recipe you enjoy - can you explain why this is a good answer to their question? Also, some of your recommendations may make the brine less hospitable to bacteria, but some seem to be simply for flavor - can you elaborate?
I’ve reused pickle juice for up to 3 times. With each use I do add some vinegar and some pickling spice and the eggs turn out very well. And never any problems. Refrigeration of course!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.095601 | 2012-05-03T02:51:00 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23539",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Cos Callis",
"DaG",
"Flimzy",
"FrustratedWithFormsDesigner",
"HighLogic",
"JonR98",
"Megha",
"Pasta Don Ray",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96126",
"jdods",
"maggie",
"مشتبئ جاسم مشتبئ جاسم"
],
"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
} |
39497 | Why does my flour sifter have cup markings
I have an inexpensive flour sifter that just has wire mesh and a little hand-crank (like one of these 1, 2.)
It has cup markings on the side ("one cup," "two cups").
This is probably a silly question, but why? Doesn't the flour just start pouring through the wire mesh as soon as you start adding it, thereby making the markings useless?
Only a tiny amount of flour will fall through the grating before you start actively sifting; there is a reason there is an agitator and crank to help force the flour through. I am sure the idea was that you could use the sifter as a measuring cup.
Of course, since most sifters are opaque and the markings are on the outside, it is difficult to get a good measurement.
In practice, these markings are essentially useless, and you are far better off using a proper measuring cup, or even better, a scale.
Personally, I am of the opinion that sifters are hard to clean, not useful for anything else, and in general a pain. I use a simple sieve when I need to sift.
In fairness, the cup markings for the two sifters in the links in the original question do show on the inside, even though the body of the sifter is opaque. Those circumferential bulges show on both the inside and the outside.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.096276 | 2013-11-16T23:35:16 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39497",
"authors": [
"Austin759",
"Kobira",
"Pete Becker",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91692",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91694",
"k2ofcu"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
17961 | Marinades: Water vs Oil
What's the theory on using water vs oil for chicken marinades? I ask because of this recipe:
http://recipes.sparkpeople.com/recipe-detail.asp?recipe=1731460
After multiplying the recipe by a lot, it makes a good marinade, but almost all of the other marinades I've seen online involve oil. Why does this one use water?
(In case the link goes bad, the recipe is:
1 Tbsp Honey
1 Tsp Yellow Mustard
1 Tsp Sriracha
1 Tbsp Water)
Some chemicals and flavours dissolve or bind to water differently from oil. For example, chili binds with oil much better than with water and the honey in your recipe will dissolve into the water which it would not do in oil.
The mustard acts as an emulsifier, allowing water based and oil based components to mix.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.096411 | 2011-09-24T01:33:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17961",
"authors": [
"No'am Newman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3469"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
28365 | Is it recommended to put frozen fruit in a food processor?
I have a decent Kithchen Aid food processor, and I am wondering if using it on frozen fruit would cause undue damage to the blade.
Don't worry about it.
Agreed with above (hence the upvote). I do it all the time. It is precisely what these things are made for in the first place.
According to KitchenAid's food processor users' manual:
Never process any food that is so hard or firmly frozen that it cannot
be pierced with the tip of a sharp knife. Hard food can cause damage
to the blade or motor. If a piece of hard food, such as carrot,
becomes wedged or stuck on the blade, stop the processor and remove
the blade. Carefully remove food from the blade.
KitchenAid 12-cup Food Processor Manual
That being said, I've also used my food processor for frozen fruit, hard nuts, etc. My blades have never worn out in 18 years of use (though the bowl has been replaced once due to cracking).
Anything frozen will wear the blade more than non-frozen. By frozen fruit, I assume you mean frozen berries etc? These can still be quite hard, and will cause blade wear
The question is what goes first, the motor, the bowl, or the blade? Most people don't use these sorts of appliances enough for anything to actually wear out. The normal failure mode is plastic deterioration, in which the motor housing or the bowl looks so bad, or start cracking that people buy a new machine!
Use a "bar" quality blender, that is designed for ice if you are going to do this daily, otherwise your domestic food processor will be fine
If you leave the frozen fruit out for about 10 minutes, so that it is not ice hard it would probably cause less wear and tear on your processor. I also have a Yonanna machine (makes ice cream out of frozen fruit & frozen bananas) the owners manual tells you to leave the fruit out for 10 minutes before putting through the machine. It does not make the fruit mushy in only 10 minutes.
I just went on Cuisinart.com and there is a recipe for Strawberry frozen yogurt (sounds really good) Just says to put 2 cups of frozen strawberries in bowl and pulse, so it must not be bad to put frozen fruit in the processor or Cuisinart would't have recipes telling you to do that.
Beware loading the bowl with frozen fruit and having it re-freeze into a block: that could burnout your motor. My mother even managed to kill a Vita-Mix that way.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.096513 | 2012-11-11T18:50:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28365",
"authors": [
"Catherine",
"Cynthia",
"Jeri Burke",
"Nina Ambrose",
"Sara",
"audery",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65362",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65363",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65476",
"mrwienerdog",
"user65362"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
22876 | Rubber like skin on surface of chocolate mousse
When I make chocolate mousse, I usually end up with a slightly rubbery surface on the mousse.
To make the mousse, I do the following:
Melt dark chocolate in a bowl over simmering water
Separate 2 or 3 egg whites from the yolks
Whip the egg whites
Mix the yolks in with the chocolate and add a bit of sugar
Fold the egg whites in with the chocolate mix
Transfer to bowls and put in the fridge
Usually when I go to eat them the next day, there is a rubber like surface on the mousse, but underneath it's nice and soft.
I am just wondering what causes this, and how to prevent it?
The cause is that the mousse dries out on the surface. It builds a skin of dehydrated mousse. It happens with most cremes, not only your yolk foam.
To prevent it, put plastic wrap on the mousse. Don't span it over the bowl, press it on the surface itself, without leaving air between the mousse and wrap. Your mousse will stay soft. This also works for custards and starch-thickened puddings.
In general, also cover other things you put in the fridge, or they can get an unpleasant odour.
+1 -- This is what chefs do for things that develop a skin.
Have just tried this and it seems to work. Thanks for the tip :)
But the whole point of pudding is the skin! :) (I leave mine uncovered deliberately. This technique is also used to make yuba, or tofu skin.)
For custards it's also common to dot the surface with butter before cooling it (usually in addition to putting plastic on the surface).
I usually cover the surface with sugar. The sugar melts and leaves a fluid layer on the surface, which prevents the mousse from drying out.
I suggest that you omit the egg yolks from your recipe. Add to your recipe: scratch whipped cream using 3-oz of heavy cream. Fold in the whipped cream just after folding in the egg whites. Allow the mousse to set for about 3-4 hours in the refrigerator. Then pipe or scoop into serving glasses, wrap in plastic wrap. Will keep 2-3 days.
I don't see why he should use a completely different recipe, even if this one should be immune to building a skin (which I doubt).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.096741 | 2012-04-08T13:54:11 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22876",
"authors": [
"Betty Phillips",
"BobMcGee",
"David Phelan",
"E. dela Rosa",
"GRA",
"RemcoGerlich",
"SourDoh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51639",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52282",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9823",
"jeff ellis",
"rumtscho",
"tyler.durden",
"user1016950"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
23051 | What kind of cookware is suitable for a glass ceramic stovetop?
I have a glass ceramic stove surface. I need to buy some cookware, but I'm not sure what kind I need to buy.
The manual has the following opinions about what cookware I should use (paraphrased):
Aluminum: Care must be taken when using aluminum because it can break, fuse to, or mark the stove surface
Copper: May leave metal marks on stove surface.
Stainless Steel: Uneven cooking results.
Cast Iron: Not recommended.
Porcelain-Enamel on Metal: Heating characteristics vary based on core material. Coating must be smooth or it will scratch the stove surface.
Glass: Not recommended.
Based on that information, it seems stainless steel or porcelain-enamel on metal are the only two types that aren't going to ruin the stove surface, and that I'll get the best results while cooking if I choose porcelain-enamel.
However, I see mixed opinions all over the net about what is suitable for the glass ceramic stove surface. One article I found was here: http://www.ehow.com/how_4499460_buy-cookware-ceramic-glass-cooktop.html. Contrary to what my manual says, this person says I should include cast iron cookware in sets.
What kind of cookware can I buy that will not damage my glass ceramic stove surface?
So basically the manufacturer is saying "No cookware will work with our stove." Sounds like a CYA move by the legal department. Use what you want.
Carbon steel is fine on glass ceramic. It has a smooth flat bottom which I think is a requirement for this type of cook top.
GE has its longer answer, which may be what was paraphrased: http://products.geappliances.com/appliance/gea-support-search-content?contentId=16259
I wouldn't pay much attention to this list. I would just get my cookware based on what functionality I need, not based on what my stove manufacturer says.
The idea of not using cast iron on glass to protect the glass from scratches is as perverse as keeping a sunhat in the closet and going to the beach bareheaded to protect the sunhat from color fading. Your stove's purpose isn't to gleam, it is to cook. The manufacturer probably tries to shield himself from customer complaints: "your stove got scratches" "nothing we can do, you treated it against our recommendation". This would explain the overly cautious list.
I have an induction stove with a glass plate myself. I don't have cast iron cookware from the type common in the US (Lodge pans and similar), but I have a wrought iron pan, not seasoned on the outside (it developed black rust during seasoning the inside, as well as something which I suspect must be ferrous sulfide). It is smoother than cast iron, but rougher than a typical stainless steel pan. I regularly use it on my stove. Also, I regularly clean the stove with a mild abrasive (equivalent to Unilever's brand Cif) and once or twice, I had a baked-on spill which wouldn't go away with this cleaner, so I used a steel wool scouring pad instead. I worked gently, but still applied enough force to remove the residues. After cleaning and polishing with a glass-ceramic cleaner, my stove literally mirrors the ceiling. I bet it has less scratches than my phone screen. So, I think that all the stories about iron cookware damaging the stovetop are greatly exaggerated. But if you are really scared, you can sand and season the bottom.
The other claims are also dubious. Alu melts at 660°C, you probably won't reach it even if you forget an empty pan on high for hours. Nobody uses pure copper pans anyway, and if it is an inner layer of a sandwich bottom, there is no way it will leave marks. And so on. Only the glass warning is good - not because it would damage the stove, but because you risk the glass vessel itself to shatter.
Bottomline: Buy based on what material is best for cooking whatever you plan to cook. The stove should be able to take it. And if you are rough and it does get a scratch or two, then I don't see why it should bother you - it is a tool, not a fashion statement.
I'm not concerned with scratching, but I don't want to destroy the stove top (say by metal fusing to it as the list mentioned AL might do). The manual says a lot about spills. It says that sugar spills will cause the cook top to crack. The manual had me thinking that everything has the potential to destroy it.
Thanks for the help!
Old question, but... follow-on about glass cookware on glass-top: you say cookware might shatter. Is this due to mechanical shock, or thermal properties? Do you think certain glass (e.g., borosilicate) is okay and others (e.g., non-tempered soda-lime) are not?. I cited this in my answer to this question. Or feel free to chime-in there directly (bounty!). If better, I can ask a new, separate question.
I have had a variety of glass top stoves. The first one was purchased on 1975. I have used cast iron (grandmother's) stainless steel waterless cookware, spilled hot sugar, hot grease, and every mess you can imagine. I have not had one break and if it isn't perfect, just clean, I don't care. It is made to be used and I cook a lot. I love the ease of cleaning.
I can't remember where I got this idea but I striped the copper wire out of some 12 gauge
inside wiring. I painstakingly formed it into a coil and placed it on the big burner. The cast iron skillet never touched the stove top and it also helps keep the food from scorching.
Please remember not to touch it until it cools. You can hide it in the lid drawer when not in use. It's cheap, try it.
Ted, welcome to the site! But how exactly does this answer the question? Copper wiring is not a kind of cookware, is it? After 30+ years of experience with glass creamic stovetops (and others) I can guarantee that your contraption isn't required at all...
I have a Ceramic Glass Top, and it was top of the line that heats up quicker than the others. So from my experience here are my suggestions.
Stainless steel; stay away from All Clad; it warps the heck out of the pots and pans. I have returned so many, even the cast aluminum. You need to purchase a stainless steel pan that has a heavy visible clad on the bottom. It prevents the pot/pan from warping.
Cast iron; The newer ones claims it can be used on Ceramic Top. I personally wouldn't try it since I violently split my father 20 year old griddle in half that took all of 1 minute to do. Scared the mess out of my and I am lucky it didn't break the ceramic top.
Aluminum; Will warp without the heavy clad on the bottom. So never heat the pan up on high and don't go above med high. But they are cheap enough to replace.
Non Stick; Will gunk up faster on a ceramic top due to the higher temp it gives off. Keep the heat low.
Enamel is fine; Never had a problem. Think about self-cleaning ovens, they generate high temps to burn off the grease and the sides are enamel. When I clean my oven, I put my enamel roasting pans in, leaning on one side. They come out so clean. Generally enameled pans are molded with additional ridges on the bottom or pressed in a way that re-enforces the strength of the pan or pot. But the bottoms are not smooth are scratch easier. I use the big pots for corned beef and lobster that you really don't move once it is on the burner. I do pick them directly up and not slide.
Tempered Glass; Is fine too. Just keep in mind, they are more temperamental. Don't put on high, and you CANNOT add anything cold. It will crack in half in an instant.
With this said, all of the above can scratch your ceramic top. But ceramic is tougher than just glass. It can take a beating and not show much ware. I have had mine for 10 + years, and there are scratches, but not like you would think. Just be smart, don't rub the pan and shake back a forth or slide. Becareful of the salt water when cooking, clean off boil overs immed. It not only will increase the temp of the ceramic top, but will bake on quickly to a hard burnt mess. Try not to use a razor, it will scratch. Before using it, try soaking a paper towel with Windex, then cover the paper towel with plastic wrap and put a med weighted pot on top. Leave overnight, the baked on salt, grease or whatever it is should wipe off. Tip; You can also use this method for baked on spill overs in your oven, but just use water. Invest into some really good Microfiber towels, such as Don Aslet on QVC. You only have to use water on the towels no Windex all the time and no streaks.
Also, ceramic does not cool off as quickly as turning off a gas flame. If you leave a pan or pot on it, it will bake the food on, especially non-stick. And you can't put it in the sink and expose it to cold water. Solution: I always keep a tea kettle on the stove filled with water. The water always remains at room temp. When I am finished cooking I throw a little water in the pot or pan to stop the cooking process. It's an adjustment like anything new. But I LOVED my stove and it really did improve my cooking. Good luck to you!
I have a GE 5 burner glass to with convection oven. I have tried just about every type of cookware except cast iron. What works best on my ceramic/glass cook top is the Rachael Ray Hard Anodized II Nonstick cookware,orange handle, They heat up quick & evenly. My stove has 2 power boiler burners with that cookware it boils water very QUICK. I have a few all aluminum pots & they work great too, same goes for stainless steel. The absolute worst cookware for m stove is anything with copper & glass cookware, I have a couple of old stainless steel copper clad bottom frying pans & pots. It takes times as long to heat up & boil water & are useless for my stove. I don't work for nor am I trying to promote the RR Hard Anodized II cookware or any other of her products, but I can't say anything bad about the set I have. They say they are dishwasher safe & oven safe to degrees but I have never done either, always hand wash then. Had them about a year and a half, skillet & pots still look brand new, the frying pans show wear but the non stick surface ISN'T peeling off. For around $115-160 bucks depending on the set size won't break the bank & can't go wrong.
I have used Le Creuset enameled cookware on my glass top stove and it has never caused a problem. The trick is not to get it crazy hot. I never heat it to above 6. Never use high heat. I also use Revere solid copper cookware lined with stainless and have never seen it leave a mark. I wouldn't enjoy cooking without the copper pots. I have one French copper omelet pan, works great too.
My stove came with the house and I have to say I love, love, LOVE my glass cooktop! Especially in a smaller kitchen like what I have, it provides another flat and even workspace as needed. I have used cast iron, cast iron enameled (Cuisinart), Paul Revere copper bottom, and stainless stock pots and all is fine. I use med to med high heat to heat the cast iron because I don't want the higher heat to burn my food (takes longer to heat but I love the heat distribution and ability to pop it in the oven). I do all my frying in cast iron with absolutely nonproblems. I have used HEAVY stock pots and worried about the weight and my GE Hot Point took it like a champ. I used Shazzle once to clean/polish the glass when I had some gunk I couldn't easily remove and the surface sparkled and shined for weeks. I've dropped things on the glass and instead of damaging the glass it chipped the enameled metal border. I've slid pots from one area to the next. Granted, I don't know what the surface looked like brand new, but like someone above said, use what suits your needs and you will be fine.
Don't use enamelware pots (that is a glass coating over metal) on your glass top stove. The glass coating will melt onto the glass top stove surface when you set the pot down on the hot surface and you can't get it off as it melds with the stove surface permanently. It happened to my mother in law. Flat bottomed stainless steel or flat bottomed ceramic over metal pans work best. : )
Cast iron is the best cookware to use on a glass top stove. Let me say that glasstops are the most ill-'designed' things that I have ever seen. The 'burners' heat at a rate of over 500 degrees, which is why they cycle on and off.
You MUST NOT use the true antique (thin and light) cast iron on a cooktop. Use the modern Lodge cookware (obtainable at local grocery stores or online). The 'cooktop' heats cast iron UNEVENLY and can cause quality iron to warp. I accidentally warped a 1950's Griswold griddle yesterday. I realized it a day later when using another griddle and realized that, while the griddle was not hot at all, the 'burner' was smoking and overly hot. I used a laser temperature detecting device that I have, and realized that the BURNER ITSELF was over 500 degrees. If you get cast iron that hot, warping is inevitible. I finally did the cooking that I needed to do by heating the griddle a bit, putting the pancake batter on the griddle and then removing it from the heat to let the pancake cook. THAT was a pain in the neck, let me tell you. It's worth it to save the antique pans.
I detest cooktops. They are designed far worse than the old woodburning stoves. They are less useful than water-soluable fishing boats.
This one is in a rental, I will NEVER deliberately buy one!!!
thanks
I've cooked on gas, and for years on those horrible electric coil rings, and for the last 16 years on a ceramic stove top and they are second only to gas for ease and convenience. Mine is white and I've scoured it with the mild cleanser similar to Vim and Comet sold to me when I got the stove, and it's still nice. I was given a good quality stainless steel set of pots and pans as a wedding present from my in-laws in 1967, 53 years ago, and have replaced some pieces with other stainless as the most used ones wore out, mostly by the handles giving out, and I've also used Teflon frypans and the latest product, ceramic lined ones, and best of all are heavy bottomed stainless. Teflon always warps eventually and the ceramic lined ones take forever to heat and slide around, not recommended. My best skillet for simmering is a glass lidded heavy Beaumark from the Bay, my old stuff is Haddon Hall from Eaton's, and replacements are mostly Lagostina. I used aluminum small pots for quick heating for a few years but went back to stainless which last a heck of a lot longer. I'm 75, over 50 years experience cooking, no cast iron on ceramic tops, save it for gas stoves. My stainless is going to outlast me.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.096989 | 2012-04-15T20:19:09 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23051",
"authors": [
"Bharti Bhandari",
"Chris Cudmore",
"Dilina Erandaka",
"Farah Khan",
"Kappers",
"Mary Noble",
"Matt Studebaker",
"Mrs Snoggleduke",
"Rita Violeau",
"Rose Thorne",
"Ryan Anderson",
"Sharon",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"Stephie",
"Tom Frost",
"caitriona",
"hoc_age",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115353",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134055",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52110",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52111",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53005",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53006",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9927",
"mehluli khumalo",
"user2943160"
],
"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
} |
23985 | Why using both baking powder and sodium bicarbonate?
I have a few recipes at home that call for adding both baking powder and sodium bicarbonate to flour in a cake. Given that the latter is the main ingredient to the former (along with some starch), what's the purpose of using a bit of both?
There are two reasons (that have also been discussed in many other questions)
Baking powder isn't just sodium bicarbonate + acid. It often also contains aluminum compounds that release gas when they are heated. That means they will make bubbles not just when the batter is mixed but also when it is baking.
Baking powder is ph neutral while baking soda is basic. Recipes will often include mostly baking powder with some soda to neutralize acidic ingredients.
See also:
What is the difference between baking soda and baking powder?
The other important reason that many cake and cookie recipes include baking soda is that the alkalinity increases both Maillard browning and caramelization. Failure to include sufficient amounts of baking soda may lead to having to choose between A) properly cooked, but pale and less flavorful baked goods or B) overcooked, but browned and "toasted" ones.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.098464 | 2012-05-24T19:44:30 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23985",
"authors": [
"Jays",
"Mike Follett",
"Mikhail Kulin",
"Phi",
"Ralph W. Bolton",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132795",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54424",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54425",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54427"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
23396 | What could I substitute for coffee in an Opéra cake
I would like to bake an Opéra cake for someone who doesn't really appreciate the taste of coffee. Since coffee and chocolate are the two main elements, I am wondering: what flavour could I substitute for coffee in my coffee buttercream? I suppose the qualities I'm looking for are a bit of bitterness, and it should go well with chocolate and orange liquor?
PS: I just noticed that the English wikipedia describes the sponge cake as “soaked with coffee”, but in the way I usually do it it's soaked with Cointreau so I don't need any replacement there.
since you are discarding the coffee flavor to accommodate your guest's dislikes, do you know what flavor that guest might enjoy?
@CosCallis she probably likes loads of things (other than coffee, I mean)… I'm really trying to keep the balance of taste in the original, just because, well, Opéra is so good!
Personally, I'd suggest making something else. Substituting a major flavor ingredient seldom works out well.
Some sort of nutty flavor perhaps? Hazelnut syrup? I think it should go well with both chocolate and orange. Otherwise I think the cake will be quite delicious even without a substitute, just using plain buttercream.
EDIT: I just noticed that the cake has an almond base. Perhaps a few drops of Amaretto in the buttercream would work. That would play nicely with the almond flavor already there.
I would suggest that either you want to "substitute the coffee" or "keep the original balance" because anything that does the first will not accomplish the latter.
That said, a flavor source that would work well would be Irish Creme.
I have no fondness for coffee in chocolate desserts with one or two exceptions, so my suggestion is why don't you try some black tea or Earl Grey tea? They're just as powerful. Or maybe some drinking chocolate?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.098602 | 2012-04-27T03:34:06 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23396",
"authors": [
"Cos Callis",
"F'x",
"FuzzyChef",
"Hilde",
"Vicki Stokes",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52944",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52954",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9940",
"slayerpjo",
"user52945",
"z5h"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
18283 | Proper preparation of veggies for an egg scramble
I really enjoy cooking eggs for breakfast, and sometimes I'm feeling fancy enough to add veggies into my scramble. However, I'm never sure how to prepare the veggies to put into the scramble. If I don't cook them, usually they are too crunchy or tough (and sometimes make the scramble watery), and don't taste good with the eggs. If I try to cook them before adding them, they usually come out too dry/overdone. I figure this might depend on which veggies I'm cooking so here are my common favorites: tomatoes, bell peppers, mushrooms, onions (suggestions welcome!)
To make my question more specific (and hopefully more answerable): how can I prepare the veggies so that they are not crunchy, but not over-cooked?
Those 4 vegetables (and fungi) all require different cooking times. Chop the onion and pepper into dices of roughly the same size, to ensure even cooking. Get them frying, with a little salt which will help to soften them, over a medium heat while you slice the mushrooms, then add those: it is more or less impossible to overcook a mushroom incidentally.
Once the onion has softened but still has some bite, chop the tomato and add that, then add your eggs more or less straight away - the tomato doesn't need much cooking.
While I agree with Elendil, in that different veggies need different cooking times, you can also cover them from some of the cooking time as the steam tends to reduce crunch.
I do this when I cook Torillia with potato as otherwise it can take a while for the potato to get soft.
To suppliment Elendil's answer:
Also, if you want your scramble to be more like a fritatta then just pour the eggs in over the cooking veggies and scramble. This is good, especially with some cheese in it.
On the other hand, if you like a "fluffy" scamble with lots of big curds of eggs, cook the veggies, dump them out of the pan and drain off any liquid, wipe the pan, get it very hot again with some oil, throw in the eggs, scramble madly and pour the veggies back in when the eggs are halfway cooked. The only way you can get big puffy eggs is in a pan which is at least 300F, which means it needs to be empty.
Also: liquid from cooking veggies is your enemy when scrambling eggs. Try to avoid adding too many "moist" veggies, such as tomatoes, mushrooms, zucchini or sweet potatoes, at once.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.098787 | 2011-10-10T05:14:49 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18283",
"authors": [
"RyanDagg",
"TecBrat",
"Timothy Martin",
"agent provocateur",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39507",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39508",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39570",
"m2j"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
25197 | Knife cleaning: safe to do without soap?
Knife Skills Illustrated: A User's Manual suggests that knives can be cleaned with hot running water alone. "With sufficiently hot water, soap should not be necessary." Is this safe? What if I am only cutting vegetables? What if I am also cutting raw meat?
Why does the book want to avoid soap? I mean, yes, in theory, with hot enough water and appropriate scrubbing to remove any particulates you could be OK (though I'm not clear that most residential hot water systems are actually hot enough for that), but why not use soap? It helps move things along and get things off the knife. What's the supposed advantage to to not using it?
The book doesn't go into any detail on why one would not want to use soap.
Regardless of safety (=killing bacteria), water cannot dissolve fat, while soapy water can. If you don't use soap, your knives will stay greasy, smearing old rancid fat on anything new you cut with them.
Note that the book does not say "avoid" or "do not use" soap. It says soap "should not be necessary". Hot water can make fats melt or dissolve so they can slide off the knife. Soap, in itself, does not sanitize anything. Something can be clean but not sanitary and sanitary but not clean.
In order to "Sanitize" any surface you must wash that surface (in this case, knife blades) with water at no less than 190°F (~88°C) according to the (U.S.A) National Sanitation Foundation (NSF). Earlier this year the Conference for Food Protection recommended reducing that standard to 160°F (~71°C) as an "energy saving measure" citing a study at Ohio University that claims that it is equally effective. Additionally they recommended that the temperature could be reduced to 120°F (~49°C) with 'chemical additives' (soap).
So the question is "How hot is your hot running water?" According to "Wikipedia" (a dubious source at times, but I will accept it for this point) suggests that most home water heaters produce water at 104°F (~40°C) to 120°F (~49°C). This would suggest that to sanitize a knife blade something more than 'hot running water' is necessary. In fact since water over 131°F (~55°C) puts you at risk for scalding (Wikipedia, Ibid) and you certainly don't want a water heater putting out water that hot, I would have to disagree with your source and conclude that in household use soap is required to sanitize your knife blade.
note: in order to qualify my answer to the question of "safe", I have elevated the standard from "clean" to "sanitized", certainly you may 'clean' a knife with running water but that level of clean is not what I would consider 'safe'.
You could, of course, always heat the water in a pot.
Yes, Bob, you could. But the QUESTION was about "hot running water" ;)
FYI, According to this new article http://www.mysundaynews.com/2011/06/02/tip-18-setting-the-water-heater-temperature/, the US DOE is recommending 120F at the tap.
Even if it is actually at that recommended temp, 120°F is insufficient to sanitize without additives.
With a funnel you could turn water heater in a pot (or microwave) into "hot running water"...
Somehow I believe that begins to stray from OP's intentions.
+1, standard procedure should be 1. soap, 2. hot water & 3. dry with paper towel.
"According to "Wikipedia" (a dubious source at times,..." scoff-scoff condescending.
-1 Soap does not kill germs. -- actually your answer prompted me to ask that question. I'm still hoping there's a proper answer to the question of how to clean a knife.
@alx9r, "Soap" is a common term for a lot of things. Most common kitchen soaps (such as 'Dawn') contain added chemicals which are 'anti-bacterial' and which do actually does remove germs and other bacteria. Frankly, your other question is a 'step in the wrong direction'.
@CosCallis - With respect, understanding the difference between cleaning (i.e. removing germs and the substances that culture them) and sanitizing (i.e. killing germs in place) is essential to food safety. I don't see how a factual discussion about that difference is a step in the wrong direction.
@CosCallis - With respect to the efficacy of 'anti-bacterial' soap sanitizing (i.e. killing germs), there doesn't seem to be conclusive evidence that they indeed kill germs any better than regular soap. This WebMD article, for example, cites a study that found the antibacterial properties of regular and 'anti-bacterial' soap to be about the same. Furthermore, the term 'anti-bacterial' makes no claim about killing foodborne viruses which ought also to be a concern when cleaning knives.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.099011 | 2012-07-22T23:37:39 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25197",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"BobMcGee",
"Cos Callis",
"Cynthia",
"Jen",
"Michael Hoffman",
"Michael Kohne",
"Ray",
"Rob",
"Roger",
"Zumo de Vidrio",
"alx9r",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57605",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57606",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57607",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69908",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7603",
"rumtscho",
"vandervagos",
"zigzag"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
23463 | Why do instructions for carving a chicken disregard the back?
Many instructions for carving a roast chicken don't mention doing anything with the meat on the back. For example, Mark Bittman in How to Cook Everything, describes how to cut the breast, leg, and wing from the bird, but doesn't say to do anything with the back (other than, presumably, to put it in stock). The back meat tastes perfectly fine to me, although it isn't a large pretty chunk like the other pieces.
Why aren't there instructions on how to carve it too? Should I serve up the back meat? Keep it for myself? Use it as a part of some other cooking?
Back meat on poultry tends to be rubbery, inaccessible, and there is relatively little of it. The meat is almost like other dark meat but is found only in thin sheets. Also since during traditional roasting the back meat is down in the pan it tends to be less cooked than is pleasant for dark meat.
It isn't practical to try and carve it because it is a ton of effort for just a little bit of not-very-good meat.
After carving off the major cuts I will use my hands to pull off any useful scraps- including some of the larger pieces of back meat. I save these pieces for my standard poultry scraps applications: pie, soup, and enchiladas.
Whatever is left gives up it's goodness into the broth when the carcass is boiled and is then fed, with the spent carcass, back to the chickens.
And it's a wonderful way to make broth easily -- just save the unused bits from any roasted or baked chicken and put them in a pot with water to make chicken broth. Many butchers and grocery stores even sell chicken backs as "soup bones."
@Snow - Agreed about the oysters. They are about the only part worth carving off the back (and they are definitely worth carving). Other chunks of back meat can sometimes be picked off, but they're not generally "carvable."
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.099371 | 2012-04-29T23:50:41 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23463",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Barb Rowe",
"Bev",
"JohnnyD",
"Martha F.",
"Qian Chen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53108",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53112"
],
"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
} |
26045 | Salad ingredients: how to pick them at the market?
I often make salads with lettuce and a few vegetables (perhaps some of carrot, celery, bell pepper, cucumber, tomato, green beans, snap peas). I can plan the ingredients before I go to the grocery store or farmer's market, but are there good ways to pick the ingredients once I get there, based on freshness or value? How?
Are you trying to ask how to pick which of those to buy, or about how to pick out individual things (e.g. a good bell pepper)?
Which ingredients (of these or others I haven't thought of) to buy.
I'm not sure how much we can really tell you, then. Obviously quality and value are good things, and it sounds like you know enough to judge that. Otherwise, it's just picking what you'll like eating, which is mostly subjective, and picking things that'll go well together, which means you're essentially asking for vegetable salad recipes, and we don't really do recipe requests... Am I missing something?
I basically would like an algorithm. I get to my supermarket's produce section. Now what?
I think the answers you've gotten so far are about as much as anyone can tell you; that's what I was hinting at. Beyond "get what looks best, within your budget" what else is there, really?
There are literally dozens of possible ingredients there. It's hard to know where to start or "what looks best."
My advice is simple -- don't plan ahead.
Being fresh produce, most of us have no idea before you get to the store what the current stuff coming out of the local fields are.
This is going to affect both price (in season stuff that hasn't been shipped from the opposite hemisphere is typically cheaper, especially w/ today's fuel prices), and quality (how long it's been sitting around, maybe there's been too much rain or not enough, etc).
And, don't forget that you don't need to limit yourself to vegetables in salads -- sliced apples or pears, orange or other citrus segments, etc, are great additions, particularly as we get into the fall and the spring & summer vegetables aren't locally available.
If it's the middle of winter and nothing's fresh, consider jarred marinated vegetables like olives, sun dried tomatoes, peppers, cauliflower, etc.
Well, just pick what looks fresh. Usually when I go shop for groceries, I don't have much of a list, but rather pick what looks good at the market and then let the produce inspire me and make up something either at the market or at home.
Look for bruises and feel the veggies. Vegetables that have been out in the sun for half a day can become soft – especially carrots, parsnips, leeks and lettuce for example. And with lettuce or vegetables like cabbage that are in the form of a head, try to determine how many of the outer leaves you need to remove – with brussel sprouts, sometimes you end up with half the size when you've removed all the ugly leaves.
If you find bell peppers that seem to have seen their best day, try to get a lower price, buy loads and roast them. Delicious in salads.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.099674 | 2012-09-07T21:52:03 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/26045",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Michael Hoffman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7603"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
103922 | Can I re-whip whipped cream?
I whipped some cream with soft peaks and put it in the fridge. A few days most of it has collapsed and is liquid. Can I re-whip it effectively without adding more cream?
If you try to re-whip the cream now, it'll likely turn into butter, not whipped cream. The initial whipping process has already caused the fat in the cream to coalesce; further whipping now will complete that process, similar to if you had over-whipped the cream in the first place.
I wonder what would be the outcome of using a whipping siphon with collapsed cream
@Agos I would expect better results from a siphon, since much less mechanical agitation (which would squeeze fat globules together) is occurring. In fact, the mechanism of a whipping siphon is not hugely different from that of a milk homogenizer.
Sneftel answered the question you asked, but to answer a corollary question: you can prevent this from happening by using a stabilizer (also called a cream stiffener). One you can get is by Dr. Oetker and is called Whip It (or Sahnesteif). There are a few other alternatives as well.
Another way to prevent the cream from collapsing is to store it in a manner that limits air contact. For instance, I store whipped cream in a Tupperware container, but before putting the lid on, I smooth a piece of plastic wrap down right against the surface of the whipped cream, then put the lid on.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.099925 | 2019-12-05T02:08:07 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103922",
"authors": [
"Agos",
"Sneftel",
"dwizum",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67281"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
127789 | Is there a solution to searing a steak indoors with a very sensitive smoke alarm?
I recently moved into a new place that has a hard-wired smoke detector into a central system. The smoke detector is incredibly sensitive, and my usual techniques for searing or reverse-searing a steak are setting it off.
Is there anything I can do to produce a good sear while minimising smoke?
I see that one of our mods flagged this as a duplicate...The suggested dupe doesn't respond to your question, since your alarm is hardwired and the suggested duplicate is mainly focused on dealing with the smoke detector, as opposed to the cooking technique. Perhaps a rephrasing of the question will convince folks to reopen.
I haven't used one so this is a comment rather than answer, but would a blowtorch be an option for the searing? Or would it make just as much smoke?
I don't think this is a duplicate. I think the question could be re-worded to ask "how to sear a steak without causing smoke". And then a valid answer would include a low temperature technique such as this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJcO1W_TD74
Be aware that smoke alarms can become MORE sensitive as they age (as they detect when radiation is being blocked, and the radioactive source gives off less as it ages). If your alarm is near 10 years old, it might be time to replace it, even if it is hardwired
Boil them in a ziplock bag (making sure you don't exceed 180°F and are using actual ZipLock-brand freezer bag, or have checked the material specifications sheet), then sear.
@Arctiic Sous-vide is essentially the same thing as a reverse sear in terms of how much smoke they're going to produce.
Cook's Illustrated had a feature on this a while back: use lower heat - I end up with a medium/medium-low, enough for a gentle constant sizzle; cook in a nonstick pan so anything that browns sticks to the steak; and flip every two minutes until the desired temperature is reached, 10 or 15 minutes for a typical ribeye. I even use this technique with steaks straight from the freezer and the results are perfectly acceptable:
You won't get the extreme char that you would from a grill or broiler but this might be the best you can get without setting off the smoke alarm.
Other than external venting or a strategically placed fan and an open window...high smoke point oil...a dry pan (lightly oil the steak)... I think beyond that your only other option is a lower temperature. Of course, this means a longer time in the pan, so you may have to adjust your cooking technique.
Good question....I think heat the heck out of the pan, make sure steak is at room temp or dont laugh but you can microwave stake prior for 1 min...then flop it on to pan 10 sec then 10 sec then take the pan with steak in it outside with lid ofcourse and flip accordingly and keep lid on!
I think with a cast iron pan which is heavy and has a lot of heat capacity this could work quite well. Have you tried this yourself?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.100074 | 2024-03-01T17:31:52 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/127789",
"authors": [
"Arctiic",
"Chuu",
"Joe",
"dbmag9",
"hodale",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10493",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43720",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85083",
"moscafj",
"quarague"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
41400 | What ginger compound is responsible for the 'kick'?
Mint's minty kick mostly comes from menthol and pepper from capsaicin.
What is the equivalent dominant compound in ginger that gives it the characteristic kick?
All i can tell is it's water soluble :)
You can thank gingerol for the kick in fresh ginger, and shogaol and zingerone for the heat of dried ginger. Gingerol is chemically similar to capsaicin in chilis and piperine in black pepper, but undergoes changes when heated or dried converting it to the other compounds. You can see where gingerol and shogaol fall on the Scoville scale here.
Huh, interesting that it's similar to capsaicin, given much of the "kick" in a ginger beer generally comes from peppers rather than from the ginger itself.
Gingerol, named for the ginger in which it is found, are the main hot and spicy compound in ginger.
It is similar in structure to capscaicin or piperine, but is transformed in cooking into the milder zingerone.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.100340 | 2014-01-23T21:11:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41400",
"authors": [
"Artem Sheremetev",
"Elvow",
"Jak",
"Kris Morgan",
"PADI IDC Training spam",
"Rita",
"Sean Duggan",
"Spammer",
"elena",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65978",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96484",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96506",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96760",
"macau88 id spam"
],
"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
} |
19351 | Making cake without oven
In the case that there isn't an oven;
is it possible to make cake on electric cooktop by using basic kitchenware?
do you have a microwave oven available?
No, just cooktop
Easy-Bake oven?
Yes, but it's a pain (and depends how much kitchenware you have). When I was in the Peace Corps, I learned how to construct an "oven". You'll need two pots of the same diameter that are big enough to enclose your cake pan, hopefully with about at least an inch of room on all sides. (Just one pot is needed if it's tall enough.)
Put one pot on the burner, then put something in it to elevate the cake pan at least 1/2 inch above the bottom of the pot. Three small rocks work well, as will three stacks of coins. Put the cake pan on top of this stand, then put the last pot upside-down on top as a lid. (If your first pot is tall enough, you would only need a regular lid, not a second pot.) It's best to set this up on the burner as moving it can be risky. Use a low setting for the burner and expect a longer baking time.
This method can work on a stove or on a charcoal grill (with very low heat in the case of grill). It will work better if you can add heat from the top as well (e.g. put a few coals on top). It's finicky though and takes some practice. Bread is a pretty safe thing to try, though I would guess that a box-cake would do okay.
Microwave cake is an easier option, just google "microwave cake" and you'll find lots of recipes.
Not really. But you might want to look into English-style steamed puddings. Typically these are cake-like desserts steamed in a porcelain bowl sitting in a covered bath of boiling water.
They're a bit moister than cake and don't hold their shape as nicely. Often they are served with a hot rum or caramel sauce.
Syrup sponge is by far the best if you have a really sweet tooth!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.100494 | 2011-12-03T14:43:21 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19351",
"authors": [
"Ace_McIntosh",
"BobMcGee",
"Flamingowatcher",
"Isaiah",
"MissesBrown",
"Terry Burton",
"baka",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8120",
"vwiggins"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
19194 | Optimal egg size?
Yesterday while making some pancakes I came to the realization that I may have been sabotaging recipes that call for eggs.
For years I've always purchased the largest sized eggs I can get in the grocery store. I've done this mostly with fried and scrambled eggs in mind.
When making something like pancakes, or cakes, or cookies etc... is it better to have a smaller egg?
Is there an optimal sized egg for baking?
Also see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11938/small-medium-or-large-eggs
US baking recipes are generally based on (US) large eggs. (I'm not sure about other countries.) Some recipes even explicitly say that. If you've been using (US) jumbo eggs, then you're using ~25% too much egg in your baking. The effects of that will of course vary from recipe to recipe. It's not so much that large is "optimal", but rather that it's what the recipes are calibrated to.
You'll see several standardized sizes of eggs in the store:
Jumbo: > 2.5 oz. (71 g)
Very Large or Extra-Large (XL) > 2.25 oz. (64 g); 56 mL (4 tbsp)
Large (L): > 2 oz. (57 g); 46 mL (3.25 tbsp)
Medium (M): > 1.75 oz. (50 g); 43 mL (3 tbsp)
I got this from wikipedia's article on chicken egg sizes, which also lists egg sizes in other countries, which others in other countries could compare to the US sizes!
Awesome! I don't know why I never caught this before. You are my hero!
Some of my older recipes--the ones that come down from the farming families of my grand parents generation and before--call for medium eggs, so I believe the preference for large eggs to be a relatively recent phenomena. This includes a heirloom cake recipe of importance in my Mom's family, and you dare not use large eggs or it will fall every time.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.100677 | 2011-11-28T19:05:13 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19194",
"authors": [
"Martha F.",
"Mehrad",
"Sebastiaan van den Broek",
"SouthFresh",
"chezsand",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41729",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41730",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41731",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8122"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
19389 | Getting crispy chicken nuggets at home
I have been trying to make chicken nuggets at home, but the nuggets did not come out as crispy as expected. The chicken inside is cooked fine, it is just the covering that did not come out fine.
I used flour and bread crumbs dipped in egg as batter. I fried them in oil in a pan instead of deep fryer as shown in different videos on internet. So what could be the reason for that. Is it something that I did not add to the batter or is it the way I cooked (without using a deep fryer)
Deep frying is certainly an easier way to get things crispy, but there are things you can do to get crispy batter without it.
First off is the bread crumbs. Ideally the bread should be relatively stale and therefore dry. If you blitz your own breadcrumbs, leave them out for a few hours to thoroughly dry out before you pane. You can also try using panko, which are pre-packed Japanese breadcrumbs that are very crispy. You can usually find them in supermarkets these days.
The other thing you can do is double-crumb the chicken, so flour, egg, breadcrumbs, egg, breadcrumbs. This double layer of crumb should make for a really crunchy crust.
Finally, you can pseudo-deep fry using a wok. Rather than a full pan of hot oil, just put an inch of oil in a wok and fry in that: safer and less waste. A good way of knowing when the oil is hot enough is to use a wooden chopstick. Simply put the tip into the oil and if bubbles immediately gather around it, the oil's hot enough.
Set your oven to about 120 degrees F/50 degrees C, pop a plate with some kitchen paper on it in there, and fry in batches, placing the chicken on the plate while do you the rest.
If you use this method, you could try a tempura style batter. Take 100ml of chilled soda water and mix with 140g of self-raising flour and mix well. Dust your chicken with cornflour (cornstarch), then into the batter and straight into the oil. Turn a few times to ensure even cooking - when the batter is a nice golden brown it should be done, about 5-6 minutes.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.100845 | 2011-12-05T07:52:39 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19389",
"authors": [
"dan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42200"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
25712 | How to salt potatoes?
I would use boiled or fried potatoes inside other recipes like the Spanish tortilla which has usually a salty taste. Depending on how I cut the potatoes however, sometimes there is too much contrast between how salty mix and the potato chunks.
I wonder if there is a way I could salt the potatoes correctly before adding them to de mixture.
For instance, for the tortilla I mention, the spuds are cooked in olive oil for about 30min. Adding salt to the oil while cooking had little effect. I was thinking about leaving them in salty water for a while, but that would take a long time and pre-boiling it, doesn't seem to fit the recipe.. so..?
Are you salting the potatoes after they've been fried, or only salting the egg mixture? I've never had a problem, but I also keep my potato cut rather thinly, so there's not a large volume of interior potato that would be unseasoned.
I usually add salt to the cooked potatoes and to the egg mixture. Thinking of it, it might have to do with the thickness I'm cutting it. Will make some try.. though was really wondering if there was a better way to do it.
Janet Mendel's Cooking In Spain directs you to salt the egg mixture before adding it to the pan, and not the potatoes at all. That seems likely to just perpetuate the flavor contrast you don't like though.
I'm with Joe. How thick do you cut your potatoes?
As an aside - should never add salt to anything while it is in oil... Salt will dramatically hasten the break down of oils when the oil is at a high temperature.
I have been doing some experiments and it all seems to come down to how tick i am using the potatoes. @FuzzyChef, mind that the contrast is not completely undesired, in fact I add the onions to get the sweet contrast. It is just that when using too tick spuds you'd get to feel the blandness of it against the tasty mix. thiner slices (about 1 to 3mm, before I was using something like 2-4mm) seems to always mix in perf.
@mrwienerdog that sounds very interesting. What does oil break down means? less taste?
@filippo : it actually gives it more taste, but not necessarily good. And it also lowers the smoke point.
Add the salt in te bowl of egg and potato mixture, right before pouring the mix to the pan. You don't salt the potatoes you salt the whole tortilla.
Even if you use onion. The onion inside the Spanish tortilla tastes always sweet.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.101020 | 2012-08-17T16:36:33 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25712",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"Nitin Dahivalkar",
"Sathish",
"Spam",
"filippo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11261",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58971",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"mrwienerdog"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
27334 | Can I follow recipes for bread-machine breads without bread machine?
I was browsing a recipe website to get some recipes for breads. There is a section marked with bread-machine breads.I am very new to bread making and after some search it seems that the machine is used for baking and kneading. So will it be possible for me to follow the recipes with a normal oven?
To be clear, are you wanting to make a bread recipe that is listed for a bread maker but you do not have a bread-making machine?
Exactly and before I go for one I want to be more experience on bread making
I have a bread machine and you can have it. :-)
My bread machine recipe books come with conversion instructions to make the bread traditionally. Here is a link to a site that will do the same:
http://breaddaily.tripod.com/recipeconversion.htm
Best of luck with your bread making!
You can probably use the same recipes, but... hand kneading is more difficult than letting the machine do it. The wet dough can be very sticky. So, if the recipe has a high hydration (water:flour) you may want to reduce the water in the recipe.
So, if the recipe calls for 250ml water:500g flour, this is 50% hydration, and you should be able to knead that. But 300ml water, or 60% hydration is much harder...
It also depends on the flour you have, but try to be conservative about the water until you get a feel for it.
I wish SE would let us mark more than 1 reply as answer
@Tanmoy, No worries, you pick the best there is, or the one that suits you best, and you can always edit answers to make them more comprehensible.
I use my bread machine just for the kneading and first rise, and then bake in the oven. The bread nachine recipe won't give any baking directions, and the loaf size may not be quite what you want, but other than that, I've found the recipes completely interchangable. Use both bread machine and non-bread machine recipes in the bread machine (make sure you use an appropriate size), and use both as just bread by hand too.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.101246 | 2012-09-22T15:55:32 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27334",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"JOHN KEOGH",
"Kimba928",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Tanmoy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61583",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"mcnkldzyn",
"money man",
"oyd11",
"slang"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
28191 | Is it necessary to thaw bones before roasting for stock?
I have some frozen lamb bones that I want to make a lamb stock with. The recipe I'm using roasts the bones in the oven before making the stock - is it necessary to thaw the bones before roasting them, or can they be roasted straight from the freezer?
It isn't necessary to even thaw bones before tossing them in the water, so long as you're cooking long enough.
With that said, to roast first and then toss in the stock, the goal is to get some browning going (I'm assuming your recipe says to roast at a relatively high temp like 400) to add some flavor, much like browning the meat at the bottom of a pot for a stew. Tossing them in the oven at 400 degrees for about 30-45 minutes will brown them for you and you're not too worried about getting the insides cooked (the core reason to why people don't try to roast frozen meat).
Stocks in general is as far from an exact thing as any recipe can go. There was this interesting article talking about all the differences in schools... http://www.sfgate.com/food/article/STOCK-TIPS-3237449.php#page-1
So in conclusion... it isn't necessary. If you're a stickler for recipes or you're trying to duplicate something as close as you can, thaw the bones.
Yay! uh... Yay!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.101450 | 2012-11-03T11:01:35 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28191",
"authors": [
"33 degrees",
"JDMc",
"Stephanie",
"grumpasaurus",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64865",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64894",
"susan zomar"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
19800 | Is it OK to marinate chicken and pork together?
I just want to minimize dishes taken to a BBQ--marinating pork chops in a lemon/herb/olive-oil baste along with some chicken skewers. Is there anything to worry about with trichonosis when preparing pork in same dish with other meats at room temperature? I can't imagine it's a problem, but you never know...
Don't worry about the pork contaminating the chicken, but rather vice versa. A good rule of thumb with chicken is to treat it as a biohazardius contaminant. Because it is. Salmonella is present IN chicken meat, unlike other meats where you will only find microbes on the surface. Your marinade doesn't seem particularly inhospitable to pathogen growth, so cross contamination would be a nontrivial concern. OK, if you overcook your pork chops as some insist on doing, it shouldn't be much of a concern. However, may as well be safe and split the marinade between two ziploc bags. It's a small effort to mitigate risk.
@Sean_Hart In the North America, Yes. In Malaysia?
@TFD, better safe than sorry seems like the right way to go regardless of location. In Malaysia all pork is imported from western sources (Australia mostly). Muslims don't eat pork. So Sean's advice probably still applies, at least for my circumstances.
I spent a few minutes Googling this and it seems like most of the posts I read that advised against it were more "better safe than sorry" type responses than anything grounded with experimental data. Furthermore, your specific marinade has lemon juice, which will make it harder for bacteria to grow.
I personally think you're safe...but I do want you to reconsider what you're bringing. If you're going to BBQ chicken and pork marinated in exactly the same thing, won't they taste pretty much the same? It doesn't seem worth it to even get the second type of meat for the flavor/variety payoffs. It'd be like buying BBQ Lays and BBQ Pringles together.
Yea, I'd normally agree. But somehow it turned out OK. The pork+lemon juice tastes significantly different than chicken plus lemon juice. Both tasted great despite overcooking (per the accepted answer) and the shared marinade.
I wouldn't worry about trichinosis. In the years 1997-2001 there were 21 pork related incidents in the entire US - so only 5-6 cases a year.
http://www.rightdiagnosis.com/t/trichinosis/stats-country.htm
I'm assuming it's going to be cooked, which makes the odds practically nil.
@soegaard What if this guy doesn't live in North America? The World being somewhat larger than USA :-)
@soegaard, thanks for the concern about my location in Malaysia, but I'm still as unglobal as most Americans when it comes to statistics. Interesting how rare Trichinosis is in the States.
@TFD Yep, the world is larger than the US (in Denmark myself). I did jump to the conclusion that hobs was in the US. Just now I tried searching for statistics from Malaysia, but couldn't find any.
I always marinate meat in a plastic ziploc bag. Cleanup is simple and you can squeeze out most of the air so the meat is well coated with a smaller amount of marinade. I wouldn't mix the meats because the flavours should stay separate.
Yea, ziplocks are great for maximizing the marinade contact. But I'm a bit of a greenie, not a big fan of "disposable" plastics nor BPA, and tumbling/shaking a hard container every couple hours is almost as good at distributing marinade.
If you don't want to use zip lock bags, Use two different containers. Do not mix poultry with pork.
Hello, and welcome to Stack Exchange. A bit more information on why this would be a problem would make this a better answer.
Thank you for the welcome. And you're right. My explanation should have been better. Rather than writing a long explanation, I invite those interested to go to this link, https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safety-education/get-answers/food-safety-fact-sheets/safe-food-handling/be-smart-keep-foods-apart/ct_index
Thank you for the welcome. You're right. I should have explained myself better. A full explanation regarding cross contamination can be found here:
Thank you for the welcome. You’re right. I should have explained better. For those who are interested, you can read about cross contamination here:
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safety-education/get-answers/food-safety-fact-sheets/safe-food-handling/be-smart-keep-foods-apart/ct_index
Those are good links, but at the least they should be included in the answer rather in the (generally deemed non-essential) comments. Even better would be including the linked information right in the answer text, as links are fragile.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.101608 | 2011-12-20T08:34:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19800",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Chuck",
"Daniel Griscom",
"Enigmatic Wang",
"Gary D.",
"TFD",
"Wiindii",
"brhans",
"hobs",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43182",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43190",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43733",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8220",
"kurly",
"soegaard",
"user2789517"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
73577 | How to remove brownies cleanly from silicone molds?
I've recently started looking into making brownies inside silicone molds (in particular, this guy) and I've noticed that it doesn't seem to matter whether I grease, grease & flour, use pam, use parchment paper (with and without grease) or do nothing: the brownies are never guaranteed to come out cleanly. Each method yields some brownies that cleanly separate, with others that lose varying degrees of their bottoms to the pan.
Note: with parchment paper, the problem of a clean release just gets kicked down the road to the stage when I peel the paper off the brownie. Most of the time, the paper pulls a non-trivial amount of crumb off with it.
What's the best way to insure a perfect removal of the brownies from silicon bakeware?
Freeze the brownies in the mold. They'll release cleanly.
I'd try parchment paper. Seems to usually be a good idea even when oil and flour fail. You'll have to cut it to size, but at least the sheets are big enough that it shouldn't be too much hassle.
You can cut it larger than the pan in one direction so that it'll be sticking up on two sides, which gives you something to grab to lift out and to peel off the brownies. For the pan you linked, divided into a grid, you could cut it to size in one direction, lay it across a row, maybe put a few creases to encourage it to go down into the sections, then quickly snip it into individual pieces.
Tried parchment paper, see edit.
@StevieP technically, this does what you ask... If your recipe is so sticky that it won't come cleanly off of parchment, you might want to consider a different recipe or be ok with the rough release if you really love the flavor of this one. I've never had significant issues with brownies releasing from pans. They usually have plenty of oil to release cleanly.
What can we add to the recipe to make it less sticky?
Recipe design is complicated. It may be that it is not stickiness, but excessive crumbliness, or something else. Trying a few different recipes is much less work than changing this one to perform differently.
You can try greasing or flouring the paper too. I suspect it still won't be enough, but the paper should be less sticky than the silicone, so the combination of the two night make some difference. You might also check that you're baking the brownies the right amount (being off might make them more crumbly?) or trying other recipes if all else fails.
A reach but take cup cake paper and cut it in an rectangle and put it in the bottom. Now it may also stick to the paper but you could cut with a knife.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.102095 | 2016-08-30T23:43:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73577",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"StevieP",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8827",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
21267 | Do I need to adjust recipes when using hard water
Our well water tastes very good but is extremely hard (220 mg/L). Do I need to make any adjustments when cooking or baking or will it work fine?
Is there some recipe with which you are dissatisfied and believe it to be 'in the water'? The mineral content might affect the outcome but I doubt there is any kind of offset that will 'fix' it other than perhaps filtered (or softened) water.
220mg/L of what? Both Magnesium and Calcium contribute to water hardness.
I am not sure, I tested it with a home test and it only gave the general harness. Based on our area I would guess primarily calcium.
Several things can be affected by hard water. If you're cooking fruit or vegetables in it, the softening is slowed by the dissolved calcium - it reinforces the cross-links in the cell walls. I'm not sure how strong the effect is; if you do boil vegetables, and you find that they get soft enough fast enough, or that you like that they don't soften too much, then I suppose you have nothing to worry about! But for things like dry beans (as FuzzyChef mentioned), where softening is critical, you might have a real problem.
More of a problem might be bread, which is probably the primary baked good you actually use water in - and it makes up an awful lot of the dough. Once again, the dissolved minerals help cross-link, and so you end up with firmer dough. I searched around, and found this reposted article from Bakers Journal about the effects of hard water on baked goods, which says that water above 200 ppm calcium carbonate is not good for breadmaking, but that you can compensate by using extra yeast and adding acid. I don't want to quote the whole thing here, but it does discuss in more detail, so it's worth a look! I would personally be inclined to avoid the issue by using softer water for breadmaking if possible.
The information besides that from the linked article came from On Food and Cooking, a great general food science book. I don't have any personal experience with cooking with hard water, so unfortunately I can't vouch for the completeness of my answer!
One source here http://www.hi-tm.com/Documents/Chem-h2o.html
The only food I know for certain which will be strongly affected by your hard water is dried beans. At the level of hardness you describe, you may find that they never soften no matter how long you cook them; I've seen reports of up to 12 hours for cooking beans with very hard water. So use soft water for cooking the beans.
There are probably other foods which are chemically affected by hard water, but several Google searches have turned up no general guides on the topic.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.102320 | 2012-02-12T01:09:34 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21267",
"authors": [
"Cos Callis",
"Léo Léopold Hertz 준영",
"Mike B",
"baka",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6849",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9025"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
62341 | I accidentally dropped the lid from a can of diced tomatos in my crockpot of cabbage roll soup!
I went to stir the cabbage roll soup and found the metal lid to the diced tomatoes in the soup. It's been in there for at least an hour with all the food in the crockpot cooking on high. I got it out and still have the food cooking. I'm not sure if we can eat this now or not?
So that is how they get the high iron content into the spinach... :)
I'm very glad that the chef found the offender in the soup, and not a guest!
When you can foods, even in a mass production setting, you're pouring near boiling contents into the cans. So heating it in your soup is no different than having used those tomatoes in the soup. If it wasn't food safe it wouldn't be used for canning. It would do no more harm to eat the soup than it would be to eat the tomatoes out of that can.
Addition:
While there may have been health risk in the past with the coating on many canned products, its incredibly rare in modern day. While trace amount of tin are generally safe, in a larger quantity they can cause nausea and vomiting, but generally no long term effects as these are mostly related to the inability to digest tin. In the UK some canned products are coated in a Bisphenol-A compound which is a known carcinogen. Though this is becoming less common, as BPA is generally avoided in food containment. Though the toxicity of BPA is still widely debated, its generally best to avoid it.
Most cans are made of steel, which if dissolved, even in relatively large quantities is not a health risk. For instance, many pans are made of steel or iron. Most commonly these cans are coated with aluminum as its much cheaper to plate steel with aluminum rather than tin. Aluminum can be toxic in large quantities, but aluminum is very resistant to corrosion, as it tends to form an oxidized coating which prevent most corrosion.
There are some minor safety hazard in consuming the coating on certain canned products, though its increasingly less common to find products canned in these containers that contain potentially hazardous materials. Tin coated cans have made people nauseous in the past, due to the tin dissolving from acidic contents like fruit. Though generally the can has to be rather old, and discoloration is a good indicator in this case to avoid consuming problematic amounts of tin.
I'd say being that there are no reports of people becoming ill from cooking a portion of a can, that its safe to assume that there are no major health implications. Though if you are worried, you may want to contact the company that packages the specific brand of canned goods you are using.
sources:
Wikipedia, Tin Can
Mount Sinai Hospital, Aluminum Toxicity
@Raphael: aside from anything else, if the can was dirty then the dirt's in the soup now. I still wouldn't worry about it too much, just as long as you don't store your cans with your asbestos or anything.
Cans are coated with zein, so it's not really bare metal.
@Raphael See my addition about the chemical makeup of cans and possible health implications related to that.
It's nothing. Since you've already fished it out, you're done having to deal with it, just keep going. No harm will come to you or your dish.
Okay thank you for your comment. Wanted a second opinion to make sure dish was still good.
Though the other answers correctly state that the lid is harmless, what was dropped into the soup was the lid and additionally everything else on that lid. I had once briefly worked at a warehouse that handled, among other things, some food products. There I learned that the outside of the can is no less important than the inside. I have seen rat poison distributed on a pallet of canned soda, which was later distributed to stores to be put in vending machines.
If the lid was properly cleaned, then there is probably no worry. But if the lid was exposed to chemicals, poisons, or dirt then it would have to be properly cleaned to be safe. I like the "lick test": If you would comfortably lick that lid, then the food is probably safe. If you wouldn't lick the lid, then don't serve the food.
If anything that critical is on the outside of the can, wouldn't the fact that the can has been handled alongside the food be a risk as well? Or, for that matter, that fact that "pouring stuff out of the can" most likely was a path of contamination, too? Or... am I just way too messy in my kitchen?
@Layna: That is probably a question for a toxicologist or a biologist. You may be correct. I'll tell you, I always wash cans, jars, and other packaging before opening them now.
I usually at least stiffly wipe it clean with a paper towel.
Given I don't recommend consuming rat poison, it has a relatively low toxicity to humans, and there are no reported cases of fatalities from rat poison in humans(that I was able to find). Though I agree, its easy enough to just rinse or wash the lid.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.102552 | 2015-10-07T00:57:57 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62341",
"authors": [
"Corethia Potts",
"Escoce",
"Jerrell Reasonover",
"Keith Jayasinghe",
"L H Heating and Air Condition",
"Layna",
"Lisa Hinkle",
"MamaOf2",
"Marie Shearan",
"Meghan Thompson",
"Richard Donovan",
"Steve Jessop",
"Steven Stavropoulos",
"Thomas Potter",
"dotancohen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148189",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148308",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39851",
"simbabque",
"tsturzl"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.