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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
35344 | What can "modified" mean when describing an ingredient?
I have been trying to reverse engineer a packaged glaze mix for fruit pies. It weighs 1oz/28g, and contains "modified tapioca starch, citric acid, salt, artificial flavors and coloring." The mix can't be purchased in our area, we would have to purchase an entire case online, hence the drive to replicate it. The instructions are to sift the contents with 3/4 cup sugar, then add 1 cup of very hot water (I used water that had just stopped boiling). Upon mixing with the water, it instantly thickens into gel which is thicker than honey, you fold in fruit, and pour over into a crust and put it in the refrigerator.
Tasting the mix, I approximated just shy of 1oz tapioca starch, 1/8 tsp citric acid, and a small pinch pickling salt. The end result was 1oz, and tasted nearly identical to the packaged mix when raw.
Upon adding hot water, with a tiny amount of water it begins to set up similar to the store bought mix. However once you get beyond 1/4 cup of water, the gel breaks and basically becomes slightly viscous water.
I have tried several times with arrowroot, tapioca starch, potato starch, and I simply cannot achieve the same behavior as the store bought mix. All I can think of is that the "modified" tapioca starch is the secret. But I can't figure out what "modified" means. In the US, in nutritional labling, what can "modified" mean when describing an ingredient?
"slightlz viscous water" sounds like your starch didn't cook through. I have used store bought mixes which are meant to be cooked on the stove before folding in the fruit - give it a try. Mix with cold water, then cook until it blubbs.
You can order modified starches from, e.g., Modernist Pantry
Modified on the label literally means... well... modified, that is changed or altered.
I am unable to find a Standard Of Identity formally for "modified starch."
Modified starches are typically modified in a number of ways (see the linked Wikipedia article for the full detail), but the most common one in instant mixes is to pre-gelatinize the starch. This permits it to more instantly dissolve and thicken items, even without being heated.
Your description of the filling thickener makes it sound like the starch is in fact modified for low temperature thickening.
In the case of your pie glaze, reverse engineering an industrial product which consists largely entirely of chemicals that are not easily obtained for home use may be... erm... fruitless.
You would be better off describing the outcome of the glaze, and trying to create a home recipe to come close. You are likely to get a good result, perhaps even better than the commercial product.
Fruit pie fillings are are typically starch thickened, during the baking process. However, you want an "instant" pie which is not cooked. No-bake fruit pies are fairly unusual. You may get better results by making a more traditional baked fruit pie.
This remainder of this answer is educated speculation, but I have not tried it.
To recreate this affect at home, you want a stove top filling method. Sugar, tapioca starch (which tends to give a transparent effect, and is not sensitive to acid), lemon juice (for flavor and tartness, replacing the citric acid in your mix), and salt, perhaps with some spices should come very close.
Baking911 suggests running instant tapioca in your food processor to get a finer powder, that dissolves more easily. Note that instant tapioca is in fact modified, as it is has been gelled, and then dried—so it may be close to what you are looking for.
You can bring this mixture to a low simmer, with your fruit, and then pour it into your shell, and it should do fairly well, although you will have to find the right proportions.
Hm, I will give this a shot. The goal is to have a pie in which the fruit is uncooked (it yields a very unique flavor profile which cooked fruit simply can't come close to) - the gel helps preserve the fruit a bit longer. I have found several other recipes which follow similar steps to produce a glaze for fruit tarts, and I think I can follow your suggestion as well too, just ommitting the fruit. Appreciate the help as always!
You might want to consider a more classical French style tart, then: create a pre-baked pastry shell, perhaps with a layer of pastry cream, then uncooked fruit glazed with jam (it is melted, perhaps with a little water, and then brushed on). If you do try the stove top method, you can always add the fruit in the last minute or two.
You can also delve into other hydrocolloids to get a gel consistency you'd like. Things like agar agar, gellan, and methylcellulose all are able to be heated and maintain their thickening powers.
I would also consider just simmering the tapioca solution for a few minutes, then take it off the heat and fold the fruit in before dumping the mixture into the pie shell.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.133457 | 2013-07-17T02:03:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35344",
"authors": [
"Brendan",
"Erik P.",
"Matthew",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8339",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
50272 | Making stroopwafels with a pizelle iron
Last year we spent our honeymoon in Holland and Belgium, and so for Christmas this year I wanted to surprise my wife with 2 types of cookies we were introduced to while we were there - stroopwafels, and mergpijpen. Every recipe I find for the stroopwafels requires that they be sliced in half after baking in a pizelle iron or a shallow waffle iron. However, our pizelle iron makes cookies so thin that I seriously doubt that they can be cut.
Can anyone provide any insights on whether the "cut in half" step is necessary?
Does your recipe use yeast? After a quick search I it seems there are two types of recipes: the ones with yeast are supposed to be split (probably because they "blow up" a bit), the ones without use two wafers sandwiched together.
It'd probably work, but they wouldn't be as delicate : you'd have more wafel (twice the amount), but you'd also have more stroop (as you'd be spreading it on a textured side). I can't comment if it's 'necessary', as I've never tried making them myself. Instead, you might want to make speculaas, kruidnoten, or pepernoten (aka pfeffernuise), which are what I associated w/ Sinterklaas ... stroopwafels tended to be year-round. But check the recipe for pepernoten and kruidnoten -- some require letting them sit for a month before eating (they soften up as they age, so you don't chip a tooth)
I find this strange, maybe these are recipes which have been adapted for American cooking? The thin hard waffles used for the type of stroopwaffel I know are baked in a special waffle iron which produces thin ones.
@Joe: Noo stroopwafels are the best Dutch cookie ever! I don't like pepernoten nearly as much. Of course you could make borstplaat... As to letting pepernoten sit for a month, that is presumably only done to types of cookies make of taai-taai (which basically means tough-tough, and it is only rarely good). Pepernoten should be crisp.
@Cerberus : yes, but because they're available year-round, they're not something that I think of when thinking about holiday baking. We used to get them fresh from a stand in one of the markets in Utrect that we regularly visited ... but pepernoten and such were specifically for the holidays.
I'm not so much worried about holiday authenticity as I am about letting my wife remember our visit to one of our favorite places on earth for the holiday :)
@Joe: That is absolutely true...but still! And do you mean the market at the Vredenburg?
@Cerberus : Sorry, it was ~30 years ago. I know it was in the province of Utrect (we lived in Huis ter Heide, right outside the American gate at Soesterberg Air Base). It might've been in the city of Utrect, Zeist, or even Den Dolder.
@Joe: Ahh I see. I am glad that you still have fond memories!
I did some reading and checked several recipes. First, while all pizelle irons cook thin waffles, there does appear to be a difference in thickness from one iron to another.
From the recipes I looked at, the following information and suggestions were given:
In order split the pizelles in half, you must split them immediately upon removal from the iron, before they have had a chance to harden.
If your pizelle iron makes the thinnest waffles and it is impossible to split them you can put the filling between two waffles.
Also, regarding the comments about the hardness of stroopwafels, it seems that it is customary to sit them on top of a hot cup of coffee or tea for some seconds to soften them.
I haven't had the opportunity to try these but they sound delicious. I may try my hand at them soon. :)
Hm, thank you! I am thinking it may be simpler to just use two wafels then as our iron makes incredible thin cookies. I'm thinking the only way I could split them is if I used our family's antique cast iron pizelle iron, but that requires constantly putting the iron in the oven OR over an open flame. Thank you so much for looking into it!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.133849 | 2014-12-02T17:16:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50272",
"authors": [
"Cerberus",
"DNK Health Hospice Consulting",
"James Hesketh",
"Jessica Vincent",
"Joe",
"Johnna Weary",
"Matthew",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120239",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8339",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
46442 | Roasted duck carcass - what is this dish called?
I've never broken down a duck before, so I found myself briefly watching this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTJR6-HU6OY
At the end, the chef mentions that in southern France, the carcass is sometimes sprinkled with coarse salt, roasted in a fast oven for some amount of time until it is GBD, and then picked apart by hand as a finger food. For the life of me though, I can't seem to find any references to this at all. Is anyone familiar with this dish? What is it called??
I've got fleur de sel on hand, and I think it would work great!
GBD = Golden, Brown and Delicious (Just for those who might not immediately get the acronym)
OP Looking for an answer, I found a similar thing in China. Frying the carcass after the Peking Duck! Simply Gluttonous YUM!
I have found a reference to it. There is a recipe called Roasted duck carcass in Cooking and Travelling In South-West France by Stephanie Alexander and Simon Griffiths.
@Jolenealaska Does the book mention the French name for the dish?
Maybe, but I can't see it. I have asked the only owner of the book on Amazon that has reviewed it. We'll see!
This sounds like a cooks dish. Probably it's called leftovers for the kitchen staff and has no official name.
I found this recipe on
supertoinette .
The name of the dish is "Carcasses de canards grillées" which translates to roasted duck carcasses. It states below the name that "These carcasses of roasted ducks are a specialty of the Southwest!"
If you use Google, you can translate the page and get the recipe and instructions. This particular recipe uses ingredients in addition to the salt but, as with most recipes, I would expect that there are many variations.
Nice!!! now, I just have to convince "the powers that be" to let me cook some duck at home.
Thank you so much!!! This is exactly what I was looking for!! Now I need to get a few more ducks! :)
you could probably do the same thing with chicken carcasses
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.134182 | 2014-08-16T19:58:57 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46442",
"authors": [
"Chris Blake",
"Dan Creedon",
"Dr. belisarius",
"John Stern",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kathleen Neville",
"Kim Vrijsen",
"Loki",
"Matthew",
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/111913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/111914",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/111915",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112254",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8339"
],
"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
} |
47225 | Is there such a thing as a bone cleaver?
When I was growing up, my mother had a massive, MASSIVE cleaver that she kept in the kitchen. It was immense and heavy. My father had gotten it when he worked in a butchery. This cleaver has since been lost to us. I would like to find something similar. When I asked her what the specific type of knife was, she said it was a "bone cleaver." It was easily 60 years old when I was little 30 years ago.
For the life of me, I can't find references anywhere to bone cleavers. I can find meat cleavers (but most have warnings not to use them for bone). They're smaller than this was, and also lighter. I can also find references to vegetable cleavers and Asian style cleavers. Again, they're smaller and lighter than this. They're hammers compared to the sledgehammer this thing was.
My mom used to use it expressly for cutting through bone. You'd raise it up, give it a little force to accompany it's natural weight, and it could go through almost anything with relative ease (up to and including femurs).
I know bone saws exist, and usually I just keep a spare blade around for my hacksaw to cut through bone when I break down a carcass. So, is there such a thing as a bone cleaver? Would it be a special order thing these days? I'm wondering if it may have been a custom made knife back then because I have never seen anything else like it.
I keep a spare butchering blade for my reciprocal/saber saw (aka sawzall). So much faster.
Most Chinese cleavers can handle chicken and pork bones. Lamb bones are harder to cut through but definitely can be done.
Absolutely.
I have this one here: J.A. Henckels International Classic 6-inch Cleaver ... it is billed as being designed "for chopping through joints and bones". These cleavers tend to have good, solid weight and a short blade bevel to give it endurance and power. You would not slice things with this. This is a momentum tool to crash through the target tissues with a confident swing. The hacksaw that you mention offers better control, in general.
The opposite of this is an Asian style cleaver that is used primarily for vegetables. Lighter, faster blade with a deeper bevel which makes it sharper for slicing but it would wear down faster under the impact of bones/joints.
Thank you! I'll take a look and see if I can't find one at the restaurant store, if not, to amazon I go!
Just watch the fingers: These huge blades don't discriminate!
If you look at the angle that the blade is sharpened to, it is noticeably less steep than a typical cleaver. This gives the sharp edge more strength at the cost of slicing power. The blade itself is also reinforced for strength and are thicker than a normal cleaver.
I'm a hobbist knife sharpener and you can technically convert any cleaver into one that can handle bone, but it takes multiple hours and it involves grinding down the thin parts of the knife to make sure it doesn't chip off and slice someone. Bone cleavers are really thick, much thicker than a chef's knife. If you find a "cleaver" that's only as thick as a chef's knife, that is NOT for bone at all.
To add to the existing comments and answer. There are absolutely bone cleavers. The Chinese are very fond of cleavers. While, most commonly found Chinese cleavers that you'll find are "vegetable knives", they also make bone cleavers. If you have a chinatown or a asian restaurant supply store near you, you can probably find one for cheap. I have really nice Japanese chef's knives but see no reason to pay lots for a bone cleaver. I have one that cost me probably $20. I also have an good vegetable cleaver handed down to me, but that one doesn't get used on bones.
See here for more info:
http://www.seriouseats.com/2010/08/how-to-choose-buy-care-for-a-meat-cleaver.html
http://www.chefknivestogo.com/cckcleaver.html
This is billed as a "Rhino Cleaver" and is the biggest I've seen. If it's well balanced it would be a fantastic tool.
Holy cow - I want one of THOSE!
eep! That is one lovely blade!
This one is a bone cleaver from Malaysia. Weigh approximately 1.6 Kilogram. Length of blade is 8 inches and height is 6 inches with the handle being 5 inches and a half. Most importantly blade thickness is approximately 1.3 centimeter. Made with soft steel with dull chopping edge. Essentially stated as a bone chopper.
I have a cleaver that matches your spec's on your #1 choice, BUT the blade is about 4" (front) for veggie chopping and the rear 3" is a more fortified sharp blade angled section designed for bones. It has Chinese symbols so I don't know what brand it is. It works great, as I do not need/want a cleaver for each.
This is old but pretty much if your looking for the real tang n knives any store would do but a hand forged one yeah the greatest ever I have this one knife/clever because it does both also it's better than all the commented knives/clever because it's heavy but light chops beef bones but slices vegetables
full tang design, if that is what you are referring to, does not make or break a bone cleaver...
https://www.amazon.com/Sato-Heavy-Duty-Cleaver-Chopping-Butcher/dp/B016E3RGMQ this can chop bones as it say so in amazon as some already showed you but the link is for amazon if u still wanted to buy one. here are more links to other one
https://www.chefknivestogo.com/cckbonechopper.html
https://www.amazon.com/Heavy-Cleaver-Butcher-Chopper-Carbon/dp/B073JBGQZ5
this one for sure will cop the bone as it did show it doing just that with pigs feet
https://www.amazon.com/Cutting-Cleaver-Stainless-Chopping-Multipurpose/dp/B07QD7CPGT
this last one does not say if it can shop bone. but it look so cool that why i have add a link to it as well.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07L8M41ZG
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.134416 | 2014-09-18T14:31:07 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47225",
"authors": [
"Daniel Ballinger",
"Grey Dog",
"Gringo Dave",
"Kyle Jarvis",
"Laura Ayres",
"Matthew",
"Megha",
"Nelson",
"Rob K",
"Sherene Allie",
"Stephanie Wade",
"TrishX",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113992",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113994",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114002",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114003",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25282",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50899",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8339",
"rackandboneman",
"seansauna",
"xuq01"
],
"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
} |
43326 | Dangerous simmering - exploding liquid? (cheesemaking)
This evening I attempted to make gjetost. I started with a gallon of milk and made mozzarella, then added a little dry milk, and made ricotta. Finally I was going to reduce the whey down into gjetost.
Once I got the whey reduced down to about 10% of its original volume, the simmering became incredibly... weird? Basically the bubbling became very erratic, and at least twice there was a sudden "BLUB" which sent showers of 230+ degree whey showering across the stovetop, also making a noticable SLAM when the pot physically jumped on the stovetop. After narrowly avoiding a bunch of burns twice, I moved the pot off the heat and walked away. I want to make the recipe but I'm not risking a trip to the hospital.
So, has anyone ever seen this happen? Why does it simmer so erratically and then have one big GLUB/bubble explosion in the center that is so violent? I've heard of things getting super heated, but that doesn't seem like it would apply here because it's not a completely pure liquid (there are some curds of albumin protein which would seem to be good origination sites).
If the temperature was in fact 230 (I infer F), then you have a very saturated solution of whey, which is probably pretty thick and gloopy. What kind of cheesevmaking uses employs temperatures of that level?
Gjetost essentially reduces all liquid out of whey until there is little left but caramelized albumin protein. It creates a fudgey, caramel-like cheese.
http://biology.clc.uc.edu/fankhauser/cheese/Gjetost/Gjetost.htm
Evidently you are making kitchen napalm, then. You want a much too big pan to keep it confined, and appropriate protective gear. You might look for welder's supply houses.
Yeah, I have decided to let this batch go. I made 2 more attempts, and each time it went off with enough force to take the lid off and spray all over my range, even at very low temperatures. I think this may require a large cheap non-aluminum pot that I don't care about. Between this and lutefisk, no wonder Scandanavians are so tough :)
Have you tried a splatter guard? I know they're pretty good for tomato sauce, but I've never tried them at this heat.
I don't think it would help in this case, there was essentially a steam explosion which threw lids a few feet away.
Reducing whey to that level of concentration is going to create what is very likely to be a viscous, non-newtonian fluid. That means its flow rate changes with sheer stress, much like ketchup does.
The heat at the bottom of the pan will slowly heat up water until a bubble of steam starts to form, and press against the remaining fluid. At first, the pressure will not be enough to overcome the viscosity of the.. substance. Eventually, the pressure will be sufficent that bubble ruptures, creating sheer in the fluid, which suddently becomes much mroe liquid. And so you have a giant gloop.
See related: Why does tomato sauce spatter more than other sauces?
That is EXACTLY what I witnessed, and the non-newtonian fluid created would explain the really erratic bubbling I saw! Thank you!
Why not simply reduce the cooking temperature below that which steam forms? You don't have to boil to reduce. You could put it in a shallow pan in a 70C oven and perhaps get the result you want.
@GdD I suspect that at low temperatures, the cheese won't caramelize properly.
This was at a low simmer - we still had problems where it would bubble a little, stop, and then BAM, explosion.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.134901 | 2014-04-07T01:34:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43326",
"authors": [
"Brandon",
"GdD",
"Matthew",
"Rayane Jaouhari",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Stephen Bezanson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101440",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101444",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8339",
"raman.james",
"rumtscho",
"vwiggins"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
54565 | Using frozen/cooked frozen blood in black pudding
I am having a hell of a time trying to track down blood in the US for black pudding. None of our local processors can provide it, several butchers are claiming it's illegal to sell (not true, but you have to be licensed at the abbatoire). I haven't been able to find a place that will sell dried pigs blood over the internet AND can ship.
The only option I've found so far is frozen pig blood from a local meat plant (they do NOT sell fresh, only frozen), or a small asian market (they ONLY sell coagulated pig blood that has been cooked).
Can these be used interchangably or is it an absolute requirement that the blood be fresh?
Not sure how true this is but I'll say it any way. My butcher seems to think the use of blood is rare now a days. Instead they use plasma. Which can be dried into a powder mix along with spices. This mix then only requires fat to be added and then cooked in skins.
where do you live, Matthew? I am able to get pig's blood from my local meat processor when I've had a pig butchered. I just have to ask for it ahead of time, so that they will save it.
I've had stew made with blood at a Filipino place in San Francisco. I'm guessing that most butchers wouldn't carry it unless they could sell it, as it'd have been drained at the slaughterhouse.
The frozen blood (once it is thawed) would be the better option. I would not consider the cooked and coagulated product to be interchangeable with the thawed product.
what DOUG says is correct.I used to be a chef,and I had to make our own Black Pudding,every fortnight.We used to get dried plasma mix in bulk,.I can see no reason why you could not get this exported to the USA,as it is totally non-volatile,or offensive in any way you care to think of...
Get some in,and teach those yanks the joy of B.P !!!!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.135299 | 2015-02-09T19:07:27 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54565",
"authors": [
"Doug",
"End Finity",
"Esmeralda Francisco",
"James Jennings",
"Jennifer S",
"Joe",
"Sal Policciardi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128440",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131697",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7060",
"thavaraj govender"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
36514 | What are the preferred veal cuts for sausage making?
I am going to be trying my hand at bockwurst tomorrow evening, and will be going to the butcher shortly to have meat cut for the process. For the pork, I'm going with shoulder/butt. I can't seem to find any recommendation on what veal cuts are best for sausage making.
Are there standard cuts of veal which are traditionally reserved for making sausage?
Regarding veal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bockwurst says it's made from half veal, half pork. However, the German Wikipedia only states pork and bacon. If other meat is used, the product needs to be labeled as a bockwurst, e.g., Kalbsbockwurst (veal bockwurst).
Remember that veal is merely very young beef; the chuck (which is the beef equivalent to the pork shoulder) is probably your best choices. The chuck naturally has that best proportion of muscle to fat for sausage making.
That said I would actually discourage you from choosing veal as a meat for sausage making, ground veal is [IMHO] really 'nothing special' in terms of flavor. Veal's 'specialness' is in its tenderness, which is irrelevant in a sausage. You would be better served to use an mature beef chuck from an angus or longhorn. Lamb would also be a nice ancient flavor.
I understand, however, the recipe is for bockwurst, which requires veal (usually 50/50 between pork and veal). I appreciate the feedback.
I agree with Cos - Veal is wasted in sausage in terms of flavor and especially in terms of fat content (not to mention the money you'd be spending!)
When making sausage, fat is crucial - in fact when I've made venison sausage in the past, I've always added some fatty cuts of pork (shoulder or similar) along with the venison as otherwise when it's cooked it's dry, unpalatable and the flavor you really want doesn't come through. That said, I think you could make veal sausage so long as you mix in some fat - but you could also try something that goes with veal and also has some fat of its own - maybe sundried tomatoes?
There are two variations of bockwurst - Bavarian (a small weisswurst that can be grilled) and Berliner (larger and stronger flavored, commonly grilled/smoked and used for currywurst). Both are made primarily with veal. Veal/beef fat isn't the best for sausage-making. I would get the cheapest, clear, veal trimmings (neck, rump), and mix with pork belly or back fat to get your +/- 70:30 ratio.
DBF
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.135806 | 2013-09-03T18:47:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36514",
"authors": [
"Chris Yungmann",
"Harriet",
"Matthew",
"Peggy",
"Robert",
"Stephen Huber",
"arcdale",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147239",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85692",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85693",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85708",
"tony"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
19723 | One whole duck and extra pieces - how long in the oven?
I have a duck (a bit more than 3 kilos) and two additional breast pieces (each around 300g). Now I am wondering how long this should stay in the oven. Rule of thumb is usually one hour per kg. So I would put the duck in the oven at 180° for three hours. But what about the additional pieces? Should I add them after two and a half hours? Or does this extend the oven time?
Do you have a thermometer?
Anyone who tries to match the variability of an oven (over time, no two heat identically, even the same brand, and most are inaccurate) with the irregularity of the food (no two whole ducks have the same mass and shape, and the side breasts don't have bones, which affect heat conductance) is doomed to be disappointed. Anyone who suggests that you put in the breasts X minutes before the bird is done is leading you down a primrose path.
By all means, use the rule of thumb to give you a rough guess, but don't plan your meal around it. Get yourself a probe thermometer -- two, in this case: one for your whole bird and one for your separate breast. Pull each piece out when it is done. Plan your menu around that reality.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.136022 | 2011-12-17T11:19:09 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19723",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Greg Zaal",
"MirekE",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42998",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43238",
"user42998"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
19781 | How to make chocolate fondant?
I am willing to add a 2-3mm thick chocolate fondant coating to my home made biscuits. I believe this is very common, but I have no idea how to do this.
The fondant should be pretty solid (not liquid or fluffy), opaque and should not melt at room temperature.
Thank you for any suggestion!
Question is off topic. See http://cooking.stackexchange.com/faq#questions on recipes.
But I believe my question relates to "Cooking & food preparation methods" :)
Eh, I'm on the fence with this one. We prefer it when questions show some preliminary effort, but speaking as someone who's made a lot of pastries, fondant isn't really a "recipe" any more so than pastry cream or caramelized sugar; it's just corn syrup, icing sugar, and whatever other flavours you want (i.e. chocolate). Let's see how this plays out.
You can't really substitute marshmallows in that recipe. I have had some luck with the following procedure:
Get a good quality chocolate of the flavour you would like to use. Do not try chocolates with 70% cocoa solids or more. They are good for some things, but not for this.
Melt it in a double boiler. Do not make the chocolate boil or heat it directly (some can do that but most people end up with burned chocolate). Remove it from the heat.
Fold in 2 spoons of glycose syrup (for regular nonmilky chocolate) and mix fast. Let it cool and when it gets close to room temperature, put it in the fridge. For darker chocolates, use a bit more glucose and less for lighter chocolates.
It sounds pretty nice. Will definitely try it! Thank you!
You can try making Marshmallow fondant but substituting some confectioners sugar for cocoa powder. You can find tons of recipes for marshmallow fondant online. I personally do not like to use shortening, so I used this one.
You can add in some cocoa powder instead of using all confectioners sugar. Worked fantastic for me.
You just roll it out as usual.
Unfortunately, I don't have marshmallows in my country. By what should I replace the marshmallows?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.136149 | 2011-12-19T21:57:24 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19781",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Alisa fancy",
"Christian Rau",
"DivineCake",
"JSideris",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43137",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43139",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43150",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8386",
"linkyndy",
"motoDrizzt",
"user48884"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
19840 | kinds of breakfast
For lunch or dinner, there are many types of food one would have. But for breakfast, I cannot think of more than three types:
Cheese, bread, tea
Honey or jam, butter, juice
fruit salad
It'd be nice to know what are types of breakfast one would serve in different cultures or countries.
Suffering from high cholesterol, cannot eat egg much.
Hey Explorer and welcome to our site. I think as the question stands right now its a bit more of a survey - which doesn't fit our site well. It may get closed as such. If you have a more specific question feel free to ask.
Maybe try rephrasing. Would "Where can I get more information on the types of foods served by different cultures and countries?" be better? This is how I interpreted the question.
Bacon, sausage, steak...
Oatmeal, Grits, Malt-o-meal
The most interesting breakfast I've ever had was freshly caught pike with spaghetti, in Russia.
In Scotland fried fish for breakfast. In USA fried potatoes, eggs, ham, sausages...
I've voted to close this question. If this question is actually closed, you can reopen it by editing the question. Just as @rfusca indicates, feel free to ask other more specific questions, and welcome to the site.
There are many, many resources you can find on the types of foods served for breakfast by culture. Wikipedia has the best article I've seen on this topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakfast check it out!
Edit: previously the article was much longer, but it looks like a lot of the stuff has been moved out. Here is a premalink to an older version of that article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Breakfast&oldid=469968557
Cool, I'll read this article till the end :-)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.136330 | 2011-12-20T23:10:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19840",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Brendan Abel",
"Cos Callis",
"JSideris",
"Peter Taylor",
"Sagar Maru",
"SuCitySue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51899",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8320",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
59393 | Gluten free baked good coming out bitter
I am trying to bake gluten free and i find that my baked goods come out bitter. I am using oat flour and rice flour, can the bitterness be from that, what can i do to correct this?
What is a good gluten free flour other then oat?
Thank you
It's all baked goods, not just one recipe? Are the flours the only things in common between them all? Have you tried tasting the flours independently?
Both of those ingredients are not bitter unless they are rancid. You may be using too much baking soda?
A basic gluten free flour is usually a combination of white rice flour, brown rice flour, sweet rice flour, tapioca starch and xanthan or guar gum. From there it can go into buckwheat, bean flours, quinoa, etc. The gums give resilience and elasticity to the dough (along with the tapioca and sweet rice flour) and replace the action of the gluten which creates a structure for baked goods to rise.
There's lots of gluten free flour recipes that come up with a Google search. It's sometimes easier to start with those than trying to create one from scratch.
Oats BTW, are not strictly gluten free because of cross contamination when growing or processing. The package should state that they are gluten free.
I have found that using too much baking powder (gluten free) and / or cream of tarter can give an oddly bitter aftertaste to baked goods.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.136498 | 2015-07-27T11:33:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59393",
"authors": [
"Addison Emory IV",
"Cascabel",
"Garvin smith",
"Jonathan Rantala",
"Louise Merritt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141886",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672"
],
"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
} |
20117 | Webshop to buy vegetarian/vegan products online delivering in Canada?
I would love shops with bulk of almonds, various beans (soy,lentils,chickpeas), speciality cereals like quinoa/amaranth, seitan mix, vegan fake chiken, broths, wheat grass, vegetarian/vegan fake meats ...
As I buy from Quebec, it could be harder a little ...
Go Dairy Free's list of online food retailers is a good start.
Have a google of Indian/Asian/Baking supplies too. Doesn't have to be an all Vegan online source, eh?
I relied on a middle-eastern import company for pulses years ago before they were available locally. Had to order 10K sacks! Learned to share the bargain with friends.
I'm flexitarian so Vegetarian/Vegan sites aren't needed, but they have mostly the speciality products that I want ...
My wife and I have purchased from The Vegan Store many times and been happy with their product selection. They don't carry fresh produce, but they have all manner of dry and refrigerated packaged goods, as well as pet supplies, books, clothing and more.
Their shipping page indicates that they do ship to Canada. If you plan on buying anything that needs refrigeration, you should not that you may need to include a cold pack with your order, which can be expensive.
Really nice shop, I checked it ... ;)
It handles exactly what I needed, I found it via another response ...
You're not going to have much luck with "online" organic food in Canada. I'll talk about it later, but first I'll talk about shopping yourself.
Bulk Barn actually has a ton of organic grains (eg ORGANIC QUINOA).
Other stores (highly hit and miss) that carry organics are: Sobey's, Loblaws, Costco, and The Real Canadian Superstore.
Just show up and browse the produce. Sometimes you'll find a killer deal on organic grapefruit at one of them, and completely zero organic stock in the other.
Costco carries Earthbound organics salads (large boxes) in their fridge section. The price or less is the same as conventional salad in a regular grocery store.
If you're in Toronto, try also Ambrosia.
On Online delivery
I don't have a good experience with online food delivery. I just don't see a need to pay to get it delivered, when I can easily go out and get it myself. You don't get to choose the fruits you get, and you are going to pay much more.
That said, there's a listing here, and it includes a group called Front Door Organics.
Now I haven't tried them, but browsing their produce, it looks promising. Still,
you're probably not going to have much luck with online services that do delivery, simply because it's too expensive and you don't get much bang for your buck, plus you can't pick the fruits that are in good condition. You're better off going to the store yourself.
I was seeking for non-perissables products mostly, fruits/vegetables aren't needed as I help a community garden project and get a pretty decent share ...
I'm confused: the OP is asking for ingredients commonly used in vegetarian/vegan cooking (though some aren't really vegetarian/vegan-specific), not organic food, and never even mentioned produce.
beans, grains, nuts, fake meats (for veg. meals), veg. broths, wheat/oat grass for green juices ...
It's all vegetarian/vegan produces that I want cause they don't have much here and when I travel to my home town it's even far worse, they just have tofu, soy milk and hummus, the prices are 2-3 times higher then where, like if it wasn't enough ...
Even if it would be a little higher priced than a regular shop, I wouldn't go for nothing and save gaz, I go check regulars shops each week cause the flyers specials doesn't included the veg. products ...
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.136649 | 2012-01-01T20:22:56 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20117",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Demetrius",
"Mustex",
"Traci",
"bandrade",
"crisis.sheep",
"h4ckNinja",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43978",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44094",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44095",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8537",
"zillion"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
17943 | What is a "moist" salt?
I have been looking into buying some gourmet salt, and several of them are described as being "moist salt". What does that mean?
Moist salts are naturally harvested sea salts from which not all the water has been removed. They are noticeably wet, often caking up or forming more of a "slush" than a powder.
Some aficionados only believe that sea salt is "real" and "natural" if it is moist. Me, I have enough humidity in the apartment.
+1 for your apartment :-) (Maybe you should be looking for another)
They have some humidity in them. According to wikipedia, up to 13% of moisture is acceptable.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.136937 | 2011-09-22T22:05:41 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17943",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
30559 | Electric oven Temperature
I have bought a Smeg double oven to replace my old smeg oven. As I have read the temperatures fluctuate which I can understand. An engineer came and tested it and said it was operating 10 deg below the stated temp on dial overal on both ovens. On receiving the report smeg have state that the ovens are working to specification. Can anyone advise. Thank you
Um, what are you actually asking here?
don't worry, be happy
I'd advise you to turn your oven up 10 degrees when using it, and get an oven thermometer.
Most oven's specifications provide a range of temperatures you might see for a given setting. Calibrating them perfectly would prsumably add significantly to the cost. My oven claims to have a range of +/- 25 F, so I don't think being 10 degrees off (C or F) is anything to worry about. Just compensate when setting the temperature.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.137018 | 2013-01-31T09:16:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30559",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"Fredulom",
"Kimberly Schink",
"Sally",
"Stefan",
"Timothée Jeannin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71423",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71424",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71425",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71431",
"purplecat"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
20207 | Why doesn't my Lemon Posset thicken? What am I most likely doing wrong?
I've have once succesfully made this Gordon Ramsay's Lemon Posset, but on the last two tries attempts I've not managed to thicken it.
After it has bubbled and kept bubbling for approx. 3 mins, I pour in the lemon juice while stirring, but the substance just doesn't thicken.
What are the most likely things I'm doing wrong? Not stirring strongly enough? Overboiling or underboiling? It did work fine the frist time (sigh)...
Doesn't thicken after many hours in the fridge, which is as cold as it was the other time you made it? I know it's supposed to thicken some right away, but that could help tell you how big your problem is. Are the lemons the same variety - and are they as acidic as the previous time? (I've made something almost identical twice with no problems - interesting question!)
Nope, it doesn't thicken even after being in the fridge (that had the same settings and I assume same temperature). It doesn't actually seem to thicken at all when I add the lemon juice, or if it does it's barely noticable. It is possible there is a difference in the lemons, I hadn't taken account of that. Is there any way to test, or add to the acidity?
Short of pH measurement, you can just taste them - we can certainly taste acidity, though it can also be covered up by sweetness. Hard to compare without tasting your original lemons, but if these don't seem very tart, that'd be a sign. (Most supermarket lemons are of reasonably high acid varieties - you haven't been using meyer lemons, have you?)
Regular supermarket lemons - don't think they were meyer lemons (which I hadn't in fact ever heard of before :) ). Though they might've indeed been a bit on the softer side as regards to acidity. Would adding more lemon juice compensate in such a case, even though it adds more liquid to the mix as well?
You could try using concentrated lemon juice. The coagulation process increases in proportion to the acid level, so a stronger acid will boost it.
It sounds like your problem is most likely lack of acid. The acid is what causes possets to thicken. That could happen because the lemons aren't acidic enough (maybe the ones you had the first time were more sour). Re-reading your recipe, I notice that there's a second, simpler potential cause: your recipe simply asks for the juice of 1-2 lemons, and you might just have smaller lemons, or drier ones without as much juice.
For comparison, I've successfully made this lime and lemon posset, which uses 5 tablespoons of lemon and lime juice for 2.25 cups of cream. That'd scale to 42 mL of lemon/lime juice for your recipe. If you think you simply didn't have as much juice as before, or that the volume was less than that, I'd start by simply using more lemon juice.
If that's not the problem, and your lemons are for some reason less acidic, then the main option is still to use more lemon juice. Ideally you'd concentrate it, though, so that you don't end up with a smaller fraction of cream in the recipe. You can juice more lemons, then reduce the juice on the stove down to the original volume. (An easier option would be to add extra citric acid to your lemon juice, if you happen to have it.)
(Much of this was said in the comments, but I went ahead and made it an answer - please don't accept it unless you verify it though!)
I don't think the issue HAS to be acid. Cream comes in a variety of grades, and some contains far more water than others.
If you used a different kind of cream, like one that doesn't have a thicker layer of fat at the top, maybe try boiling a little longer to concentrate the fat and make more of the casein proteins available.
I would say the lemons are too ripe. It is the same with fruit And citris. You make your Jam and Marmalade when fruit is a little under ripe.
My last lemon posset wasn't set right through . I noticed my lemons were a little soft. So maybe a little more lemon and reduce it a little before adding to the cream and sugar.
My Grandson said Lemon Posset was the best dessert he had tasted better than anything he had had in a restaurant.
I disagree with people saying its not to do with acid, I think the twice it's happened to me I have used too much juice, due to adjusting the recipe from lemon to lime I used more limes, 4 the first time I used limes and 3 the second time as they're smaller and didn't set. It always works nicely when I use 2 lemons.
I have a friend who is a chef so I asked and took her advice and it worked -
To thicken un-set posset: take out the serving dishes and put it in a jug then add some cold double cream stirring as you do so, it should instantly thicken, so you shouldn't need much, it's not an exact science so just add enough until you get the thick consistency you want, pour it back into your serving dishes and chill for a couple of hours and should be smooth, thick and creamy. It has worked for me.
Using too much juice is not going to inhibit coagulation. The rate of coagulation increases as the pH goes down, so the higher the lemon juice concentration the more effective it'll be. I think you may have misunderstood the previous answers.
Let the cream cool to about 50,then add your lemons.
Cool to 50 what? And why?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.137139 | 2012-01-05T20:07:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20207",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"BRasmussen",
"Cascabel",
"Ed Greenberg",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Fancie Gallegos",
"Ilari Kajaste",
"Sneftel",
"Tiago Lira",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8573"
],
"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
} |
20731 | Dehydrating fruit without a microwave
I have a recipe that calls for dehydrating raspberries and lemon rind with the following technique:
Scatter raspberries and pieces of lemon rind over a sheet of baking paper on a plate.
Place in the microwave on the lowest possible setting for 40-45 minutes until dehydrated.
The dehydration is done so that the fruit can then be ground up into a powder for a dessert and you can see how the dehyration technique above would work.
However, I don't have currently own a microwave oven. Is there an alternative technique to achieve the dehydration?
On a shoe rack in a clothes dryer?
@jontyc very interesting idea - but how do you keep them on the rack?
The racks I'm aware of don't rotate with the drum, for example: http://i963.photobucket.com/albums/ae113/wilxsmith/Laundry%20Center/IMG00754-20100426-1458.jpg. But double check there are no stray raspberries before doing the next load of whites :)
I think your recipe means oven, not microwave. Microwaves don't really have a "lowest possible setting", for one thing. 45 minutes in a microwave is a really long time. And since they work by exciting water, if it did manage to dry out the fruit the microwave would get less and less effective as the fruit dried. Try an ordinary oven on the lowest possible setting.
There are any number of home dehydrators available commercially, such as the Nesco FD-75PR. I have one like this and it works well. However, as Alton Brown demonstrates in this excerpt from Good Eats, a dehydrator for fruit can be constructed quickly and easily as well.
[Edit]
In the video Alton demonstrates using a typical box fan, home AC filters and inexpensive plastic mesh, all bound with a couple of bungie cords to create a simple, but effective, dehydrator. If the video remains down you can also find it on You Tube by searching for "Alton Brown Fruit Dehydrator". (thanks for the update @Aaronut)
The video appears to be down. As we've often asked in the past, please provide some context for links; what does Alton Brown use to make the dehydrator and what is the general procedure?
http://www.wilderness-survival.net/forums/showthread.php?6244-Making-a-Dehydrator-Alton-Brown-style appears to have a partial transcript, and http://www.goodeatsfanpage.com/season11/dried_fruit/witheringbites.htm has a full one.
You post does say where you are located. If your in the SW then sun drying might be an option. Otherwize you will have to use artificial means.
When drying fruit, its air dryness and volume of air that matters rather than heat. While heating does allow more moisture to be absorbed from your food, overheating it (in an oven or one of those counter top dehydrators) tends to give the food a slightly cooked taste, whichI find a little unpleasant.
So I would do this:
find a nice dry place in your house.
put a cooling rack (or aything that will support the fruit and allow air movement through. eg. cheese cloth) in front of a fan so the air is blowing over the fruit at a good rate.
If its very cool in you chosen location apply a bit of heat with a blow heater or a light build to raise the temp of the air blowing over the fruit just a bit. We are not looking to cook the fruit here.
Leave for 24-48 hrs
You may want t try rubbing a bit of the juice from the lemon on the berries to help preserve their color during the drying process.
If you have an oven and it has a low setting, you can use that. Generally the lower the better--I haven't seen an oven that goes below 150 F. Even then, I don't trust the oven's built in thermostat. Instead, I get a cheap bi-metal oven thermometer, which is far more reliable...but I digress. I've dehydrated tomatoes with varying success using an oven. I was quite surprised that they could get a brownish color from 200 F--the lowest on my oven.
Any gentle, low temperature heat source would work. You could dehydrate your raspberries if the sunlight in your area is sufficiently strong.
Yes, sun is definitely the best way to dry them. However, you need heat, strong sun rays, and lowish air humidity for that, probably won't work in winter (although it is probably the perfect moment if the OP happens to live in Australia).
OP lives in London.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.137640 | 2012-01-24T09:08:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20731",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Caroline",
"Colleen Beauvais",
"Ivan Anishchuk",
"Kate Gregory",
"Mien",
"Tom Hundt",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45585",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45589",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8315",
"jontyc",
"rumtscho",
"user1757922",
"user45580"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
18508 | How to store cheesecake for long-term?
My wife and I decided to have cheesecakes for our wedding last weekend. We'd like to store some for at least our one-year anniversary. What is the proper way to store it, and how long can we expect it to last and still be worth eating? Once she gets completely moved in, we'll have a deep freeze, but we currently just have a couple of refrigerator freezers, though one is rarely opened.
Congratulations! :-)
My guess is that you want to wrap it up very very tightly (plastic wrap maybe?) so that it won't dry out, make sure it's airtight, and just toss it in the freezer. The issues with long-term freezer storage are generally things drying out, texture changing, and taking on odors so that the food becomes unpalatable. But I'm no cheesecake expert!
The cheesecake kept for 1 year just fine with no discernible off flavors or other problems.
I'm a homebrewer and we wound up putting the cheesecake into the freezer section of our spare 'beer fridge'. That freezer is pretty much only used for overflow freezer space, and the refrigerator section is used for beer bottles and kegs, and we have had a few apples in the crispers for most of the year, but that's it. The freezer section was rarely opened more than once per week.
The cheesecake had no off flavors, and only had light water crystallisation on the surface, which was not at all detrimental to our enjoyment of the cake.
This was a plain 'real' cooked cheesecake with graham cracker crust.
So, for a 'good enough' storage method, wrap loosely in foil and store in a freezer that is rarely used, and the cheesecake should be excellent for at least one year.
I would think that a cheesecake (or anything) surviving that long only wrapped loosely in foil would be an anomaly. Without being wrapped tightly, I'd expect at least freezer burn.
I won't argue that it will work that way for everyone everywhere, just relaying what worked for me.
Still tasty gives you 2-3 months on cheesecake in the freezer. It will be safe indefinitely at freezing temp, but the texture will change somewhat. As @ElendilTheTall says, foil and plastic wrap are your best bets. Additionally, I might try freezing it for a day to get solid, and then sticking it in a vacuum sealed bag. If your seals aren't airtight on something else, then cheesecake will pick up any funky odors in your freezers.
Congrats btw, and I'm gonna let you in on a secret about the eating the wedding cake at 1 year - it all tastes worse and some tastes really bad. Normal or cheesecake or whatever, the cake is pretty much always bad by then, but luckily it's not about the cake taste. It's about reliving the memories and laughing over bad cake. So don't worry too much about if the cake is not that tasty then - take a bite,remember the wedding, and have a good chuckle.
FMI also gives 2-3 months for frozen cheesecakes http://www.fmi.org/docs/consumer/foodguides.pdf
You can freeze it, wrapped tightly in plastic wrap and foil, but I doubt it will last a year - a couple of months at most. Try it anyway!
I made a lemon/lime cheesecake Dec.2013 and we ate it July 2014. I put the cake on a china plate in a cake box, sealed the box with tape and a big elastic band. When I decided to serve this cake, I removed from the freezer 2 days before and let it sit on the counter for 3 hours. I then put it in my fridge for a day and a half. Lastly I put 1/2 can of cheery pie filling on top.
I had the best reviews for the most flavourable cheesecake. I can only say the cake mellowed. It did not shrink, did not have a bad taste and nobody guessed it was 7 mths in my freezer. So, I say, as long as you seal the cake properly, and it is in your deep freezer, you will not have a problem. Worked for me. Good Luck!
Refering to the info given in the below link for their cheesecakes;
"Q: Can I re-freeze your Cheesecakes?
A: Yes. But, we recommend
wrapping them in plastic wrap and putting them back into their boxes
and wrapping the boxes with plastic wrap to keep odors from permeating
the Cheesecake. Do not freeze Cheesecakes with fruit toppings
(fresh or pie type fillings) as the fruit gets yucky. If you want to
freeze the Cheesecake, remove the fruit topping. Cheesecakes can be
frozen for up to three months.
Q: Can I save the top to my Wedding Cheesecake for my one year
anniversary?
A: NO! Please DO NOT do this..."
http://www.sinfulcheesecake.com/FAQs.html
The link says don't freeze it for your 1 year because you can buy one from them new... Not really relevant here.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.137986 | 2011-10-22T02:17:34 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18508",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Mien",
"MissesBrown",
"OldChef",
"SourDoh",
"TMH8885",
"baka",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63940",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8120",
"rfusca",
"user791575"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
35275 | why does my microwave beep half way through a defrost?
When I defrost meat in my microwave, it will beep about half way through the cycle. I'm assuming this is to indicate to me that I need to do something, I'm just not sure what.
Am I supposed to check to see the progress?
Am I to remove the meat and re-evaluate?
Are there health concerns associated with ignoring the beep?
Did you read your manual?
The microwave came built in (over the range) with the house. No manual.
It's reminding you that flipping meat halfway through the defrost cycle will help prevent the bottom half cooking, while the top remains frozen solid.
Mine actually displays "turn over" where the clock belongs while it's beeping. And it makes a huge difference. When I turn it over, I get perfectly defrosted meat. When I don't, it's uneven - still frozen in places and starting to cook in others.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.138340 | 2013-07-13T15:40:59 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35275",
"authors": [
"Chase Florell",
"Kate Gregory",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4550"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
27591 | How do I use a French Press to make coffee?
What are the steps to using a french press to making great tasting coffee? When I pour the hot water in, do I use the plunger immediately and then wait or do a I wait a few minutes first to brew and then use the plunger?
http://coffeegeek.com/guides/presspot
I voted this down because this is a question that easily will be answered by googling or reading the instructions if the press came with any.
@citizen it's a simple question that merits a really good answer (making good french press coffee is not intuitive and the instructions don't really go into the details).
@citizen I did search and found various answers. I asked here knowing i'll get the most accurate answers, on one page.
Oh, I didn't notice you actually asked how to make "great tasting coffee", but I see that now. I thought you just asked if you should press the plunger immediately or not. -1 for me.
Buy whole bean coffee (preferably freshly roasted, maybe even from a local roaster).
Start with a rough grind. Use a burr grinder to achieve a more consistent grind. If the grinder has a french press or coarse setting use that, else experiment with it to find a consistency that produces coffee you like.
Take out your plunger and place 1 T of grounds per 4 oz (115 g) of coffee that you are making. Again you can experiment with the amount of coffee you put in to get something that suits you taste.
Use 4 oz of water per T of grounds that you put in the press. Fill your press with water no more than about 1" (25 mm) below the spout (if you have a smaller press you go a bit higher, but not too much or you'll spill). The water temp recommended is ~200°F (95°C) (just short of boiling. Stir gently, if you have a large pot use a chopstick. If you have a small pot a plastic spoon or coffee stirrer will work.
Put the plunger in the coffee and press down slightly so all of the grounds are below the water level, this will press out some of the air in the grounds and also ensure even wetting.
Wait ~4 minutes (again, experiment here to determine best flavour).
Press your pot slowly and gently. If you encounter too much resistance wait a moment (or even pull back on the press a bit) and then continue (too much resistance can indicate too fine a grind, try a larger grind next time).
When your plunger is all the way down wait a few moments and then pour. Waiting a bit allows some of the sediment to settle out of the coffee so you get less in your coffee cup. Some sediment is normal and provides body, but too much can be a turnoff. If you will not be drinking all of the coffee you made, decant it into a different pot so that it does not continue to steep in the grounds.
While there is some exact science here. A lot of what you do is informed by your own tastes and preferences. Experiment with it and see what you like. Spend some time deciding what kind of coffee, how long it steeps, how fine a grind you need and even how much sediment you like.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.138451 | 2012-10-04T14:16:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27591",
"authors": [
"Andrew Burton",
"David Forshaw",
"LordHits",
"Sandeep C",
"Vikrant Pawar",
"citizen",
"d-b",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4567",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62246",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6948",
"soegaard",
"user62251",
"wax eagle"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
14639 | How to avoid cooked pasta soaking up sauce when stored?
I often make up a box of pasta (dried) with some sauce that I make from leftover ingredients for work the next day. The sauce is always either tomato or cream cheese based.
By lunch the next day, the pasta has soaked up a good amount of the excess sauce that was previously filling the base of the box. Aside from storing the pasta and sauce in two separate boxes, is there anything I can do when cooking to avoid this happening? It does not appear to be a problem in supermarket ready meals.
Do you add oil to the water the pasta boils in?
I don't add oil, as experience and advice from others tells me it does nothing :)
If I plan on storing my pasta in the fridge with the sauce, I take the pasta out of the boiling water and immediately rinse it in cold water. I rinse until the pasta has cooled completely. Make sure to drain it well. Afterwards, I either mix a little sauce in the pasta to help keep it from sticking or just put the sauce on top.
Basically I'm trying to stop the pasta from continuing to "Cook" in the sauce.
Obvious really, I'm always sticking hot pasta into a box then putting the lid on so it's no wonder it continues cooking in this way. I will do this from now on.
That may be, but it still works fixes the problem. :)
What I find works even better than rinsing the pasta is to drain it about 90 seconds before it's done and let it finish cooking with the leftover heat.
@JamesMcLeod only problem with that is when you misjudge. With the cold water rinse, you halt cooking. It doesn't chill the pasta, it just takes the hot edge off. I rinse it thoroughly in the strainer, then toss it in the strainer to get the water out, and you'll still see plenty of steam and go blind if you wear glasses.
Rinsing might also take loose starch off that causes gloopyness and sticking.
Adding a little milk (to the creamy pasta) or water before reheating cooked, wet pasta is a good idea because pasta will continue to absorb the moisture in the sauce and 'cook', leaving it dry and overcooked.
You can compensate for this in large quantities (like supermarket meals) by slightly under cooking the pasta and relying on this process of moisture absorption and reheating to finish the cooking process.
I agree with Christopher -- the only way to achieve "prepared meal" type dishes is to undercook the pasta so it finishes in the sauce. Of course, if you could easily estimate how much you wanted to save, you could pull that amount before you finished cooking the amount for your current meal, or pull it all, and finish cooking tonight's meal in the sauce, then box up the remainder of the sauce (possibly thinned slightly) and the extra pasta. You might need to toss a little bit of sauce in with the pasta while it's still warm just to avoid it sticking to itself as it cools.
I have tried thinning the sauce and it solved the problem of the sauce disappearing, but of course it continued to cook as you said. I'll try the combination of ideas next time.
I've started pulling out the leftovers before finishing cooking a pot of pasta, so that the leftover portion is only partially cooked, rinsing them and letting them cool before adding any sauce. This works best if you know the portions that work for your family/guests, but is especially handy when trying to enforce measured portion sizes.
The problem might also be caused by the fact that cooked pasta releases gluten, which thickens your sauce. "Washing" your pasta before putting the sauce in it, as suggested, is a good method, but probably the most simple thing to do in general is to keep your sauce a bit more liquid, and mixing your pasta with a bit of olive oil just before you add your sauce. This way your pasta is somehow "coated" with oil which could prevent a bit the soaking of your sauce.
I have tried using oil before but didn't like the flavour it added to the dish. Perhaps it wasn't right for the sauce I had at the time.
Likely starch not gluten. Developed gluten (if it was not developed your pasta would fall apart) is essentially water insoluble.
I found an extra-yummy recipe for mac and cheese where you put the hot pasta in the casserole, add some butter, mix until it melts, then add the sauce. It's the first recipe I've found where the sauce didn't soaked into the pasta. I wonder if the butter makes a barrier.
I feel your pain, I'm wondering if maybe putting the sauce on the bottom and the pasta on top might help, hopefully that means it will only be the absolute bottom of the pasta that soaks up the sauce? Then maybe stirring it together just before reheating..
Thanks, Sue. Weird to see this again after I posted it 12 years ago! Since then I actually do this, as well as quick cool the pasta before boxing up.
What I like to do when I'm making pasta and chicken is to first cook the chicken and add the sauce to the chicken. Then I boil the pasta. When I'm ready to serve, I simply serve my pasta on the bottom with the sauce and meat on top. If u want to cook everything together and have leftovers the next day, you can always cook everything the way I said, put some pasta aside in one Tupperware, chicken and sauce in another container and then cook the rest of the meal together if you like
The question was explicitly for suggestions aside from storing ... in two separate boxes.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.138721 | 2011-05-10T11:14:10 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14639",
"authors": [
"Chef Alan",
"Escoce",
"Grantly",
"James C",
"James McLeod",
"Joe",
"Macromika",
"Stephie",
"Xavier Smalls",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5958",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"mfg",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
16024 | Making fruit syrup less viscous while retaining flavor
I'm making snow cones from real fruit syrup that I'm making myself - the problem is that the fruit syrup comes out too viscous and it tends to set on top of the snow cone ice. Is there anyway to make sure the flavoring is just as sweet, but less viscous? The fruit I'm having the most trouble with right now is strawberry.
And related to this (especially strawberry) is there a good way to strain out small particles. I wish I could shove the strawberry syrup through a coffee filter, but I don't know how this can be done.
For the filtering, does a fine mesh strainer not work?
To thin your syrup, add more water to your syrup; it will become thinner without reducing sweetness that much. Then add a touch of artificial sweetener to restore any lost sweetness.
To strain your syrup, you can use multiple layers of cheesecloth, a fine chinois, or a coffee filter in the bottom of a strainer or small colander. Use a spatula, spoon, or ladle to help press the syrup through the filter. Using heated syrup will allow it to flow more readily through the filter, while still removing particles.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.139201 | 2011-07-08T12:53:37 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16024",
"authors": [
"BoboAUT",
"U r s u s",
"casey",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34150",
"talon8",
"user34106"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
44875 | Is asking for a "Chinese menu" in a Chinese restaurant a common way to get more authentic dishes?
At a Chinese restaurant I went to in Sydney, Australia, I asked for a Chinese menu in addition to the default menu supplied. The "Chinese menu" had dishes' names written in both English and in Chinese, and I found that the dishes listed there were ones I had encountered less often, and seemed more authentic, compared to the default menu supplied.
However, I don't know if this trick only worked for this restaurant, or is a commonly accepted way of politely asking for more authentic dishes rather than the "dumbed down" dishes frequently offered that won't scare off ordinary customers.
The following is what I mean by dumbed down, even though it's talking about the USA, not Australia:
"Chinese-American cuisine is 'dumbed-down' Chinese food. It’s adapted... to be blander, thicker and sweeter for the American public"
Is asking for a "Chinese menu" a commonly accepted way of asking for more authentic dishes in a Chinese restaurant?
I'm not 100% sure whether questions more related to eating are on-topic, but I checked out meta, and couldn't get a definitive answer. Apologies if it's off-topic.
I'm not 100% sure either, but I think you're OK and will support keeping the question open if anyone votes to close.
To clarify, are you wanting to know about the use of that particular turn of phrase ("Chinese Menu"), or are you wanting to know the best, most universal way to get authentic food in restaurants that typically serve "dumbed-down" food?
@Jolenealaska the latter is what I'm after, but I thought that'd be too broad a question.
Maybe, but the latter question is something I can answer. So I will. :)
The latter sounds more on topic as well.
I am answering the question as I understand it based on our discussion in comments.
Step 1 - Choose the restaurant wisely. As a rule you don't want big fancy restaurants and you certainly don't want to even try in a chain restaurant. You want the holes in the wall run by members of the ethnic group that matches the cuisine. When you enter the restaurant, listen to the ambient sounds of conversation (customers and staff), the more you hear the language that matches the cuisine, the better your odds.
Step 2 - Be super friendly, smile a lot and ask lots of questions about the cuisine and the menu.
Step 3 - Be honest, upfront and clear. Tell your server that you really want to experience the cuisine that is the specialty of the restaurant. If the restaurant is Thai, for instance, ask what the most popular menu items are for Thai customers. Now ask if there is a special menu for Thai (or Chinese, or Spanish, or whatever) customers. There may be, if there is one your server will most likely be happy to get you one. You may or may not be able to read it. See step 2 again. Even if there is no special menu, by now your server most likely understands what you want.
Step 4 - Simply ask for what you want. Ask if the cook or chef can make you a meal that is like what would actually be served in the country in question. You may be able to specify, "Really authentic Pad Thai like I'd get on the street in Bangkok" or you may be even luckier and have no idea what you're going to get until it arrives. Either way, express your appreciation that they are allowing you to order "off menu", and be sure to mention that you don't mind a bit of an extra wait.
Step 5 - If you are in a part of the world that doesn't consider tipping to be strange or offensive, tip very generously.
Step 6 - Be brave.
If the restaurant has a bar, do all of the above but have your chat with the bartender.
That's it. I have quite a bit of experience getting authentic food in restaurants with dumbed-down menus. Those steps will work more often than not.
One final note. If the cuisine in question is often hot/spicy, be sure to tell your server about your preferences in that matter particularly if you're sensitive to heat. If you're successful getting authentic food, it would be a shame if you couldn't eat it. If you love heat, be sure to tell them that too. They may hold back a bit otherwise.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.139342 | 2014-06-14T13:27:25 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44875",
"authors": [
"Deb Stanley",
"Golden Cuy",
"Jolenealaska",
"Niklaus",
"Spammer",
"duffe heliope",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106667",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106668",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106676",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106677",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106697",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106798",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4836",
"stackproha",
"starsplusplus",
"uwu spam bad boy uwu"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
63786 | What biological factors affect a meat's taste?
What biological factors affect a meat's taste?
Does the relatedness of species affect their meat's taste? For example would the meat from two different placental mammals taste more similar to each other than meat from poultry?
Does domestication affect a meat's taste? I've heard kangaroo meat is described as "gamey", ie tasting like wild game (presumably non-domesticated northern hemisphere placental mammals such as deer).
The most significant factors are probably:
Muscle function and activity
Fat content and distribution
Diet of animal
Age
Basic muscle structure in most vertebrates is somewhat similar, so taxonomic relatedness is often not paramount in matching flavors. (There appear to be some phylogenetic connections in flavor, particularly among many "beefy" animals, though.)
There's a reason that many people say lots of random meats taste like chicken. Since muscle structure is often quite similar even in very unrelated animals, a lot of reptile and amphibian meat can "taste like chicken." The texture is often different, because muscles may be used in different ways, but if you put the meat through a meat grinder, the flavor wouldn't be as varied. (Thus alligator sausage is not as adventurous or odd tasting as you might think at first.)
What makes "light meat" vs. "dark meat" often has a lot to do with muscle function/activity, and if you try similarly colored meat from different animals, it often has similarities in flavor. Ostrich meat tends to be dark and "beefy," while many parts of pigs are advertised as "white meat" which is presumably closer to birds. I remember my first experience a number of years ago eating a smoked turkey leg -- it was smoked for a very long time and cooked slowly for many hours. It tasted almost exactly like ham. And it was like ham: a leg muscle from an animal with similar fat distribution in that area which was processed in the same way.
The "gaminess" of wild animal meats often has to do with (1) increased age, (2) different/more varied diet, and (3) more muscle activity than most domesticated animals get. In my experience, for example, farm-raised venison is distinctly less gamey than wild venison. Moreover, most of our farm-raised animals these days tend to be slaughtered rather young (generally as soon as mature), so as to maximize profits. If you encounter older meat from old farm animals which are slaughtered late in life, it often has "gamier" or "deeper" flavors than the young animals we are now used to. We also tend to breed domesticated animals to maximize muscle content in certain desirable areas of the animal (e.g., chicken breasts) which often tends to make them more "bland" and less gamey, because the animals don't generally need so much muscle in those areas and thus never use them much.
(It's notable that tastes have changed significantly over time. Years ago, it was common to hang wild game for days or weeks until it began to rot in a process called mortification. While it tenderized the meat, it also had the effect of heightening the "wild" gamey flavors of each individual meat, which was considered desirable by many. In most industrialized cultures today, the trend is toward blander and blander meats, with young, lean animals the norm, and the boneless skinless chicken breast -- with the flavorful fatty skin and bones/connective tissue removed, produced from chickens which never exercise and eat uniform bland diets -- as one of the most common meat sources.)
Muscle texture and fat distribution can also create distinctions, even if flavors are not that different. Most muscle tastes somewhat similar, so it's often the fat that makes the big difference, since the fat tends to store energy from whatever food sources the animal has. As Harold McGee describes it in On Food and Cooking (p. 134):
Fat: The Flavor of the Tribe The machinery of the red and white muscle fiber is much the same no matter what the animal, because it
has the specific job of generating movement. Fat cells, on the other
hand, are essentially storage tissue, and any sort of fat-soluble
material can end up in them. So the contents of fat tissue vary from
species to species and are also affected by the animal's diet and
resident gastrointestinal microbes. It's largely the contents of the
fat tissue that give beef, lamb, pork, and chicken their distinctive
flavors, which are composites of many different kinds of aroma
molecules. The fat molecules themselves can be transformed by heat
and oxygen into molecules that smell fruity or floral, nutty or
"green," with the relative proportions depending on the nature of the
fat.
Thus, wild or older animals are more likely to have different sources for fat (and more marbled fat mixed into muscle), which gives it a more distinctive ("gamey") flavor. Fish meat tastes a lot different mostly due to fats/oils distributed throughout (instead of in pockets like most higher vertebrates), and the structure of the muscles tends to create a flaky texture due to different usage and less connective tissue. There are also distinctive chemicals (particularly in the fat) that give fish its characteristic "fishy" flavor, but when you encounter very "mild" fish, it's the texture and fat distribution that makes it most different from another white meat.
One last thing I would mention is expectations. Many, many studies have shown that pre-existing assumptions can have a great impact on our experience of flavor in food. (Expensive food tends to be rated as "tasting better," for example, even if the same exact dish is sold at different prices.) The combination of a "weird meat" expectation and a slightly different texture can often make the distinctions between meat flavor seem greater than they are. If you put the various meats (of similar color) through a grinder and then prepare them the same way, you might be surprised at how small the differences are between various animals.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.139698 | 2015-11-24T02:57:36 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63786",
"authors": [
"Harry Louis",
"Helen Melaugh",
"Jackie Griffiths",
"Janet Thomson",
"Joe Wagner",
"Johanne Paula",
"Joshua Israel",
"Paul Weaver",
"Rae Tanner",
"Sabrina Rodgers",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151876",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151877",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151892",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151897",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151899",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151900",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151902",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151960"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
30124 | What juices to use in cake?
I usually use pineapple juice or apple juice while preparing a cake instead of milk.
However some juices sound heavy in a cake, for ex. mango juice.
What will the cake result in if I used Mango juice, or another heavy juice? Or, could I dilute it with water, or will the cake fail then?
If I used orange juice, will it be OK? Will the acidity of the orange juice affect the cake recipe?
I use this simple recipe for the cake:
2 eggs
1.5 cups flour (all purpose)
0.75 cups sugar
1.25 cups oil
0.75 cups juice
2 teaspoons baking powder
1 teaspoon vanilla
Why does mango juice "sound heavy" and pineapple juice not?
Maybe I meant thick more than heavy, does this help?
Not really. The pineapple juice you buy must be very different to the pineapple juice I buy, which is among the thickest juices I know. So maybe the answer would be: try it, and if it doesn't work then next time filter the juice through a coffee filter or some cheesecloth.
you could also filter the juices you deem to be "heavy" to get a consistency you like. Running it through a double layer of cheese cloth or if your feeling geeky you can purchase some pectinase to dissolve the solids and clarify the juice.
You say you are substituting the juices for milk. You have to ask yourself, what roles does milk play in the recipe, and how well will the juices in question fill those roles?
What does milk contribute?
The milk adds:
Liquid, to gelatinize the starch in the flour to create the structure of the cake; the water will also contribute to some gluten formation, but in most cake techniques, this is minimized
Very minor acid component
A small amount of fat, but compared to the oil in the above recipe this becomes negligible
A small amount of sugar, but compared to the sugar in the above recipe, also negligible
Some proteins and other milk solids which will interfere slightly with gluten formation, again enhancing tenderness; they also help to retain moisture so the cake stays fresh longer
A very milk neutral flavor that comes out as a general contribution to the richness
The fruit juice
In contrast, what do fruit juices bring to the recipe? I am ignoring the heavy/light or thin/thick distinction because it means very little.
Water--exactly the same as the milk
Significant acid. Fruit juices tend to be much more acidic than milk. You might wish to experiment with reducing the baking powder, and adding some baking soda to use the additional acid to power the chemical leavening, while neutralizing some of the overall acidity
Most fruit juice is essentially fat free, but as the fat contribution from milk is negligible, this is not an important distinction
Possibly some pectin or other long polysaccarides which will contribute to the overall structure and mouth feel of the cake, but this effect is probably negligible
Flavor. The fruit juices will have a strong and significant flavor--of course, this may be a positive, but it will influence the outcome of the cake
Sugar. Fruit juices tend to be sweeter than milk, so the overall cake will be slightly sweeter. This is probably somewhat mitigated by the increased acidity, and again, compared to the overall sugar in the recipe, probably not a large contributing factor.
Fruit solids (proteins, minerals and so on). Much like the milk solids, probably contribute somewhat to the more tender crumb, but hard to characterize.
The truth is, the "heaviness" or "thickness" (by which I infer you mean viscosity, or how fast the juice flows or pours--or how easily it coats a spoon, which is an easier way to see it) is not that important.
You could use pureed fruit with almost the same result--for example, canned or pureed pumpkin or mashed banana. Even pureed fruit is still mostly water.
Still, every juice or fruit puree is its own entity. I would keep a little diary of how each trial worked out, whether you like the results, and adjust the next try accordingly.
Edit:
What juices to use?
I realized I never specifically answered the question, what juices to use?
Use whatever juice (or fruit puree) you like, based whether you like the flavor and how the cake turns out. Each time you try something new, there is some risk, but you should soon find ones you like, and which perform well.
white grape would be very neutral flavored. tomato or carrot would be colorful. pear flavorful. kiwi tangy...
I just saw this question, but I have a recipe that calls for angel food cake mix to be mixed with crushed pineapple with the juice (sort of like a dump cake). I tried it using the same amount of pureed oranges with juice and the outcome was a much denser cake. It tasted good, but it was very dense and heavy while the pineapple version was lighter and fluffier. I figured since they were both citrus they'd act similar, but they didn't.
Mango, guava, banana, form puree's. Citrus, pineapples, pomegranate, etc form juices with high sugar and acid content.
I'm allergic to milk, so using water or a juice and adjusting recipe accordingly is important. The rise is affected by acid content. Using the mango or guava try a banana loaf(bread) style recipe, and tweek it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.140272 | 2013-01-16T09:43:07 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30124",
"authors": [
"Benjamin Crane",
"Bhanupratap Bhardwaj",
"Brendan",
"Cheryl Marino",
"Khushal Mishra",
"Nancy Field",
"Pat Sommer",
"Peter Taylor",
"Zeina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128665",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70292",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70331",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70333",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9401",
"terrence chapman",
"vladvladel"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
57676 | Aiding the Maillard reaction: Baking Powder or Baking Soda?
I will attempt to cook a Thai Green Chicken Curry. I'll be using cubed boneless chicken thigh which I would like to brown really well. I remember reading somewhere that Baking Powder or Baking Soda could be used to aid the Maillard reaction by making the surface ph of the chicken more alkaline. However I also remember that one of the two gave the chicken a bad taste, I don't remember where I read this. What would you guys suggest? Baking Powder or Baking Soda? What else could I do to get better browning on the cubed chicken and thus introduce more flavour into the curry?
You want to use baking soda. Baking powder is used as a leavening agent and does this by combining an acid and a base, so it would not make your chicken more alkaline. Baking soda, on the other hand is just sodium bicarbonate and will make your chicken more alkaline.
However, baking soda, especially if used in excessive amounts, will give your chicken a bad taste. Baking soda tastes bitter, and cooking it for too long at high heat exacerbates that.
From reading online, it seems that adding baking soda will indeed make your chicken look much browner (the same way that pretzels are dipped in lye to produce their brown colour), but it would affect the texture/taste of your chicken.
If you want to add more flavour, I would think that properly browning the chicken (using high heat, having patience) would be more effective than adding baking soda, which might give the appearance, but not the taste.
Baking soda reacts with lots of thing, but it will react with fats to make a form of soap, and this tastes very bad! Use with caution. Best with low fat things like onions etc
A thin coating of cornstarch on your chicken will brown more quickly and add flavor. I wouldn't add baking soda under any circumstances as you will get some serious off flavors just as @TFD says.
Agreed - the best things you can add to aid browning are Time and Heat.
The application of a basic solution (baking soda or lye), has been used for ages on bread products such as bagels and pretzels to promote browning. I have found a couple of factors to be significant in the browning of proteins.
Ingredient Temperature
Is the meat near room temp when you drop it in the pan?
Removal of moisture
Pre-salt your meat while it's chilling in the fridge to draw moisture out.
Wrap the meat in paper towels. Change them until the meat remains dry.
Par-cooking
Gently Par-boiling or roasting chicken will cause the proteins to become more readily brownable. The pre-maturation of the proteins from par-coking will actually make it brown better.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.140689 | 2015-05-21T20:33:26 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57676",
"authors": [
"Carole Storch",
"Caroline Arthur",
"GdD",
"Jay Lovitz",
"Kirsteen Hally",
"Sarah Suell",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137250",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137594",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
43161 | How do I make instant chocolate powder from a chocolate bar?
I like the flavour of a certain brand of chocolate, is there a method to turn a chocolate bar into instant chocolate powder so I can quickly create a hot chocolate from it? I am aware I can make a hot chocolate drink from the bar, but I'm specifically asking if it possible to turn this bar into a powdered (not flakes/shaving) form.
The problem with using chocolate bar as a drink, is that it contain a high percentage of cacao fat, which is generally not nice in a drink (sort of like bacon grease floating about on top of your drink). Chocolate powder for drinks and baking has been processed to removed most of the fat, and generally result in a stronger chocolate taste
@TFD, is there no way to somehow separate the fat from the drink?
You cannot easily create a powder from real chocolate, which contains a great deal of cocoa butter, making it very difficult to powder. While you can chop it finely, that still may be less than ideal for quickly creating hot chocolate.
Instead, based on an idea from Cook's Illustrated, you can make a thick ganache to use as essentially a hot chocolate concentrate, that can be kept in the refrigerator for a few days, or the freezer for a couple of months:
Prepare a gancahe with 12 ounces of chocolate to 1 cup of heavy cream, with 1/4 tsp of salt.
Cool it and then scoop it into single serving portions (about 3 tablespoons) to store, wrapping each individually.
To make the hot chocolate, heat one portion with one cup of milk (microwaving is especially convenient) until it is hot.
More traditionally, for an instant powder mix, you would combine cocoa powder (often dutched), powdered sugar, and possibly other seasonings--if you want it to work with a water base, you would also include dried milk powder. Many recipes are easily available on the internet.
Something I have done in the past:
I wanted to have a powder as you stated for use at work where I can only access a water cooker. I froze the chocolate so it became very hard. In this state, it is possible to make very fine flakes with a fine grater or similar. You'll need a high quality one or you'll ruin it with the hard chocolate. This is probably as close to powder as it gets. Also wrap a cloth or something around the chocolate as you grate it so you don't warm it up.
In my case, I quickly mixed the "powdered" chocolate with milk powder (also add whatever other dry substance you want in it, such as sugar). Mixing it with all the other dry ingredients prevented it from becoming a large sticky mass pretty well, though I'd avoid it getting warm enough for the chocolate to get soft. Never happened to me, though. It may be no problem at all.
Sure. Throw it in a food processor with sugar and cocoa powder, following a recipe like Stella Park's on Serious Eats. It calls for a few other ingredients for flavor and texture, as explained in the recipe. They probably are not all strictly necessary, though I suspect the sugar and cocoa powder are important for balance and texture.
Try using maltodextrin powder.
I'm not entirely sure it would work, but you could melt the chocolate and mix it with maltodextrin powder. Since maltodextrin powder reacts with things like oils and fats, I think it would work well for your chocolate.
in what way does it react with fats? have you tried this or something similar, or have you ever seen this tried?
You can refrigerate/freeze the chocolate bar and simply grind. The chocolate powder will stick a little to the walls, but you can add some warm milk to the jar. It worked for me
P.s you can add some roasted dryfruits to the frozen chocolate bar, will help it grind better.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.140947 | 2014-03-30T12:01:13 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43161",
"authors": [
"Amy Woodard",
"Dr Love",
"Esther",
"Jeff",
"MOHAMMAD BAASHEN",
"Susan Crane",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100989",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100990",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100991",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100992",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101002",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101003",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14754",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388",
"seeker"
],
"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
} |
42782 | Belgian chocolate milk
I've tried a lovely chocolate milk (cold, not to be confused with hot chocolate) from Marks and Spencer (a supermarket in the UK) and I'm trying to emulate it's rich Belgian chocolate taste.
My recipe so far looks like this:
-Mixture of dark (bittersweet) and milk chocolate
-Whole fat milk and Condensed milk
-Espresso powder
-Cane sugar (or honey)
My questions:
I'm thinking of using a mixture of condensed and whole milk because the chocolate milk I tasted seems thicker than whole fat milk, but not TOO thick or cloying. The consistency I'm going for is the same as milk with a 6% or so fat content. Is this recommended or should I go with whole fat milk with a little cream?
I've decided to use espresso powder because I'm hoping a tiny bit of this will give the chocolate a teeny weeny hint of roasted coffee/espresso notes that I seem to detect from the drink. Is there any other way I can enhance the flavour of the chocolates in the drink?
I'm thinking of using a cane sugar or honey, as hopefully this may give the chocolate a slight caramel-ly taste, is this the best way of doing this?
The main part i'm stuck on is this: I'm not sure whether or not to go for a milk chocolate/dark chocolate combo (35% milk chocolate and 65% bittersweet chocolate) or just use a high quality cocoa powder like Valrhona? The aim is to go for a Belgian chocolate taste here.
Any help would be appreciated, thanks!
I cannot speak to the product from the UK, but here in the US, many chocolate milks are thickened with carageenan or a starch based thickener.
@SAJ14SAJ: Ewww!
@Cerberus i am not endorsing it, but I don't buy chocolate milk. If I wanted it, I would make it.
@SAJ14SAJ: Naturally! I'm sure the chocolate milk they sell in shops here is also mostly starches, like everything in supermarkets, blegh.
Starch-thickened hot chocolate can actually be quite delicious. It is common in Spain, often served with churros to dip in the chocolate. The following recipe uses a lot of corn starch, way too much for my taste. I would probably cut it down to a teaspoon or so. http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/churros-and-hot-chocolate-recipe.html
@Cerberus starch thickened hot chocolate is common in Europe too. Both in cafes and in supermarket "one cup" packages.
@Assad it seems that the M&S chocolate milk is not starch thickened. It lists 75 g carbohydrates per 500 ml, 72 g of which are sugars. You seem to be correct about the fat in the 5-6% range. And you probably don't have much dark chocolate in there, because dark chocolate itself has quite a bit of starch. See http://www.myfitnesspal.com/food/calories/marks-spencer-m-s-belgian-chocolate-milk-drink-4959339 for nutrition label.
Best chocolate milk I ever had was thickened with potato.
Chocolate and cocoa powder are two different things
For drinks go with cocoa powder (Dutch process). Emulsifying the fat in chocolate is pointless and not particularly tasty. Chocolate is about 40% to 60% fat, cocoa powder is 10% to 20% fat
For the chocolate milk taste you generally want the milk fat favours, not the cocoa fat
If your cocoa powder is not bright enough, adding a little coffee will help, as will a little more roasting of the cocoa powder, but be careful, it burns quickly. I think many commercial chocolate milks use a little salt (Sodium or Ammonium) as a brightener**
In some countries you can buy "extra" or "premium dutch process" cocoa powder, it is very dark in colour, and has a lot more of that dark chocolate style flavour
** The "that tastes nice and different" reaction
Nice, I'll try this and a few other things next week and report back, thank you for your input!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.141276 | 2014-03-15T22:45:45 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42782",
"authors": [
"Cerberus",
"Dustbuster7000",
"Haley Sprogis",
"Henrik Söderlund",
"Maurizio Carcassona",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sobachatina",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100161",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14754",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99981",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99982",
"rumtscho",
"seeker"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
20044 | Cleaning habanero oils off of tools
I made some habanero salsa last night for the first time (my god, was it delicious) and took care to clean everything that was used. I figured I was good when I had no problems taking my contacts out afterwards. So, fast forward to this morning. The slap chop was still out to dry (stop having a boring pepper, stop having a boring life!) so I put it all away aand then found out the hard way when I went to put my contacts in that I did not in fact clean the tools well enough.
So, I've now got a slap chop, 2 knives and a cutting board which all need to be cleaned of the oils. What's the best way to do this? I can throw them all into the dishwasher at once if needed, none of the plastics should melt.
I used a wooden spoon when making jam, and my batch of pear jam had a surprising bite. Surprising until I remembered that I'd made a killer hot pepper jam a few days before.
I think as long as you're using a good, oil-cutting soap and your utensils are non-porous (and consider wearing gloves when washing), you shouldn't have any issue.
I've heard that Mao people rub hands with ash after chili prep... how about baking soda or clay powder? I would cut/taste a potato or some bread to test each method you try
You have a few options, including what should have worked. Capsaicin will dissolve in high-proof alcohol, so if you have a bottle of 151 you might have a go with that. Vinegar can also be used to dissolve the oils. These are probably more effort and expenditure than they're worth though.
You were on the right track; soap should have worked. In all likelihood, due to the concentration of the oils you simply did not wash it sufficiently. It requires quite a few passes (especially if the cutting board is porous) of hot, hot water and suds. As it is fat soluble you can try cleaning more thoroughly with most any soap with a de-greasing agent.
Moving forward, I have heard tell of spraying with non-stick spray to ward away the oils. I haven't felt some inordinate compulsion to do this and cannot attest to its efficacy, however with a slap chop and its nook and crannies you may find it a suitable use case.
lots of soap worked out along with the dishwasher :) Thanks for the help!
If you're really concerned that your normal dish soap will not do a good enough job, capsaicin is extremely soluble in alcohol.
A quick bath in an alcohol and soap mixture (the higher proof, the better) will severely dilute the capsaicin and enable you to wash it away more thoroughly.
Also, the boiling point of capsaicin is listed as 410F(210C) so holding your utensils at this temperature for a while will cause it to boil off of the surface(although it will not disappear 100% in any reasonable time). It goes without saying, but do not put plastic objects in this type of environment and wood will not burn at this temperature, but will discolor after some time and probably be structurally unsound afterwards depending on the type of wood and the original moisture content thereof.
I'm not sure deliberately boiling off capsaicin is a good idea... I guess if there's only a minimal amount it'd be okay, but have you ever heated chilis in a too dry pan and immediately started coughing? It can be pretty strong.
True, but when working with chilies of more than ~250,000 scoville units in a cooking application, an industrial hygienist would recommend wearing a respirator, gloves, goggles, etc. I wouldn't argue with them.
That reminds me of the day my then boyfriend/ now husband left a pot of pasta sauce that had one pepperoni (sold as mild) simmering alone in the kitchen and I started wheezing and coughig when I went in. These vile fumes even kept the compost bin maggot-free in hot summer...
A finely diced habanero, first thing in in a stir fry, is likely to clear the city dump of maggots :)
Dilute bleach denatures the capsaicin nicely. Mix 1/4 cup bleach with 1 gallon water. Soak your equipment 5 minutes and rinse thoroughly. [insert "standard warnings on using bleach carefully" here].
Unfortunately, @mfg's suggestion of vinegar will not work any better on capsaicin than it would on a stain of vegetable oil. You need something that will either chemically alter the capsaicin molecules (something like bleach) or a strong surfactant (something like Murphy's Oil Soap). Rubbing alcohol is said to work as a surfactant, and I have heard it used on capsaicin, but I have not tried it.
As someone who regularly uses very hot chillies, I have the following advice:
Use gloves (I don't, but I am told it helps. I use my hands, but wash them carefully).
Cut the chillies on a metallic surface: they are easier to clean; wooden chopping boards hold a residue.
Wash hands and all surfaces with vegetable oil first. The oil will be sticky (and, simultaneously, slick), so you have to do this patiently. Small amounts of oil are usually fine.
Wash the oil off with dishwashing liquid (you can use a drop or three of the liquid concentrate).
Finally, rinse your hands and all surfaces with water.
Experience tells me that it is not the utensil that is hard to clean, but the surface upon which you cut the produce. Dropping a plastic cutting board in the washer and hand cleaning the knife has never yielded problems for me. That said, I've cut chiles on my wooden countertop and then prepped a meal the next day only to find myself in tears after touching my eyeball.
I don't know how hot naga chiles are, but I've been growing and processing Carolina Reapers and Trinidad 7 pot chiles for a few years without issue.
Take great care if you try to can these chiles! The fumes are seriously dangerous!!!!
I have found that oil works well to get rid of chilli oil.
Use a little vegetable oil and rub in well, then use soap to remove all of the oil.
The logic is that the vegetable oil "picks up" and dilutes the chilli oils and also provides a much greater volume of oil that can be cleaned more easily. The soap contains surfactants that grab the vegetable oil and pull it away from the surface.
This also works on hands.
Surfactants rock where capsaicin removal is involved.
I used to make a very sharp, hot - habanero jelly for the select few around Xmas. I wore gloves to cut 1 kilo of habaneros that I grew in my backyard. After the jelly making was done, all my kitchen instruments were soaked in a dilute solution of vinegar. Once soaked, I ran out of the kitchen (the vapours can be a little strong too). Unfortunately the next day the nerves in my right fore-finger were on fire. My hand protection on the right hand, had a small hole in it. It turns out that habanero juice seeped into that hole...and marinated my finger the whole 4 hours I was chopping away at raw habaeneros. After a week of uncomfortable nerve irritation, I soaked my finger in vinegar...low and behold - relief!
Holly
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.141581 | 2011-12-29T14:56:30 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20044",
"authors": [
"Allure Home Care",
"Ashley Keown",
"Best Primary Care",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Ellis",
"Karen Abbott",
"Kathy Doyle",
"Lori Sutton",
"MGZero",
"Mental Health",
"Mr. Mascaro",
"Pat Sommer",
"Stephie",
"Xtine",
"charles Focht",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128907",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133384",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133745",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133746",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140692",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140693",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43780",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43824",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8505",
"rackandboneman",
"steve seager",
"thursdaysgeek",
"zolo"
],
"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
} |
74153 | Storing dried peppers
I've got about 20 red thai peppers from my garden this year that I air dried. I currently have them in a mason jar with the lid and ring on (not sealed though). Is this a sufficient storage method, or is there a better way? The peppers are whole.
If they are fully dry and you keep the mason jar in the dark, you are good to go, in my opinion. Light can degrade many things, so storing your goodies out on the countertop for all to see can have some negative effects you would not see if they were stored in a cupboard, closet, or opaque jar. When you first jar the dried item, keep an eye on the jar for any sign of condensate/water droplets/fog as that would be a sign that they need more drying (and you risk mold if you leave them in the jar in that state.)
Besides humidity look out for moth larvae, too. I've had those ruin dried peppers.
Not sure which kinds of moths it was but as some of them are repelled by bay leaf I now add one of those to every glass of dried peppers I keep.
It might be coincidence but I have not had this problem since then.
Oh god don't even talk to me about larvae :( I have a pretty consistent pepper maggot problem with my habaneros. Fortunately, the thai peppers I'm storing don't make a good host for them.
I'd guess your larva problem could be completely solved by giving the jarred peppers a few days in the freezer: that should kill them.
@MGZero that freezing comment (above) is to you, too.
@derobert I'm sure, but at that point, I wouldn't even want to eat the peppers
@MGZero well, I mean you freeze them to kill the larva (or eggs) in the one or two peppers, before it has a chance to spread.
If they are not completely air dried, and in a jar (even without the lid tight) condensation and/or mould will result. Make sure they are dry - I hang mine by threading clear filament through the stems with a needle, stacking them with the string at the top to tie them up to hang - and you can always add more. Hang in a shaded dry place (not over stove-top or sink).
Also add fully dried chillies to an Olive Oil bottle, along with some whole peppercorns and let sit on shaded counter-top for a few weeks to infuse.
Fresh chillies can be frozen in a jar whole, with stems on, or chop them fine and freeze.
Hello Valri, I don't know why you added the suggestion for home infused oil, but that's a known botulism risk.
No botulism (Clostridium botulinum (C. bot), which can cause botulism) is not risk if the chillies are completely dried - there are safe and unsafe ways to make infused olive oil. The unsafe way is to put anything in the oil that contains any trace of water or moisture. That would include garlic, lemon peel, fresh peppers, fresh herbs and spices. The oil will not support bacterial growth but the water containing herbs will. Botulism bacteria can grow in this type of environment, even in a sealed bottle.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.142527 | 2016-09-23T03:15:26 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74153",
"authors": [
"MGZero",
"Valri",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49829",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8505",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
24507 | How to avoid herbs getting burnt in the oven
I was making baked pita chips as a healthy snack. What I do is mix olive oil and a dried herb seasoning blend, spread that on the pita bread, cut it into triangles and put them in the oven at 400 F for 7 min (I got the temperature and the time from an online recipe).
What always happens is that the herb blend gets burnt black and the chips get done perfectly. I tried reducing the time in the oven, but that just results in chewy rather than crispy chips.
I thought I could add the herb blend after the chips get done by sprinkling it on the chips, but it always falls off when I store it.
How can I get the pita bread to become crispy while not burning the herbs?My instinct would be to reduce the temperature of the oven, and bake for longer, but by how much?
Also, I had the oven on the 'Bake' setting instead of 'Broil' would that make a difference?
Does your pita bread split easily, so that you can get the herbs inside?
Also, where in the oven are you putting the chips? Perhaps too close to the top?
@Jefromi: The bread does split easily, but I use the top and the bottom as separate pieces so that the chips come out thinner and crunchier. My oven just has two racks, so maybe i should try to put it in the lower one, I'll try that and get back to you..
And it doesn't fall off if you sprinkle it before baking? This surprises me, as oil is anti-stick. On the other hand, burnt stuff has the tendency to stick - maybe every method for not burning it will result in falling off. The solution you need is probably not a "how to not burn", but "how to glue them".
@rumtscho: Either solution will work :)
Add the flavouring later in the cooking process
e.g. For a 7 minute cook; at the 4 minute mark, remove from oven, brush/spray with oil and sprinkle on flavouring (herbs etc), and quickly return to oven to finish cooking
Experiment with the time point, you are trying to crisp the bread, and bake on oil/herb mix
Commercially each flavouring is applied at it's own time point. Salts early, soft herbs and spices later
I would recommend immersing the herb blend in olive oil for some time, then brushing it on to the chips. If you saturate the herbs it should protect them from burning in the seven minutes they are baking. The oil will soak into the chips as you air dry them, leaving the herbs and any remaining oil on the surface in hardened oil.
Making pizzas, we frequently herb the crust for fifteen to twenty minute bakes and have not encountered any burning issues at 425'f; for this application we either brush the crust with oil then shake on the herbs, or use infused olive oils.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.142787 | 2012-06-17T01:20:30 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24507",
"authors": [
"Alex",
"Cascabel",
"Dharini Chandrasekaran",
"Rocky",
"SgtStens",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55824",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55825",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55828",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9262",
"joshua.thomas.bird",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
42309 | Problem cooking chicken wings with a bbq marinade
I've cooked chicken wings in a bbq marinade before and the results were disastrous, I put them in a pre-heated oven that was heated to 200 degrees celsius however as the marinade contains sugar the outside got burnt before the inside was cooked. So I've a few questions:
Would it be better to cook the wings without the marinade and then heat up the marinade and allow the wings to steep in that after they've cooked?
I also want the sauce to adhere to the wings nicely, not drip off, how do I do this?
I want wings with tender meat yet a nicely crisped exterior, what temperature and duration would I need to cook to achieve such a result?
Would cooking the wings covered in foil dome/tent and then removing the foil and cooking for the rest of the duration on high heat allow me to achieve this?
Would it be better if I cooked them on a wire rack/frame, rather than laying them down flat on an oven dish? (as that would allow the heat to get under the wings)
How important is the use of oil? Should I brush the wings with oil?
Thanks
Marinade
Whether to cook the wings with the marinade, or apply it after cooking depends on your specific recipe or method. The traditional technique for Buffalo style and similar wings is to fry (or bake) the wings sauceless, and then toss them with the sauce after cooking.
The advantage of this method is that you will not burn the sauce (which if it is sweet, can burn easily); the disadvantage is the sauce does not cook onto the wing, and so how well it adheres is down to the thickness of the particular sauce you are using.
The other traditional method, more often used for grilled wings or baked wings is to cook the wings until they are mostly done, then baste them with the sauce for the final part of the cooking. The advantage of this is that the sauce will not burn, and is baked on to the wing. The disadvantage, of course, is that it is more work.
Adherence
There is no simple answer to getting the sauce to stick to the wings. The biggest influencer is the thickness of viscosity of the sauce recipe itself, so that it sticks of its own volition.
Tenderness
There are many methods that result in tender meat but crispy skin. Perhaps the three most common are:
Baking. Baking is relatively slow, and so makes it easier to cook them without overcooking. Alton Brown, for example, recommends 40 minutes (with one flip) at 425 F / 220 C.
Deep Frying. Deep frying can cook them through and render the skin very crispy, but is very fast, so it is harder to prevent overcooking, and more sensitive to size variation among the wings. The Food Network recommends 375 F / 190 C for about 15 minutes.
Steaming (or otherwise par-cooking) the wings to cook them through and render the excess fat under the skin, then crisping them with another method. This is most often done when doing a grill (in the sense of a charcoal grill) to finish. Serious Eats uses this method solely on the grill, initially cooking on the cool side of the grill to cook through, and then searing on the hot side to crisp up.
Rack
Whether to use a rack depends on the cooking method; it only is applicable to oven baking, where it is a good idea.
Oil
Oil is not usually required for chicken wings, which have a great deal of fat under the skin. Normally the challenge is rendering that fat.
Thank you for your extremely thorough answer, i guess i'll have to try a few of those methods and see what works for me.
It should be noted that Alton Brown recommends par cooking them by steaming and then baking them. Straight baking them produces a lot of fat drippings that can create a lot of smoke.
@draksia Arrrghhh... I thought I remembered that, which is why I googled his recipe, and then I didn't see the steaming on skimming it. WIll have to update later when I have more time.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.143049 | 2014-02-25T16:45:57 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42309",
"authors": [
"Don",
"Giovanni Cerretani",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"Suzie",
"draksia",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14754",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98787",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98788",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98791",
"seeker"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
37878 | The consistency of my hot chocolate is off, what do I do?
I've made hot chocolate before however it's only ever been the instant powdered variant by Cadbury's, however today I bought some hot chocolate by "Charbonnel et Walker", I don't know if anyone knows about this drinking chocolate but it isn't powdered instead it's comprised of really fine and small flakes of chocolate and you're meant to mix them with the milk I guess? I did so but the consistency of the hot chocolate was off; that is to say that although the flakes melted a little they congealed/massed on the surface of the hot milk rather than assimilate and no matter how much I stirred they'd still rise back to the top.
My steps were: I microwaved some full fat milk till it was a hot, mixed the recommended amount of chocolate flakes in and some brown sugar, gave it a good stir and put it back in the microwave.
I've probably made this wrong, was I meant to make this in a sauce pan?
Could anyone help me with this?
Thank you.
Did you mix the chocolate flakes in advance with the brown sugar or did you added them separately?
I microwaved the milk till it was hot, and then added the brown sugar and chocolate flakes together and then put the milk back in the microwave
Have you tried the cocoa powder method? Also, what (if any) directions are on the package?
I've found a method that works. Basically with the more premium drinking chocolates you need to microwave/heat some butter and mix the drinking chocolate into that, once its becomes paste like you can pour in the hot milk slowly, stirring as you go along, voila!
At Marriott hotel, where I worked for a while, we used similar flakes. Our technique was to add a good splash of boiling water first, incorporate the chocolate flakes by mixing it into a smooth paste (more or less), and only then add hot milk. I guess the idea is that it is much more of a challenge to incorporate a small amount of solid into a large amount of liquid, however if you turn that solid into a paste first, its almost like your mixing two liquids. You'll find that the same technique is used for making a bachamel sauce. For convenience sake, try using a small amount of hot milk, instead of water. Also, having your liquid boiling might help, which is hard to achieve in a microwave. e.g. when making a classic chocolate sauce which contains butter and cream, the chocolate is only fully dissolved when the liquid is boiled.
OK, so basically it's the same method as you'd use with cocoa powder.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.143389 | 2013-10-24T19:09:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37878",
"authors": [
"Marti",
"Mien",
"Richard",
"SifatR",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14754",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89154",
"landonepps",
"nickson season",
"seeker"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
64612 | Which one of the five mother sauces is Sauce Messine derived from?
I'm organising the sauce recipes I have and I'm uncertain as to where I should place Sauce Messine. I'm inclined to say it belongs in the bechamel category, or is it a veloute based sauce? I'm not sure. Also where would sauces like parsley and watercress sauce fall in the system of the five mother sauces?
Thanks.
Sauce Messine should fall into the bechamel category. Velouté sauces incorporate stock rather then cream or milk.
This is a basic answer to the difference in the two, from YIANNISLUCACOS .
The difference between velouté and béchamel is that the milk is replaced by a stock, i.e. chicken, beef, fish etc.
In every other respect velouté sauce is almost identical to béchamel.
In general, it is used as a base for a number of white sauces. Its main applications are:
Base for sauces
Base for soups
Basic ingredient for mixtures and fillings, as it offers moisture and a rich texture, such as patties, pies, pasta fillings.
As for other sauces with parsley, watercress, or other ingredients, they would fall into certain categories based on the mother sauce base, not the flavors or other additions.
It is a fairly easy internet search to get more information, should you need it.
Hm. Not so sure. There is no roux and there are eggs beaten over a water bath. A hybrid between Béchamel and Hollandaise?
@Stephie I do see your point, but I still lean toward bechamel. In reading the recipe, the flour and butter are blended together first and then the other ingredients are added and stirred over the water bath until thickened. I would say this is mostly a matter of a different heating technique and would work equally well in a sauce pan. I look at the water bath in this case as a safety net.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.143605 | 2015-12-20T17:25:44 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64612",
"authors": [
"Anne Gray",
"Cindy",
"Ian Johnston",
"Peter Little",
"Seshni Mala",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154182",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
46916 | Brining multiple chickens
I'm attempting to brine multiple, however I am confused as to whether my brine will be sufficient.
When I usually brine a single chicken I measure the weight of the water that I am going to use and then add salt which is equivalent to 5 percent of of that water's weight.
This time however I need to brine 4 chickens, and I've bought a 10 litre food grade container for this purpose. I'm wondering if I fill this entire container up with water that must mean i'll have to use 500 grams of salt to get a 5% brine solution, that's a lot of salt. What if I used 5 litres of water instead, and 250 grams of salt, this is still a 5% brine solution, will it yield the same results? How long should I brine for optimal results. When I brine a single chicken I usually brine for 5 hours as i've read that any longer and the chicken will become very salty? (Is this true?) And should the weight of the chickens factor into anything?
I'm cooking for a lot of people and I havent brined at this scale before so any help would be appreciated.
If you filled the whole thing w/ water and sufficient salt to make 5% ... you'd not have space left for the chickens. Start w/ 5L water / 250g. salt, add the chickens, and then see if there's still space left in the vessel (and if the chickens are all submerged)
If you stay with the same ratio of salt (and any other ingredients) to water that you normally use, you should achieve the same results. As you normally use a 5% solution it shouldn't matter how many chickens or how much water if you stay with the 5% solution.
The only thing that the weight of the chickens will factor into is the amount of brining time needed. A larger bird will take more time than a small one.
Re time, a good rule of thumb for whole chickens is 2 hours per pound, using a 4% solution. You may want to slightly reduce the time per pound using a 5% solution. So, your 5 hours sounds about right. I wouldn't go over that as I would be concerned that it may make the meat mushy. (Haven't ever done that but I've heard that it can happen if over brined.)
Just to be clear: Two five birds will take the same length of time as one five pound bird. One ten pound bird will take longer.
You got your method a bit convoluted. You don't weigh the water, you weigh the salt. Different brands of salt vary greatly in volume. 5 percent also sounds low to me. I would never go below 6 percent and then only for veggies. A meat brine should be better served at 8 percent salt per liter of water. That means 80 grams of salt per liter of water. Use fine salt not coarse salt it dissolves much easier and try to use salt without iodine or anti-caking agent.
Only a small percentage of the salt in the brine ends up in the meat. The purpose of the brine is not to season the meat. It was done originally as a preservation technique but nowadays brining of poultry is to insure a juicy white meat. The white meat of a turkey is easy to overcook because there is so much of it.
The brine creates an environment where the saline solution draws moisture out of the protein strands this moisture is then replaces by the moisture in the water. It is the process of osmosis. This in turn breaks down the walls of the protein strands and helps them retain moisture during the cooking process.
You can off course over-brine meats. I would say for a regular 2 - 4 kg chicken 8 - 12 hours in the brine is more than adequate. I have brine big 8 - 12 kg turkeys before for 3 days and I cannot say that even that amount of time ruined it.
It is not so much the weight of the meat but the amount of space the saltwater has to travel trough. A 4kg whole chicken will always take 2 - 3 times to brine than 4kg of chicken pieces. A whole turkey in turn also take 2 - 3 times longer than a whole chicken.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.143796 | 2014-09-06T14:26:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46916",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Rebecca Chapman",
"SHIVA SANDEEP N",
"Syeda Begum",
"Wakeel Khan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113173",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113175",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113176",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
23885 | What kind of containers for homemade ice cream?
In the past, I've usually stored homemade ice creams and sorbets in reusable/disposable plastic containers (e.g. Gladware), but I've busted more than a couple of these when trying to scoop hard-frozen ice cream. The cold plastic is somewhat brittle, and the scoop can easily punch a hole in the side. One solution is to let the ice cream warm up a bit so that it's easier to serve, but who has time for that?
Can you suggest an airtight, ice cream-friendly storage vessel that'll stand up to a forcefully-wielded scoop?
Your ice cream shouldn't freeze that hard - are you using a machine, or some other method?
@rumtscho Freezing with a machine (frozen bowl KitchenAid mixer attachment). It's not hard like an ice cube, but a Philadelphia-style mix (cream, milk, sugar, fruit -- no eggs) can get pretty firm. If the fruit is added late enough that it stays mostly intact, that also adds some icy obstacles to scooping.
try adding alcohol, salt, and gums (only a pinch/a few drops of each). It makes a big difference.
@rumtscho Great suggestions. I think a smaller batch next time will result in more air in the final product, which should help too (my current batch would be properly labelled "super-duper premium"). I'd still like to find some good containers, though -- maybe a source for unvented paper pint containers.
Restaurants solve this problem one of two ways:
Tough, professional-grade stainless or Lexan containers. I suggest 4" to 6" deep 1/6 size hotel pans AKA steam table inserts, or lidded 2-4 quart Cambro containers.
Cheap, disposable quart delitainers. These are actually reusable and dishwasher/microwave safe, but at $0.25-0.50 apiece, it doesn't matter if they break regularly! Just remember to recycle the broken ones. You've probably seen these used for take-out soups in Chinese restaurants or delis, because they're cheap but work well.
For the first option, remember that professional-grade equipment is built to survive YEARS of punishing abuse, but you'll pay more for that quality. Expect a pricetag of $5-7 or more for each of the smaller containers, or slightly less if you find a good restaurant supply store. Sam's Club also carries some of that stuff.
The flipside is that you shouldn't ever have to replace the containers unless you do something really dumb, such as putting a pan hot off the stove down on the lid. For this reason I suggest planning ahead before making a purchase, because you want to get the right sizes for regular use.
After punching through a bunch of brittle plastic containers myself, I bought a set of 25 paperboard quart containers from Sweet Bliss, and like them very much.
The lid design is especially nice, using a second piece of card inside the lid with holes cleverly placed to push air out of the containers.
On their website they say:
In 1996, my husband and I received an ice cream machine as a wedding
gift. Soon after, we were invited to dinner by some friends and I
offered to bring homemade ice cream. I wanted to present it in a nice
container since I was putting in some time and effort along with fresh
ingredients. I thought the container should reflect all of these
things, "homemade and delicious."
I set out in Atlanta to find a storage container for ice cream and
there wasn't a product made for storing and protecting homemade ice
cream. I was disappointed, but it occurred to me at that instant that
there was a need and I was going to one day fulfill that need. Over
the next nine years I would ask anyone and everyone what they stored
their homemade ice cream in, and over and over I heard the same thing.
They would say that they stored it in a plastic storage container, but
it was always hard as a rock and that it lost its original
consistency. I knew I was ready to launch an idea that many could
benefit from, a storage solution for homemade frozen desserts!
+1 -- Those look really cool, and perfect if you wanted to sell your stuff or give it away as handsome gifts. A little more spendy than cheapo plastic equivalent, but much nicer.
BobMcGee's specific suggestions are fairly good, but I'd suggest that the only things that really matter are that they're rectangular and not disposable. Rectangular means they'll pack well into your freezer, and anything non-disposable should should stand up just fine to the scoop.
Of course, even disposable containers (even when reused many times) should be okay - I've used them for ice cream. Is it possible that your ice cream is a bit on the hard side, and you're scooping before it softens with a heavy, sharp scoop? If that's the case, you might want to look into making softer ice cream (see this question or this blog post), as well as scooping it when it's not quite as cold (store it in the door, increase freezer temperature, or let it sit on the counter for a few minutes).
The restaurant containers will have another good property - they are rectangular, but their edges are slightly rounded. So you will be able to scoop out icecream you would be throwing away with other containers.
@rumtscho: I suppose - but at home, I'm just going to be reaching in there with a spoon and getting it all out, so it's not a huge issue.
@rumtscho: I probably should have mentioned that property. It's just one of little design features you easily forget until you don't have it. Jefromi: While normal tupperware can be used in the freezer, I agree with Caleb that it's prone to cracking with normal use. Eventually you end up having to replace stuff. And if you drop a container of frozen sauce or stock, and it's done.
Not the answer you were looking for but this is how I solved my problem which also involved limited freezer space.
Packed ice-cream into quart/liter freezer ziplocks and froze flat and even.
Broke off portions to be softened in fridge as needed.
A quick thwack on the counter edge worked as well as a knife with less risk.
Can pre-portion these inch thick slabs in another container in freezer as they don't stick together if you have been quick about it.
If you want something really sturdy, glass is a good option. I recently bought a glass container for homemade ice creams, and it works well. But you have to choose the right container.
temperature tolerance. Some glasses can spring in the freezer. Buy a container which is marked as freezer-safe.
closing. Buy a container which has a tightly-closing lid. You want to minimize smell contamination, freezer burn, and the chance that a non-tight lid will slip when you are getting something else from the fridge and let some other packet fall in the exposed ice cream.
corners. The nice thing about glass containers is that they tend to have rounded inner corners, making scooping easier than from plastic.
The glass container will have a higher temperature capacity than your regular tupperware container. This means that if you fill freshly-churned ice cream into room-temperature glass, the outermost layer will melt before you have finished filling it. You should pre-chill the container. To avoid heat shocks, I put the empty container in the fridge together with the just-made ice cream base, and when the base is chilled and goes into the churner, the empty container goes into the freezer.
The upside is that, when you take out the container to scoop and serve the ice cream, the glass will keep cold for a longer time than a thin plastic container, or also than a metal one (because metal conducts heat better). Also, this type of tempered container is usually heat-proof too, so, when not in use for ice cream, you can bake casseroles in it.
This is the container I got. I chose the rectangular type, because it stacks better. The 1.3 liter size fits well for one ice cream recipe (about 800 ml base).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.144134 | 2012-05-21T15:05:08 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23885",
"authors": [
"Adepa Wear",
"Angélica C Brandão Marcolino",
"BobMcGee",
"Caleb",
"Cascabel",
"Chef Pauly C",
"Claire W. White",
"Damien",
"Sam Ballantyne",
"Srijana ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54202",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"rumtscho",
"summer",
"user55367",
"wertheimco"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
7928 | Advice for gingerbread houses?
I'm considering entering a gingerbread house contest with my mom this year. I might've done a few as a kid, but I've only done one before in my adult life, more than 10 years ago, and I remember having problems with the amount of spread of the parts.
Does anyone have any advice? are there any tricks to keep parts from spreading as much, or should I be baking the parts, then cutting them? (or par-baking, cut while still soft, then finish baking to firm everything up?)
Should I bake the parts well in advance to let them dry out / stale up so they're stiffer before assembly, or do I want a little bit of flex when I'm assembling so I don't accidentally crack them while working?
Also, recommendations on the best thickness of wall sections to use (especially based on the height I'm dealing with, as I assume I'd want them thicker the higher I'm going) would be great, too.
Is cutting wire mesh to the shape, then pressing gingerbread onto it then baking considered bad form? you could probably make a gingerbread Gugelheim this way if you wanted ...
@Sam yes, as the rules are that everything above the base must be edible (except for lighting) : http://www.pgparks.com/places/eleganthistoric/darnalls_gingerbread_rules.html
I make gingerbread houses every year. Walls should be approximately 1/4 inch thick. I have found that cutting the pieces first to work best. Yes there is some spread, but when they come out of the oven, I replace the stencil and trim up any spread (for the straight outside edges, a pizza cutter works well). I know it sounds redundant, but sometimes I don't cut quick enough, or I am distracted by the phone, or any other number of things, if I only cut after baking. With the items pre-cut, if I get distracted, I at least have a usable part. Granted I may have to shave any spread very gently with a microplane or the edge of a knife, but that is just what works for me.
I also will roll the dough out on parchment paper, cut and remove the excess, then slide the whole thing onto a pan for baking. This way, you don't get any "stretch" of your pieces. I have several square cookie cutters that I will use to cut out the windows and such. I make the windows rectangular by using the cookie cutter and cutting a square then moving it and cutting another half square. This is helpful because when the gingerbread comes out of the oven, you don't have to spend a lot of time with a knife trimming the inside of all the windows... you just punch any spread out with the cookie cutter.
As Sobachatina mentioned, melted sugar makes beautiful windows. I however, will lay the walls on a silicone mat and pour the sugar directly into the window holes. No need to "glue."
I'd hate for you to make a gingerbread house with the "wrong" icing. You want an icing that will dry rock hard, like cement. For this you will want to use "Royal Icing."
For larger houses, use canned goods to hold the walls in place while the icing dries. The house should be built at least one day before you start decorating, to be sure it has set up really good.
I tried pouring the window panes in place and it resulted in windows that were far too thick. I didn't recut my windows after baking. I'll try it again this year. Thanks!
When I last did a gingerbread house 2 years ago we pre-cut to our pattern, put everything on parchment paper, baked the gingerbread, and trimmed it while it was still warm due to spreading (way more than we expected). If we'd let it cool any more it probably would've been crumbly.
The recipe we used had the gingerbread firmer than cracker dough - much to firm to actually enjoy eating - and it worked out perfectly for assembly.
Our walls were probably about 1/4 inch thick after rising in the oven, but it was thinner before cooking, and the resulting house was a bit under a foot tall.
With our recipe we cut the shapes before baking. It puffs a little but doesn't spread. Like justkt, I roll it about 1/4 inch.
Besides wall thickness, how high you can go really depends on your recipe and the local humidity. When living in humid climates we have sometimes had to paint the inside of the baked walls with icing to give them more rigidity. That was, however, for a much larger than normal house and a much more humid than normal climate.
A fun trick that I did last year and was well worth my time:
I melted some sugar and poured it into a pool to spread on buttered foil. Then I glued (with icing of course) the sugar window panes inside all my cut out windows. I installed a lamp inside the house. It made for a very impressive display. The just barely golden sugar panes produced a very warm glow.
Cut out the doors and windows before baking.
Use rock (candy cane) for the corner struts.
If you can get hold of the video, Heston Blumenthal made a large gingerbread house. There are some great tips in there.
In re-reading all of the responses in preparation for baking, I realized that his book Heston's Fantastical Feasts was published a few weeks ago ... hopefully, I'll get a chance to actually read it before it comes time for construction.
I cut while warm. At least for structural pieces. This gives nice square, flat corners. Indeed, the edges created like this have air bubbles along the edge which provide good purchase for the icing that will hold pieces together.
You need to dry all your pieces as well. This is typically done by leaving them in the oven at a real low temperature for a couple hours. Once dry, a thick piece of gingerbread feels as hard as plywood (mmm, plywood!)
Royal icing is also hard as cement. Between that and dry gingerbread, you can build at least to the size of a large dollhouse.
Oh, and have your design done before hand. Make your slabs according to the sizes you plan on, don't try making a house from a set recipe size like some directions might say. This always leads to one piece somewhere that doesn't get enough dough.
Oh, and don't let the kids eat it while you're building.
Definitely use royal icing, yes.
@justkt- That's funny. It never occurred to me to actually say to use royal icing. I took it for granted.
I cut my pieces before baking but I always put them in the freezer for 15-20min before I bake them and that helps keep them from spreading. I use parchment paper and waxed paper to roll out my gingerbread 1/4”.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.144858 | 2010-10-08T00:39:32 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7928",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Sam Holder",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"justkt"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
25315 | Separating Chlorophyll didn't work
I tried to extract chlorophyll from spinach by blending up some spinach and water and straining out the green juice, then heating the juice. I've done it before, but this time, it wouldn't separate. Does it not work if you overheat it? I brought it to the boil and I'm wondering if that was the problem.
I have never done it, what was expected to happen and what happened instead? Also, when heated a lot, chlorophyl undergoes chemical changes, I don't remember if the new chemical is still considered a form of chlorophyl or not, but it becomes dull yellow-green instead of bright green.
This author says to avoid overheating or boiling the green juice. I suspect that your end product is actually clumps of chloroplasts not chlorophyll. Overheating or boiling the chloroplasts could destroy their delicate membranes and allow the chlorophyll molecules to mix into the liquid. It is not water soluble though, so you may be able to collect it using something like filter paper instead of a mesh strainer.
Boiling can also lead to conversion of chlorophyll to phaeophytin, a olive-green pigment.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.145389 | 2012-07-28T18:42:53 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25315",
"authors": [
"Brian Grubba",
"Reza Kashefi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57984",
"rumtscho",
"user57929",
"user57984"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
57541 | Flavour enhancers
I've read that vanilla is usually used to highlight/enhance the flavour of chocolate, lemon juice the flavour of strawberries, and MSGs the flavour of meat. What other flavour enhancers are out there?
Asides salt and sugar..
I thought coffee was used to enhance chocolate.
In a way, fat and acid are. If you already consider salt,sugar,glutamates - anything that influences TASTE directly but not flavour/aroma and is not bitter (given recent research, we can taste more than one kind of bitter, which fits in there interestingly...)
Glutamic acid in other forms than its sodium salt (to be found in a lot of ingredients).
In industrially made products, inosinate and guanylate compounds are frequently used. For example, japanese kare roux cubes, and golden mountain soy sauce contain them. Such compounds are frequently non vegetarian unless stated.
Recently, some substances have been isolated and marketed that purport to enhance the newly found "kokumi" sensation.
There are certain chemicals marketed that REDUCE the sensation of sweetness or saltiness, or bind rancid-tasting molecules into an inert form (pea dextrin).
Some googling also suggest pyridine compounds (maillard reaction products, synthetically made), but these might be better classified as flavours. And 5-acetoxymethyl-2-furaldehyde seems to be a recent addition for sweet things...
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.145511 | 2015-05-16T10:01:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57541",
"authors": [
"Charles Oliver",
"Jana Ghalayini",
"Jaspersbabygirlyahoocom",
"Joe",
"Partha Das",
"Stephen chibuike Ezugwu",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136900",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136902",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137021",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
29373 | Stainless steel vs ceramic Enamel microwave ovens
I want to buy a convection microwave oven. I plan to buy either from LG or from samsung .Almost all LG products have stainless steel cavity and Samsung comes with ceramic enamel cavity. What is the difference between stainless steel vs ceramic enamel in terms of:
Durability
Ease of cleaning
none
none
Both are durable and easy to clean, the factors I would look at instead are power, features, and user experience. Use a testing service like consumer reports in the US or Which? in the UK as a buying guide, they generally provide good information.
Stainless will last longer. Ceramic cavities will be enamel-coated carbon steel; over a long enough time, water vapour from cooking will slowly but surely penetrate any tiny cracks in the enamel, especially at joins, and cause the carbon steel to rust; this rust will cause swelling that then propagates the cracks in the enamel, exposing more steel which will then rust in its turn, and so on.
i have both LG & SAMSUNG in my hotel , but i felt that stainless steel cavity would be good due to following reasons:-
1) better reflection of electromagnetic waves
2) faster heating
3) no leakage of electromagnetic waves ,that prevents the hazards on our body.
4) lower consumption of electricity than that of ceramic cavity , coz it needs more time to heat up.
5) I would prefer LG microwave due to its excellent customer service than Samsung.
You need to provide a source to substantiate your assertions here.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.145678 | 2012-12-22T09:01:08 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29373",
"authors": [
"Beth",
"Chris Bergin",
"Gerry currie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68250",
"mahfoud fehim",
"mpm"
],
"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
} |
29526 | How to thicken Chili without compromising flavor
I enjoy adding beer to a pot of chili for taste, but at times find the end result is too soupy. What's a good way to thicken it without overcooking or compromising the flavor?
As noted above, reducing the liquid through evaporation will thicken up the chili but you run the risk of burning/scorching the bottom and it can take a long time at lower temperatures. What I like to do is to take some of the beans (I prefer black beans in mine) and mash them up into a thick paste and then stir that into the chili. The starches from the beans will help thicken up the chili and you aren't adding anything that isn't already there. I have also seen people do similar things with cornbread.
That's a good idea. Will have to remember that when I don't have time for protracted simmering.
Scorching the bottom (a bit) is not a problem – it actually adds flavour (some recipes even demand for it, especially in Bolognese). Just scrape off the burnt bit in regular intervals to avoid burning it too much.
well what your talking about isn't what i would call scorching, when i think of scorching i think of burning. What your talking about I call creating fond, which I agree adds a lot of excellent flavor.
That's the classic technique for thickening beans in Brazil :) Works like a charm everytime
I use instant Corn Masa Flour as thickener. It seems to hold onto water better over time than does corn meal. That's likely because unlike corn meal, it's precooked, nixtamalized. Either way, you'll get a bit of a corny taste.
+1 This is the canonical way to thicken chili in Texas. The flavor isn't really that strong (most people probably won't notice).
Come to think of it, if you don't mind being thought a heathen, you could pour your beer into another pot, boil it down hard and fast to about 25% of its original volume, then add that flavor concentrate to your chili.
I add beer to my chili and simply let it simmer with the lid off for an hour or two so the liquid evaporates. I've never had a problem with overcooking.
You could also reduce the beer separately first, then add to the chili.
I don't like using masa flour as it affects both texture and flavor. I have come up with some less conventional ways to thicken chili that work:
Brisket torn into small pieces. Buy some pre-cooked from your local BBQ house, remove the crunchy and fatty parts, and tear the rest into very small pieces. These bitty brisket bits will fill the voids and make your sauce both thicker and meatier. The smokey brisket flavor may even improve the taste. This is also good as a last-minute remedy since the brisket is already cooked. Alternatively if you are planning ahead you can cook brisket in the chili.
Broccoli. Don't laugh - I won a chili cook-off THREE YEARS IN A ROW with broccoli in my chili! Use raw broccoli and only the florets. Chop the broccoli very small. At first it will look like you made a mistake, but let it simmer for an hour - the broccoli cooks down and shrinks to the point you can hardly see it anymore, but you end up with thicker chili since the raw broccoli soaks up a lot of the liquid as it cooks. Just use chopped broccoli instead of beans in any recipe. Again, try it before you say nay! The broccoli pieces take on the flavor of the sauce and taste great.
Unsweetened cocoa. Just one tablespoon - too much will make your chili look like a muddy swamp. This works if you just need a little thickening and I like what it adds to the flavor.
Finely chopped bell red pepper. I recommend stir frying the chopped peppers before adding to the chili or it will affect the texture.
Finely chopped mushrooms. Stir frying is optional - depends on how long you slow cook your chili. If not long, then stir fry the chopped mushrooms before adding to the chili.
Welcome to the Stack Exchange universe, especially Seasoned Advice, Mad Martian! It’s nice to see such an elaborate a first post. If you have a bit of time, consider taking the [tour] and browsing our [help] to learn more about how the site works. I’m looking forward to more posts!
you're absolutely insane by i am definitely putting broccoli in my next chili.
“remove the crunchy and fatty bits” hurt my heart
Preston, I eat the crunchy bits as I'm doing that. :)
If you want to thicken it fast use flour, just don't add it directly to the pot (If you do, the flour will clump and you'll spend the next couple of hours trying to de-clump the clumps).
Use a bowl. To the bowl, add 1-2 tablespoons of flour and a cup of hot liquid from the chili. Mix/whisk both until combined. Add this mixture to your chili and stir until combined. It'll thicken in 20-30 minutes.
You can also use cornstarch, xantham gum, and many other thickeners or liaisons.
Good videos on reduction and thickening using thickeners/liaisons.
Thickeners/liaisons part 1
Thickeners/liaisons part 2
Thickeners/liaisons part 3
Another good video: Sauce Thickening Agents
Confirmed - just used this method and it worked like a charm
I thought you always stir flour or corn starch into cold water to prevent clumping, not into hot liquid from the pot.
@Robert: flour and cornstarch are opposites in this respect. Cornstarch you always stir into cold liquid. Flour actually dissolves better (fewer clumps) if you add hot liquid. (If you mix flour and cold water, you get glue.)
Depending on whether you'd consider this a compromise (I consider it a feature), corn meal or crushed tortilla chips not only thicken it but also add a flavor that usually complements the chili.
The tortilla chips will work much better than the corn meal; they're cooked already, while the corn meal will take a long time to get soft enough to blend in and not make your chili gritty.
Yeah, that is an important distinction. The corn meal is good to plan for and add early, but tortilla chips can adjust the consistency near the end.
As a matter of fact, my favorite chili casserole recipe has layers of Frito corn chips. Yum!
I add roux in two stages. First, after sweating the peppers and onions and browning the meat(s) and before adding the beer, with the pot over a medium-high heat add flour approximately equal to the amount of oils (I would have used bacon grease, butter and olive oil to sweat the peppers and onions, your recipe will probably very, but I hope you get the idea...) and stir the mixture until the flour has absorbed the oils and the roux is clinging to the rest of the mixture. Then add the beer. This will thicken the mix, but not 'thoroughly'. The second stage comes at the end. When you are 1 - 1½ hours from 'done' mix 4 ounces each of oil (peanut, corn, olive, lard dealers choice) with 4 ounces of flour in and oven safe dish and bake this roux for about 1 hour at 350°. (This is not quite 'red brick' roux, you want to be short of that...) After baking mix the roux into to the chili, stir and cook for another 30 minutes.
Your mileage may vary based on the batch size and the amount of grease run-off from the meat, but this practice leaves me with a nice thick chili.
How about reducing the beer (and other possible fluids) separately before adding them? That should give you the desired flavor effect without the excess water.
Part of the benefit of the beer is the alcohol helps to extract the flavor of other items. You're better off adding the beer as the first liquid addition, reducing it, then adding any other liquid ingredients. (although this may change the texture, as the acid in tomatoes will slow the breakdown of onions and some other vegetables)
I've seen some of the usual answers like ground tortilla chips (unsalted if you can find them), and masa harina, but potato flakes (the instant ones in a box) are a great way to thicken your chili (or any soup). You can also do a quick cornstarch slurry by mixing a tablespoon of water and a tablespoon of corn starch and add as needed. Always add either of them slowly and wait about 3-5 minutes. They don't need heat to be activated either.
If you can't find unsalted tortillas, tostadas are typically salted less than chips.
I really like to include actual potatoes in my chili
Whenever I need to thicken some kind of stew or soup I add chia seeds. They act as a binder for baked goods too. They don't have a flavor but will get a gel coating on the outside after a bit. Plus they reheat well.
Flour, Cornstarch, amd Tortillia chips all work fine, but they will all mute the beef-y flavor of the chili. To avoid any muting at all, use a gum like Xanthen Gum to thicken your pot of goodness. 1 tsp will tighten up a quart of chili, with no reduction of chili flavor.
I added a can of refried beans. This also calmed down the heat a bit. Thick, spicy and delicious.
I've thickened chili with tomato paste. I really boosts the tomato flavor, but other than that it doesn't introduce "new" flavors to the mix and works quite well to thicken it up.
In desperation because I didn't have time I used an immersion blender right in the pot. After half a dozen or so pulses on low setting the thickness was near perfect.
Probably a good idea not to blend more than 15 to 20% or the texture will change too much (unless that's what you want).
Be careful about splashing, you don't want to get scalded.
It should be noted that this should only be done when the chili has cooled below about 60 C, otherwise it is very easy to splatter and cause burns.
Important note @bob1; added
You can use blood - fresh cow, goat, or lamb companies sell it. Soups, chilis, and many other things used blood as thickener before B.C. even became A.D.
Its used for so many things like blood pudding, even brownies. It enhances the flavor and no this stuff will cause more problems not used it is not evil and any meat including fish has at least some sort of blood in it anyway if think on it everything has its own blood, sap of tree, plants.
A lot of restaurants including Indonesian, African and Asian gourmet use blood as thickener and meats.
Welcome! Please, for the sake of cleanliness, attempt to use proper spelling and grammar as much as possible.
And while your are at it, please get down from your soap box - simply suggesting the use of blood as thickener is sufficient, no need to go back to B.C. or getting plants involved!
I use flour to thicken my chili, but I put a half of cup in my sifter (2-3 sifts at a time) and stir so it doesn't clump together. This has soaked up some of the saltiness as well when I over season it.
Sifting is a good trick. Thanks for the inspiration :)
Try quinoa! The red type blends in, soaks up the excess liquid and makes it more hearty. I put in about a quarter cup an hour before chili is "done" cooking on low in crockpot
I start with a roux. Bacon grease is the best but butter will work too. Or you can put some beans in the food processor if you are health minded.
To thicken a sauce without changing the flavour, I use powdered arrowroot. In a bowl, put a tablespoon of arrowroot powder with a small amount of cold water. Mix well then slowly add a few tablespoons of the excess liquid from your chilli. when thoroughly blended, add the mix to your chilli and allow to cook through.
Use kuzu root starch.. It comes in rock-like granules. Mix 1 Tb kuzu with 1 Tb water first, then add to simmering chili until thickened. I use a lot of onions and peppers that give up a lot of water and kuzu works best! No change in flavor, texture or mouth-feel. Re-heats perfectly as original.
Stir in one can of refried beans. Or blend one can of whatever beans you are using in your chilli. Wash them off first.
I can't boil to evaporate because my chili recipe requires the ground chili paste. garlic, ginger, cilantro, etc to remain fresh and uncooked.
My family tradition has been to add tapioca or corn starch. Boil half a cup of water in the microwave, and then stir in tapioca/corn flour gradually until the paste is super-saturated. I might even try to microwave the paste further. Tapioca flour is easier to deal with. Corn flour imo tastes better.
When the hot flour paste has chilled to a warm state, gradually mix it into the chili paste until desired thickness is achieved.
I have added brandy, rice wine or chardonnay to the chili paste but never beer.
As absorbent thickener, I am even thinking of cream cheese, or home-made sour yogurt on the verge of becoming cottage cheese. I have never tried but perhaps I should one of these days.
Or apple pulp.
Just out of curiosity, what kind of chili are you making??? That doesn't sound like any chili recipe I've ever seen or heard of... I believe OP is referring to American-style chili, which doesn't usually have ginger, or "chili paste"
"American" style? Quite a number of Asian or European foods are actually American inventions. "American" recipes are a very diverse collection. "American" chili is just as "american" as Panda Chinese food you find at the mall.
ok, sure, but if you google "chili recipe", there are lots of hits, and none of them have those ingredients you were using -- I was just wondering if it was some kind of regional variation or something -- I'm intrigued!!
Google chili salsa.
Raw chili chutney.
OP wasn't asking about chili salsa, raw chili chutney or whatever it is you make, but about the kind of chili most Americans make - a thoroughly cooked stew with beef.
"American chili" is how they named the adapted version of Mexican tingas / chili con carne. Which are some kind of meat stewed with tomato and chillies (preferably chipotles in adobo)
Peanut butter....2 tbsp in a big pot will thicken and not affect the flavor.
How much is a "big pot" :)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.145914 | 2012-12-29T02:11:07 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29526",
"authors": [
"Alexis Nix Dall",
"Alison Claassen",
"Andrius Bielskus",
"Arlene Dewees",
"Barbeq",
"Brendan",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Cynthia",
"Don Williams",
"Doug Kavendek",
"Erica",
"Ian Tonks",
"Ingrid Gall",
"Jacob G",
"Joe",
"Juliana Karasawa Souza",
"Kareen",
"Karen Davis",
"Konrad Rudolph",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Len Paddock",
"Lescurel",
"LocosMum",
"Mad Martian",
"Mark Smith",
"Marti",
"Mishelle Cordero",
"N-C",
"Paul",
"Preston",
"Randy Cloke",
"Renish Dadhaniya",
"Rewadee Seadan",
"Robert",
"Ron Dahlgren",
"Sdarb",
"Stephie",
"Steve D",
"Tara",
"Travis",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"bob1",
"gembird",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10420",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113730",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130570",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133877",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146075",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146139",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154077",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154084",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156784",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157703",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68698",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68713",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68726",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68780",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8499",
"matt wilkie",
"susan poulter",
"user18894"
],
"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
} |
29971 | Making real soured milk - what sort of lactobacillus culture to get?
I am looking to make an antique recipe (amish milk pie) which calls for thick soured milk. I can get my hands on raw milk, but it's iffy whether or not it will have the correct lactobacillus present to make proper soured milk. So, I was considering purchasing a lactobacillus culture and mixing them (similar to fermenting just about anything else). The question is, what lactobacillus species culture to get? Lactobacillus is a pretty huge genus, and I haven't been able to find anything beyond, "lactobacillus." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactobacillus alone lists easily more than 50. And like most critters, a little difference in the strain can have HUGE consequences when consuming them.
What used to be called "soured milk" back then is sold under the name "buttermilk" today (at least in the US), so you don't have to make your own. In other countries, where buttermilk is still buttermilk, chances are you can find commercial soured milk in larger stores.
Lactobacillus acidophilus is probably your best bet. It's a fermentative bacteria, is considered a probiotic, and using it results in a sour milk with an even, palatable flavor. The upside of using acidophilus is that you can buy it from the grocery/drug store in tablet or capsule form. I'm not sure about regional availability, but my local HEB has cold-kept acidophilus culture available for purchase which I have used in the past to make acidophilus cheese by fermenting at relatively high temperatures (though Streptococcus thermophilus is honestly better for making cheese). Alternatively, you can just put a scoop of fresh live-culture yogurt in your milk, which will work just as well.
Keep in mind that the temperature of fermentation will affect the consistency of the finished product. When making acidophilus cheese, I kept the temperature near 100°F for nearly a day. According to this wikiHow article, adding the culture to 115°F to 120°F milk and allowing it to set up for 6 hours will produce yogurt. This leads me to believe that adding the culture to milk at a lower temperature and letting it set up for a shorter time will yield soured milk that isn't thickened to yogurt levels. Since acidophilus doesn't require curing, you can just taste the milk as it sets to determine how sour you want it to get.
Awesome, thank you so much! We make yogurt weekly, so I wasn't sure if the same culture would work. That means I can just use what we literally have sitting in my freezer right now. Thank you!!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.147179 | 2013-01-11T01:29:25 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29971",
"authors": [
"Aethenosity",
"Black Spanish Pope de situatio",
"Matthew",
"Ryan Cori",
"Scott Seidman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69856",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69862",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8339",
"rumtscho",
"t-walt"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
39838 | Small emulsified breakfast sausages in Dutch countries
Halo!
We are in the midst of our honeymoon, and are traveling from Amsterdam to Brugges to Paris. Upon our first breakfast in Amsterdam we were presented with small (about 1.5 to 2 inches in length, about .75 inches in diameter) sausages. They were a regular breakfast item in Amsterdam, and then again in Brugges.
They are very light in both color and flavor. If I had to guess, they contain a mixture of chicken meat and pork fat. The contents are definitely emulsified. They are in natural casings, or at least they certainly were in Amsterdam. As I said, they are served with breakfast. In Amsterdam the sausages were very dense so the casi g would brown and pop open, whereas in Brugges the casing was much less full, which provided a pillowy, soft texture.
Does anyone know what these sausages are called? I'd love to make them for myself when I get back to the US.
I am going to guess that you are likely getting british or irish breakfast sausage. The national dutch sausage, Frikandel, is minced, skinless, and not usually eaten at breakfast. There is a perception amongst the dutch that Americans eat nothing but meat and fat in huge portions.
I did a semester abroad in the Netherlands. For the first few days, the host family fed me eggs and sausages for breakfast. I usually have some toast or cereal for breakfast. So, after a couple days I asked them if this is what they had for breakfast every day. My host mother said, "No, this is what we were told Americans have for breakfast everyday!"
After a chat, they said they were buying British breakfast sausages and eggs for me. Their typical breakfast was a slice of bread, some cheese, and a very strongly flavored liverwurst. My tastes were not as developed back then. After two days of that I asked if there was any other breakfast choices. My host mother bought me suikerbrood. It is a loaf of bread with sugar baked in it. It was delicious! I told them that I enjoyed this new breakfast very much. This caused a lot of chortling for my two host siblings. It turns out that suikerbrood is a small children's breakfast.
Excellent, thank you! I do have to admit that the liverwurst I had in both Holland and the Flemish portion of Belgium was probably the best I've had in my entire life - it was simply incredible.
Also, does the suikerbrodje have a texture that makes it seem like it "melts in your mouth"? Like upon taking a bite, the initial texture of bread is felt, but where your teeth compress it it seems to melt in your mouth? I ask because we had a bread like that, and couldn't get over the strange but wonderful mouthfeel. It was served, you guessed it, at breakfast!
It is a very soft bread that contains lots of butter. It is dotted with sugar cubes (or sometimes sugar nibs). I still make it at home as it is one of my fondest food memories.
I would just like to point out that the Frikadel (or Frikandel, though that used to be a spelling error :)) is not considered a sausage in the Netherlands (or at least by me). Usually it's eaten with French fries or as a quick snack, and you usually only find them in snackbars or frozen in supermarkets. They go nice with beers etc since they're fried. If you really want to taste a good Dutch sausage try a "rookworst". Most people agree that the ones from a HEMA (they're everywhere) are best, but you can also get brand ones (I recommend "unox") from most supermarkets.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.147398 | 2013-11-28T08:37:58 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39838",
"authors": [
"Ben Gardner",
"BigHandsome",
"Bono",
"Matthew",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21831",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93366"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
50027 | Difference between two cleavers - straight back vs curved
Hopefully this is a quick, simple question. What is the effective difference between a traditional cleaver (something like this) and a straight back cleaver (like this)? I can't tell if the curved blade near the front would be helpful or hurt the my normal usage of a cleaver (hacking up carcasses).
I'm not an expert, so I'm not going to answer. I glanced at your pictures and immediately had mental images with each. The straight one makes me think of a full arm swing, clean removal of heads and such. The curved one makes me think a rotating, crunching motion, as in through joints or small bones. Either way...EEEW!
So, as I couldn't find anything online regarding this. I asked the butcher I work with.
He also can't give a definite answer, he does however have a collection, including a cleaver similar to the Curved Front. He recons as the front rarely takes a pounding like the main flat section, it's almost always sharper. As a result if for example he is cleaning the meat off Beef Ribs for mincing. He'd use the front part for slicing down the bone then the main section to chop any bone for other uses (Gravy etc). He does point out it's rare he would do this as he almost always has a boning knife to hand so just uses that, but if in a rush to do something for a customer it's just handy.
Again this is what he uses the front for, not necessarily the intended purpose. A reviewer for that particular knife seems to use the front for cutting pizza... hmm. (here)
That's right. The curved cleaver is really a bastardized hybrid between a proper cleaver (used for cleaving) and a butcher's knife (used for slicing). I really would recommend against it as it's unlikely to do either task well: the curved edge is too short to allow for proper slicing, and the straight edge is too short to provide proper edge pressure across larger bones/product.
Thanks so much, and sorry for taking so long to accept! That makes a lot of sense... basically a tiny bit of extra utility that's only useful in a pinch. Like your buddy, I usually would have a boning knife on hand too whenever I'd be using a cleaver (except, maybe, if I'm using it for chopping BBQ but I have other tools for that).
Sorry before I go on, the cleavers you chose are specifically for butchering and the cutting of bones right? Ok, if this is the case there is a hybrid cleaver which is a very traditional Chinese butchers cleaver. It is made by Chan Chee Ki, or the initial CCK. There are two of them, one called "Big Rhino" and appropriately the other is called "Little Rhino". They are big and scary but are very useful. I want the little one, but as I have way too many knives right now, I don't think I will be getting it anytime soon. Just another option for you. Have fun!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.147684 | 2014-11-23T19:28:14 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50027",
"authors": [
"Barb Bowe",
"Christiana Robert",
"Eric Velasquez",
"John Parsons",
"Jolenealaska",
"Matthew",
"Yi Chen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119617",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8339",
"tohster"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
41581 | To what temperature should you take candied citrus peels?
I have been examining scores of recipes for candied citrus peels and I am unable to find an answer to this question. Most recipes indicate pretty standard candy making instructions; heat sugar/water solution to 230, add orange peels, cook for some amount of time or reduce by some amount.
But that's the part that I'm having a hard time with. Time makes a big difference with candy making. Wouldn't leaving them cook for, say, an hour, produce drastically different results than 30 minutes? Why does there seem to be no recipe out there that uses actual candy making terms for this recipe?
I just need some idea of what temperature to take the sugar solution up to. I'm going to guess firm or hard ball?
@piglet your example recipe only contains cooking times. This will result in highly variable end temperature/sugar concentration, and no way to get consistently good results in different setups. Matthew is asking about the temperature, which is a good indicator of being done, instead of cooking time, which is a very bad indicator.
@piglet Sorry that my comments annoy you. There are two cases in which I cannot stop interacting with your posts. First, there are guidelines for posts here, and my job as a moderator is to remove content which does not fit the rules. I think this is rare in your case now that you have spent some time on the site, but sometimes even the most experienced users forget the exact rules. Second, if you post something which I am convinced to contain misleading facts and therefore mislead other people, I will still point out this, so the others know that the opinion expressed in your (cont.)
(cont.) post is controversial. In both cases, it is part of the Stack Exchange rules that the interest of the thousands of page visitors have a higher priority than the interest of the poster to not feel annoyed. Yes, this leads to pedantic behaviour; this is expected and desired, as in this respect, it is more similar to an academic peer review than to a pleasant conversation between friends. In all other cases (like the one here, for example), I will stop posting comments addressed to you, or interfering with your posts. I am still available for discussions if you start and ask me to join.
I don't think you are looking for a specific temp (i.e.; crack or soft ball stage) after adding the citrus since you have already "contaminated" the syrup. My preferred recipe is from Epicurious.com (http://www.epicurious.com/recipes/food/views/Candied-Citrus-Peel-107434). I have used it twice with great results and am going to be making again very soon for the holidays.
Great answer. I had been wondering why this candy suddenly seemed so flexible in making, while sugar is normally tricky at best. Now it clicked -> Of course, all that natural citrus peel would not obey strict sugar laws and be highly variable!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.147939 | 2014-01-30T03:53:36 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41581",
"authors": [
"Carol",
"David Harrison",
"Layna",
"Ziad El Hachem",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119308",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96954",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96956",
"krry",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
112530 | Why is the nutrition information for these two items so different?
(In the UK)
I have a packet of custard, which has the following ingredients: Maize starch, salt, Flavouring and Colour. The salt content on the nutrition information is 0.17% so I assume that the custard is almost entirely Maize Starch.
Wikipedia tells me that Maize Starch is the same as (in the UK) Cornflour. I have some of that in the cuboard and its nutritional information looks like this:
My question is: why is the nutritional information so different? Where did the Sugars come from? Why is there more protein? What's going on?
You are comparing (100 g of custard made with some of this powder and some milk) to (100g of this powder) -- ignoring the salt, anyway.
The magic words are
As prepared with semi-skimmed milk
That's where the sugars and proteins come from, among other things.
aaaagggh! I CAN'T believe I missed that.
It's incredibly annoying that some UK labels don't give information on the product as sold, so you can't calculate the effect of using it slightly differently - but it happens.
One product is called 'custard powder', the other 'corn flour', at least in the photos shown here.
@Willeke - I'm not seeing your point. We know what the products are; the issue was missing the 'prepared with milk' difference [which I hadn't spotted either].
OP was comparing lemons with oranges, or more likely lemons with lemonade. The names on the packages show that it is not the same product. OP seems to have missed that fact and it is not clear in this answer either.
@Willeke - No-one at any time said it was the same product, merely that one is comprised almost entirely of the other, which is true.
@Willeke it is essentially the same product. Custard powder is almost entirely cornstarch. OP acknowledges this "The salt content on the nutrition information is 0.17% so I assume that the custard is almost entirely Maize Starch" which is correct. The nutritional difference is not because custard powder is different nutritionally from cornstarch but because prepared custard is different nutritionally from cornstarch.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.148193 | 2020-11-08T06:22:57 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112530",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Joe",
"Kate Gregory",
"Tetsujin",
"Willeke",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8801"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
11600 | Why does leftover pizza dough make terrible bread?
I like to make my own pizza dough. Usually I end up with some leftover dough, which I stick in the fridge and then try to make into buns or something for breakfast the next morning. It never turns out very nicely (and I am successful at making bread when that's what I set to do originally). It doesn't seem to brown nicely, and the texture is sometimes a bit strange for what I expect from a bun.
I'm wondering if it's something inherent in the style of dough used for pizza crust or something I'm inadvertently doing with the pizza dough that I wouldn't do with regular dough (maybe using too little, not letting it warm up enough, not enough rising time)?
Here's the dough recipe that I tried this with most recently. So, is pizza dough just too different from bread dough, or is there something I can do to make my leftover dough usable for something other than more pizzas?
Have you tried making a few buns on the same day you make the pizza? I am guessing here, but I think the yeast in the dough might be a little dead after a night in the fridge.
@Henrik - Yeast doesn't die in the cold, it just goes dormant. I do let the dough re-warm to room temperature, but maybe that's not long enough?
Have you ever tried baking the leftover dough immediately? Does it still turn out terrible?
I'd say your problem is that the yeast has exhausted the food in the dough before you even get the leftover dough in the fridge. When you pull it out the next morning, the yeast does nothing or very little because there are no more sugars left for it to eat. And not only will this prevent rising, it will also limit browning because it's at least partly the sugars that brown in the oven.
You could work some more flour (and water, to maintain hydration) into your dough as yeast food--maybe even a little sugar if you want--and then rise/form/rise and bake. But at that point you're doing what @tmow suggests--just using your pizza dough as a starter for new bread.
Would it be more effective to do this the night before, in advance of putting it in the fridge? What is it about the ratio of ingredients in pizza dough that leads it to exhaust the food where bread dough intended for overnight rise doesn't do this? Just wondering what I might be able to tweak that would make my dough good for both purposes.
As to making your new bread with the pizza as a starter, you could start it any time--though a slow rise over night is always nice. I don't think there's anything intrinsic to pizza dough that lets it get exhausted where bread wouldn't. I think the problem is that you've let the dough rise at least once in the making of the pizza, and then you're asking it to rise more when you make bread with it. I imagine that if you took a regular bread and had it rise three or four times you'd find it rose poorly and left you with a dense loaf.
For a normal bread, I'd do one rise in the bowl, and then a second rise when formed. Since I don't do the second rise for pizza dough (I use it after the first rise), the next-morning-bread should only be getting 2 rises total.
It's possible that I'm wrong about the issue, but that's all the answer I've got. Hopefully someone with more bread knowledge will duck in here and help out.
Because of the digestion process of the yeast. If you use biological yeast, you can use this fermented dough as yeast to prepare other pizza or bread.
Some families in Italy (it was our case till some years ago) use the same piece of fermented dough to prepare pizza and bread every week.
EDIT
Yeast fermentation is better achieved when the temperature is around 75 F and 85 F (23 C and 30 C), as you kept the dough in the refrigerator, you probably need to keep the dough in a warmed place so that the yeast is reactivated, you can add a bit of flour and water, knead the dough at least five minutes (and add flour and water if it's needed).
When you are finished leave the dough in a warmed place.
If it still doesn't work maybe your yeast is exhausted (R.I.P.).
If you want to have more information about fermentation I kindly advise you to read to take a look at this article.
I don't understand how the "fermentation" makes for bad bread. It's only overnight in the fridge, and I've made plenty of bread that actually calls for an overnight rest in the fridge. Why is pizza dough different in this respect? Or if it's not, and your subsequent comment seems to suggest that, why isn't it working for me?
@Allison I've updated the answer.
When I think "bun", I think of a soft, possibly buttery roll. It typically uses a softer flour, you cut in butter to get in flakiness, and you might have eggs, milk or sugar in it to promote browning before the middle's gotten too firm.
If I were going to try to use the dough, I'd go for a similar style of bread to the pizza crust -- focaccia, rather than try to make it something it's not. (focaccia typically has oil in the dough, where pizza crust doesn't always, but it should still come out okay as a flatbread)
You might be able to pull off a more rustic "country loaf" type of bread with the dough, but I don't do enough baking to be able to compare what pizza doughs are most similar to. (baking's one of those things that I still refer to recipes every time, I don't have 'em memorized)
As I see it, the recipe you link to differs from the typical whole wheat bread recipe in 2 significant ways:
1) There is no oil or butter in your pizza dough recipe.
2) 1/2 tsp of salt is rather little for 2 cups of flour. Try a teaspoon, or maybe 3/4 tsp to begin with.
Certainly people add butter to make bread more delicious. A pizza covered with melted cheese gets even more of this effect of added fat. And pizza toppings, including the sauce and cheese, are often rather salty. So you may not want to add salt and fat to your pizza dough, even if that helps the bread. What you could do is make rolls with the leftover dough, and before baking brush them with olive oil, and sprinkle on some salt and, optionally, thyme and/or other green herbs.
What is happening to old pizza dough is that the yeast gets exhausted, as several other answers mentioned. But the big advantage of your dough is that it 1) has developed nice tastes through prolonged fermentation, and 2) has unbelievably good gluten formation. More than once, I have left a 85% hydrated AP-flour dough in the fridge for three days. At mixing time, this is barely kneadable even with ice-cold water and some acid. But on the third day of retardation, it behaves great - assumes a round shape on working, does not stick to fingers, etc.
This dough will not rise any more if you just form it and bake it. But you have just invested the time in creating the best pate fermente, so don't waste it. Instead, mix the ingredients for half a batch of the same recipe, and add an equal amount of old dough, warmed to room temperature and cut in small pieces. Knead everything together and treat as normal lean bread dough (first rise, degas, second rise, etc.)
There are two prerequisites here, and one limitation. First prerequisite: your dough was not overyeasted from the beginning. Some quick-rise recipes will use up to 10% fresh yeast. These will produce stinky byproducts during a long retardation. Second prerequisite: you retard your leftover dough (put it in the fridge) as early as possible, the best time is right after mixing. And the limitation: this works best when the new dough is the same type as the old dough, so you will get a lean-ish continental bread out of the new batch (I suppose that this is what you are using for your pizza). I wouldn't try making sandwich bread with old dough.
Usually, pizza dough has a high oil content, where bread dough does not. This is a big difference in texture. The pizza dough is more dense than bread dough so it does not rise nicely like bread does...therefore the bread or rolls made from pizza dough are more dense, tougher, and not what you want in a regular type bread or roll.
There are different styles of pizza doughs and different styles of bread doughs. Both can have lots of oil, a bit of oil, or no oil at all. But practically any pizza dough should give you a good bread (the reverse is not always true). For example, a standard Neapolitan style crust (strong flour, 70% hydration, lean dough) will give you a very good loaf if used on time.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.148402 | 2011-01-29T08:45:54 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11600",
"authors": [
"Allison",
"Henrik Söderlund",
"Marti",
"MrSingh",
"Parrotmaster",
"RLicens",
"bikeboy389",
"codingrose",
"cora",
"georg",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23828",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23842",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23987",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70719",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70768",
"rumtscho",
"ssn",
"tmow"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
11797 | What's the purpose of nutmeg in mashed potatoes and white sauce?
I've seen lots of recipes that call for a pinch of nutmeg in mashed potatoes and in white sauce. It's not very much and just provides a slight elusive flavour. I do enjoy it, but often don't bother with it and I'm just wondering what the purpose of it is?
Is it just a tradition, or does it actually serve some specific purpose?
Is it a little like the ubiquitous teaspoon of vanilla in baking, which is ostensibly to promote other flavours and you usually don't really taste it in the final item?
I think you've answered your own question. It adds an elusive flavor that most people feel enhances the creamy flavors.
Yep, the purpose is simply to taste good. I highly recommend using freshly grated nutmeg, it is much more vibrant and aromatic. Buying the whole nuts is quite inexpensive and they grate very easily on a microplane.
plus one for freshly grated nutmeg.
Yep just there for the wonderful taste. I have never tried it in mash though but nutmeg goes with a lot of savoury or sweet dishes where cream or milk is used. Couldn't agree more with Michael, fresh is best.
Non-freshly grated nutmeg has another name: sawdust. Another flavor that works well in a subtle amount for mashed potatoes is horseradish, which I otherwise have no use for. I was stunned the first time I had it at a great place in Las Vegas that no longer exists.
First answer: Traditional French flavouring that has been carried forward for those traditional French recipes. Kinda like Olive oil being used in Med cooking, dried fruits in desert cooking, fish sauce in Asian. Second Answer: Rounds out the flavours by giving it some depth. Pototo can have a thin watery taste and the nutmeg gives it a low note. Bechamel, if done poorly, will have an uncooked flour taste and the nutmeg covers that up quite nicely.
From a taste point of view, it adds a wonderful warmth and an 'oomph' to potatoes which on their own are a bit ehh.
Rather than being a 'modern' phenomenon, it may have grown out of simple regional practices. Adding nutmeg to potato dishes is quite common in Germany, and from long before the birth of the hipsters. Potato dumplings (Kartoffelkloessel), potato pancakes (Kartoffelpuffer), and mashed potatoes (Kartoffelpuree) are all frequently (okay, usually) made with salt, pepper, and nutmeg.
Anecdotally, my best friend's mother was a WWII German war bride, and it was at her house in 19- (cough) that I was introduced to her family recipes and nutmeg in potatoes.
I always thought of it this way...
Most recipes that you see come from chefs. Chefs want their food to be thought of as great. By putting a spice/flavor that is a little elusive makes you want to take another bite to try to figure it out. Sooner than you realize, your plate has been all eaten, and you feel that because your plate is finished you must have really enjoyed your meal.
That is the same reason that many restaurants have smaller portions.
This seems overly cynical. The addition of a flavor improves the food, whether or not you know what the flavor is. Yes, it gets you to enjoy the food and eat it. That's the point of good cooking.
I agree with @boxed. I think there is an element of conspiracy :)
Most recipes come from cooks - I think it's rather rare for chefs to produce recipes that are actually practical to prepare in a home kitchen.
I feel people go way overboard with nutmeg in savory dishes. It's trendy, it's chic and they do it because they think it's fancy, but it tastes awful. If you can taste the nutmeg, you put too much in. Don't get me wrong, I can coat custard, or any creamy dessert with a quarter inch of the stuff, and savor every bite. Becasue it goews so well with SUGAR!!! Not butter, not salt and pepper, not savory at all. Sorry, pretentious hipsters who think you know how to cook, it just sucks.
You're entitled to your opinion. Many people (including Indians using traditional recipes, the French that have used nutmeg in savory dishes since long before Jacques Pépin, and especially the Greeks) would argue that nutmeg (used judiciously) adds a lovely warm layer of flavor to many savory dishes. Alton Brown would probably get a kick out of being called a "pretentious hipster", but I wouldn't recommend trying to the nutmeg out of his pocket. He's pretty attached to that thing.
Nutmeg in a bechamel significantly predates hipsters.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.149288 | 2011-02-03T19:43:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11797",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Cascabel",
"Chef Flambe",
"Erica",
"Film Laminating Machine spam",
"Jenn",
"Jolenealaska",
"Keneni",
"Kirk Backus",
"Michael Natkin",
"bikeboy389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24269",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94064",
"renegade",
"user24266",
"vwiggins",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
59008 | How to Sous Vide Filet Mignon to Medium Rare
I made my own Sous Vide with a crockpot and an Arduino and would like to cook a Filet Mignon cut to medium rare.
However, a quick google search of '"sous vide" "medium rare" "filet mignon"' shows contradicting results:
This states 130F for steak in general, not Filet Mignon specifically.
This states 130F for Filet Mignon in particular.
This states 133F for Filet Mignon in particular.
This actually gives not only a range, but a range of 130-139! (for Filet Mignon in particular)
This states 130F for Filet Mignon in particular.
This states 131F for Filet Mignon in particular.
This states 134F for Filet Mignon in particular.
This also has the audacity to give a range of 130-139F but hedges it with 131F.
My sous vide can cook at an exact temperature. Which temperature should I cook Filet Mignon to medium rare?
Related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58098/sous-vide-strip-came-out-medium-well-what-did-i-do-wrong?rq=1
Another data point for you from Serious Eats: "For instance, so long as a strip steak does not rise above 130°F (54°C), it will never cook beyond medium-rare". Doesn't mention filet mignon specifically, but recommends 129°F for medium-rare.
130F (approx. 54C) works great. That brings it to the very bottom of the "medium-rare scale", allowing you to sear before presentation without overcooking.
Although, I have to tell you, filet mignon is kind of a waste with sous vide. Not that it won't be great, but a much less expensive cut can be cooked at that temperature much longer and give you amazingly tender results.
The minimum time for a medium-rare filet would be just as long as it takes for the whole steak to reach 130F (half an hour or 45 minutes, depending on the thickness of the steak). Of course you can cook it longer, that's one of the beauties of sous vide, but that won't make it any better.
You can spend a whole bunch less money and get chuck (shoulder) and slice it into steaks. Sous vide it for two days at 130F, and that makes a steak almost as tender as filet, yet more flavorful.
That is my very first chuck steak cooked at 131F for two days, then seared. I used a NASA hot cast-iron pan for the searing, so 1°F less will give you a little bit more time to sear without risking overcooking your filet (which would be really tragic!).
Key Point: As Jefromi says in his answer, medium-rare is a scale. If you do 130F this time, consider carefully as you eat. Is the temperature absolutely perfect for you? Keep track of the temperatures you use every time you sous vide and your impressions at that temperature. Once you know what temperatures are perfect for you, sous vide allows you to duplicate perfection perfectly.
I +1'ed this answer because I drooled when I looked at it.
I am confused on how long to actually cook something, 45 minutes, or 2 days?
You said "The minimum time for a medium-rare filet would be just as long as it takes for the whole steak to reach 130F (half an hour or 45 minutes, depending on the thickness of the steak). Of course you can cook it longer, that's one of the beauties of sous vide, but that won't make it any better."
But then you said "Sous vide it for two days at 130F, and that makes a steak almost as tender as filet, yet more flavorful."
@AnthonyWebb Tougher cuts (like chuck) need more time to become tender because the connective tissue (the stuff that makes chuck tough but flavorful) needs time to break down. Filet is actually one of my least favorite cuts because it doesn't have any.
You're finding a range of answers because there is a range of answers.
Medium rare is not a precisely defined term. Asking for a temperature down to the degree for is kind of like asking how much a pinch of salt should weigh, to the tenth of a gram.
Even if you assume everyone agrees on a single definition, it'll still be a range. We have just a handful of terms for steak doneness, and they have to cover the entire temperature range from rare to well done, so each term naturally covers a range of temperatures. We don't have separate terms for ten gradations of medium rare. You could if you wish take the middle temperature of that medium rare range as a canonical one, but it's not really meaningful, except in that it's likely everyone will agree it's medium rare, even though their exact notions might vary.
So I wouldn't say those temperatures you've found are conflicting. They merely show a bit of variance in people's preferences or definitions. And they're really not very far off; it's likely that any of those temperatures would result in a steak most people would call medium rare.
The real question is how you like your steak. Most likely you're not picky enough to even care about the difference between 131 and 132, but if you are, you're going to have to find out by trying. Your personal definition of perfectly medium rare is unlikely to match up precisely with everyone else's. But once you do find it, your sous vide will let you replicate it time after time.
The principle of binary search suggests you should plan on eating at least 3 steaks to find your preference. Oh no!
I completely agree with recommendations by Jefromi and Jolenealaska. "Medium rare" is not an exact science, and everyone's individual preferences will vary a bit.
Also, keep in mind that 1-degree precision is arbitrary. You say your sous vide device can cook at an "exact temperature," but what does "exact" mean? Surely, I think most of us would agree that if you had a sous vide device that was accurate to within a 1/1000th of a degree, that would be overkill. The difference between a steak cooked at 131.487 and 131.488 degrees would be insignificant. Similarly, how many recipes do you see to bake a cake at precisely 337 degrees F, even if most digital ovens these days would accept such a temperature? (Yes, oven thermostats allow significant temp variation, but that variation would be different when set at 330 degrees vs. 337 vs. 350.) Just because you can choose 131 over 132 doesn't mean it's always going to be significant in results.
Precision needs to be appropriate to the task at hand. And the reality is that steaks are not produced to "laboratory precision." Depending on the source of your steak, the breed of cattle, the type of feed, the amount of exercise the animal received, the age at slaughter, how much marbled fat is present (though this is less important on filets usually), any aging of the meat after slaughter, other processing and storage conditions, etc., etc., your steaks will have minor differences that will respond differently to cooking. You may experiment with one batch and find that you prefer steaks cooked to 132 rather than 133, but you might buy a different batch of steaks and find they are better at 130.
Anyhow, beyond this, I think the more important factor is to tailor your cooking to the rest of your technique. Longer cooking will break the meat down more and soften it. With a tender cut like filet, this is not that necessary, but it will likely make more of a difference in a final product if you cook your filet for 4 hours vs. 30 minutes than if you heat it to 132 vs. 131.
And then there is the searing technique. If you are searing after the water bath, what equipment are you using? A blowtorch will heat most rapidly and probably create browning with the least internal rise in temperature. A thick heavy pan will also work, but how hot are you preheating it? If you're using a grill, how hot is it? And how thick are the steaks -- a thin steak can't absorb much excess heat during searing before heating the interior significantly (and perhaps above "medium rare"); a thick steak might be able to take a little more without changing as significantly internally.
All of these are much bigger factors than choosing 132 vs. 131 or whatever. One searing technique might cause the interior to rise by 10 degrees or more (so you might want to just sous vide to 125 or something); another might barely have it budge by a couple degrees with a thick steak.
As Jefromi said, you just need to experiment and see what works for you, your particular steaks, and your particular cooking techniques. Pick one of these numbers and go with it. If you don't like it, change it. Keep track of what works.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.149777 | 2015-07-12T06:13:25 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59008",
"authors": [
"Adrian Woolf",
"Anthony Webb",
"Brenda VanTravis",
"Debbie Kay",
"James Miller",
"Jason P Sallinger",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kabo Motswiri",
"Kim Mayer",
"Linda Jean",
"Nita Bombach",
"Rick",
"Sheffie Surber",
"Steve Jessop",
"Tracy M",
"Vicki Durston",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140897",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140899",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140900",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140902",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160701",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"judie dowler"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
44638 | Is there a substitute for port wine in a dessert risotto?
I am looking for a substitute for port wine in a "dessert risotto" that I would like to make. It's not that I'm worried about the alcohol (I would actually prefer to use the port), I just can't purchase alcohol since I'm under 21 and living in the US.
Since context is everything, here is the recipe for the Port Raspberries & Cream Risotto I plan to cook. .
Again, I am unable to purchase alcohol (except for cooking wines), so please do not suggest alcoholic alternatives.
Please do not use a cooking wine. Those are awful. Pick a juice, any juice. I'd say cranberry. You probably don't want anything too sweet.
In equal proportions, I presume?
Yep. It should work fine.
The best nonalcoholic substitution that I can think of for a ruby-style port would be pomegranate or black cherry juice, something not from concentrate. The POM brand is readily available, at least in my local market.
You may want to thicken this a little to help mimic the silky texture of a port. I'd recommend starting with about 12 liquid oz, bringing it up to a bare simmer in an open saucepan, and reducing down to the required 8 ounces. If you want to get even closer in flavor... maybe grate in a little nutmeg and dark chocolate, either in the reducing juice or into the final risotto.
Tawny port (though I doubt this is what the recipe is looking for) would be tougher, but might be replicable with a little experimentation.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.150360 | 2014-06-04T20:05:58 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44638",
"authors": [
"AOS Outdoor Kitchen Limited",
"AdamAL",
"Angie",
"ChemSupply Australia",
"Christy",
"JackJackAttack0214",
"Jolenealaska",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104978",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104981",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104982",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104998",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25288",
"riannah locklear Lumbee Beauty",
"wlyles"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
75138 | Missing recipe name and method
I have a list of ingredients but no recipe name or method - does anyone know what it may be?
The ingredients are:
200ml strong coffee
1 Tabs Demerara sugar
75g plain chocolate
Also listed separately:
100g white chocolate
4 eggs separated
75g caster sugar
500g mascarpone cheese
I guess you must have to mix the two lots together and then combine but I'm just not sure how and what it makes! Sounds good though.
I did wonder this but as you observed no sponge fingers list or cocoa powder. Just reading through again I'm wondering if it could even be for a cheesecake - but then no biscuit base mentioned.
Hi Lyco, here on Stack Exchange, you can comment on each post separately - this seems to go to my answer, not to your question. Anyway, I'll answer here. You can surely fill a no-bake cheesecake with whatever you like, but then you have no use for the moccha. You cannot mix them together, because it will get way too liquid. Also, mascarpone is not that common in cheesecakes and it is the traditional main ingredient in tiramisu. The combination of mascarpone-based cream and the coffee based liquid is quite distinctive.
I presume the demerara is a tablespooon (Tbs) and that "Tabs" is a typo. But the sugar content of plain chocolate varies by much more than this (anywhere from 40% to >90%) so the added sugar in part 1 is almost irrelevant to the overall flavour. That makes me suspicious of further transcription errors.
Absent the cake portion, the ingredients are precisely as listed for the Waitrose white and dark chocolate tiramisu
I think @Dorothy has got it. Maybe someone was modifying the recipe to use ready-made cake so omitted the middle section. (I've seen recipes using madeira cake for example)
@ChrisH since we don't do recipes, shall I just leave it as a comment with the link?
@Dorothy, I'd answer if I were you. While we don't do recipe requests, if the answer turns out to be a recipe it deserves to be accepted (and voted up)
Dorothy has the answer. This isn't a list of ingredients, it's two separate lists of ingredients for two parts of a three-part recipe.
Absent the cake portion, the ingredients are precisely as listed for the Waitrose White and Dark Chocolate Tiramisu. Recipe and image courtesy of Waitrose.com
As @ChrisH has suggested, someone may have been modifying the recipe to use ready-made cake, such as a Madeira.
Coffee chocolate syrup
200ml strong coffee
1 tbsp demerara sugar
75g plain chocolate, finely chopped
Cake
125g unsalted butter, softened, plus extra for greasing
225g caster sugar
2 large eggs, lightly beaten
1 tsp vanilla extract
75g plain chocolate, melted
175g essential Waitrose plain flour
25g cocoa powder
1 tsp bicarbonate of soda
200ml essential Waitrose soured cream
Mascarpone and chocolate cream
100g white chocolate, chopped
4 large eggs, separated
75g caster sugar
500g mascarpone
And, in the interest of not presenting a full recipe, here is my abridged version of the directions; follow the link for the full details.
Prepare the cake layers the day before you plan to assemble the tiramisu.
The next day, prepare the coffee syrup. Pour the hot coffee into a bowl, add the sugar and chopped chocolate and stir until smooth and the chocolate has completely melted.
Prepare the mascarpone cream. Melt the white chocolate in a bowl over a pan of simmering water. Stir until smooth, then set aside to cool slightly. In a bowl, whisk the egg yolks and caster sugar until the mixture has doubled in volume and leaves a ribbon trail when the whisk is lifted. Add the mascarpone and melted white chocolate and whisk again until smooth. In another bowl, whisk the egg whites with a pinch of salt until they hold a stiff peak. Fold the egg whites into the mascarpone mixture using a large metal spoon.
To assemble the tiramisu, spoon a layer of the mascarpone cream into the bottom of each of glass and top with a layer of cake. Drizzle liberally with the coffee syrup. Add another layer of the cream, cake, syrup and a final layer of cream. Serve chilled, perhaps scattered with white and dark chocolate shavings.
Mixing them together would give you a sauce (if incorporated properly first). It could be an interesting new thing if you need it, but I can't imagine that many places to use it.
For me, this is clearly intended as a Tiramisu recipe, slightly non-traditional. Somebody left out the lady fingers. You mix the first ingredients to make moccha, then pour it over the lady fingers.
For the cream, there are two possibilities. One is to use all ingredients. Beat the yolks with the sugar to ribbons, add the mascarpone, then slowly add the just-melted chocolate. Fold in the eggwhites beaten to soft peaks. Put over the ladyfingers, and when hardened in the fridge, sift cocoa powder over it.
While this is more likely, I don't see cocoa powder in the ingredients either. Also, so much cocoa might be so strong as to dominate the subtle taste of white chocolate. So you could make the same cream, leaving out the melted chocolate. Then, when the tiramisu has set, cover with grated white chocolate. This is also easier to make, if you are not experienced making creams and working with melted chocolate.
Update I made the recipe yesterday, now it has set after a night in the fridge. I put 90 g of the cream in an ice cream cup, and poured 30 g of the coffee mixture on it. Then I layered the rest as a normal mascarpone, using storebought lady fingers.
The version in the bowl could have used improvement. Some of the liquid found a way to flow to the bottom of the cup. The rest of it stayed on top, where it made a not-so-appetizing surface, slightly seeping into the cream. It did harden in the end, but it is not something a master pattisier would have made. If you insist on using it this way, you should do something else. For example, you could make a ganache by using 200 g of chocolate and 75 g of coffee, instead of the other way round. You can throw in a bit of instant coffee if you want a stronger taste.
The tiramisu looks like a standard tiramisu. It layered well, the amount of liquid was just enough to soak two layers of ladyfingers. All in all, it seems like a good recipe. I have not eaten it yet, but I am certain it will taste delicious.
It looks like it could be a variation of this recipe for White Chocolate Mascarpone Cream from Great British Chefs :
50g of white chocolate, (I used Godiva white chocolate pearls)
2 eggs, yolks and white separated
100g of caster sugar
1 vanilla pod
250g of mascarpone cream cheese
150g of dark chocolate, (I used Godiva dark chocolate pearls)
Melt the white chocolate in a bain-marie then set aside to cool slightly. Beat the egg yolks together with the caster sugar and the scraped seeds from the vanilla pod for a few minutes until pale and creamy
Add in the mascarpone cheese and then pour in the cooled melted white chocolate. Stir until smooth and well combined
In a separate, very clean bowl, whisk the egg whites until stiff. Fold the egg whites into the mascarpone and egg mixture and spoon into serving glasses; four or six, depending on indulgence levels. Chill for at least 1 hour
Just before serving melt the dark chocolate in a bain-marie and drizzle a little over each dessert and serve immediately
I'm thinking that that the coffee and sugar would be mixed with the melted dark chocolate for the last step of the recipe.
EDIT: You would probably need to halve the coffee, sugar, and dark chocolate if you were to use the amounts in this recipe for the cream portion. It may be up to some experimenting to get the final result to your liking.
good guess, but look at the amounts. If you pour almost 300 g of coffee over not quite 900 g of cream, you won't have a cream with a few streaks of chocolate on top, you will have a portion of moccha sloshing above a portion of cream, slowly dissolving into a soup.
@rumtscho His ingredient amount would make roughly twice as much of the cream portion as this recipe does. I should have noted that he would need to halve that part of the recipe.
I was calculating with his numbers, not yours. 500 g mascarpone + 200 g eggs + 100 g chocolate + 75 g sugar is 875 g cream. 200 ml coffee + 75 g chocolate + a bit of sugar is about 300 g liquid. Imagine filling that glass in the picture to 3/4 and pouring slightly thickened coffee over it until it is ifull. The only thing that will work is if you add gelatine or a similar thickener, but it is much weirder that this would be missing, instead of having the lady fingers of tiramisu missing.
@rumtscho Yes, you were. Missed that. And I don't disagree with your idea. However, the way the ingredients are broken up suggests to me that it may be some variation of this cream dessert. As we don't know what the recipe is for, any answer is a guess.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.150529 | 2016-10-31T09:09:11 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75138",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Cindy",
"Giorgio",
"Lyco",
"barbecue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51604",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
54955 | Is a jug of milk left out for 12 hours at room temperature safe to drink?
I left milk out in a jug, bought brand new, for twelve hours. Is it still safe to drink?
Why would you risk food poisoning for $3.50?
You can save it for baking/cooking, but I wouldn't drink it. Milk is pretty close to broth when it comes to pathogen friendliness.
Although probably not classed as safe however I quite often, through sheer laziness, leave milk on my counter at home all day (I drink a lot of coffee) and I've not been ill yet..
Doctors quite often (but not always) survive ebola epidemics. Does that mean it isn't serious enough to warrant caution?
@rfusca, won't you be fine after toilet?
Dairy is something of a special case because the natural bacteria in dairy products will tend to outcompete any interlopers...In short you're more likely to end up with a kind of redneck buttermilk (from the action of natural Lactococcus lactis or Lactobacillus bulgaricus) than something that is toxic to you. So unless the milk was already contaminated with something not normally native to dairy, you should be fine. The taste will likely have gone substantially off though.
Note: we are assuming that the milk was pasteurized. Raw milk is prone to contamination with things like listeria and e. coli, and those would certainly cause you some upset.
Contamination also tends to occur after the seal on the milk has been broken. Which might mitigate the chance of contamination, but even so, 12 hours is pushing it quite far.
that being said, and I make yogurt and sour cream when I feel like it, when that process does grow the wrong culture(s), it can make you really ill. I had a yogurt culture I kept going for months, and one time I guess my hygene wasn't perfect and the yogurt made me painfully ill (at least I believe it was the yogurt).
@zibbobz: The thing is, whatever gets into it is going to be fighting the regular milk bacteria for resources, and the milk stuff is going to have a HUGE head start. You'd have to have a significant colony that is proportionate to the milk stuff.
@escoce: People pass those yoghurt cultures on for years...Sounds like something got into your batch. Fungus is a pretty solid culprit.
@Satanicpuppy - Yes I think I said as much.
I'm not sure I understand this answer. You say you are assuming the milk is pasteurized. But if the milk is pasteurized, that process will have killed off the "natural bacteria in dairy products." Bad bacteria (e.g., Listeria) will grow faster in pasteurized milk rather than raw milk partly because it is lacking those "natural bacteria" you mention. On the other hand, as you point out, raw milk is more likely to be contaminated in the first place. But if anything bad is in pasteurized milk (which sometimes happens, which is why we refrigerate it), it will generally grow faster.
@athanasius: UHT does a decent job of killing off most of the milk bacterias...Nothing else does. If your milk gets chunky and gets that "rotten milk" smell, that's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactobacillus
Yes, "normal" pasteurization doesn't sterilize, but it certainly reduces milk bacteria population. Bad bacteria thus grow faster without as many natural bacteria as would occur in raw milk. Studies generally indicate that somewhere around 0.5-1% of pasteurized milk samples are "contaminated" (probably after pasteurization) with bad things like Listeria, and they will grow much faster at room temperature and could cause illness. Raw milk samples have a much higher incidence of contamination (over 10%), but your Lacto competition argument is more relevant there.
I would...with milk you generally can tell the moment it comes near your nose or touches your tongue whether it's gone bad or not.
That doesn't mean I would serve it to others, that's risking someone else's health.
You should NEVER, EVER have to rely on taste or smell to determine if something has gone bad. This is dangerous advice. Asking someone to use their olfactory senses to test for spoiled milk is a very risky path.
@thinlyveiledquestionmark - nuts. What else should one rely on, if not an "expert" on the produce in question? Course you can fail pretty badly, but IMHO in the case of whole cow milk I think it's a pretty good advice. (And certainly better than blindly relying on any best before dates.)
@Martin The entire point is that your nose is not an expert. There are all kinds of dangerous bacteria that produce nothing at all that you can smell. So as you say, you can fail pretty badly - and in the world of food safety that means you can get really sick.
As I said, I would drink it, but not serve it to others.
This is entirely the reason why we have expiration dates to let us know when to throw out milk and when to keep it. This is why we have warnings on how long you should keep milk outside without proper refrigeration. All of these precautions are so that the user can know when milk is safe or not.
Those are sell by dates...
Ancient discussion, but... I'm with Escoce on this one. Milk's one of the more delicate things you buy at the store, and not all milk is shipped or stored identically, making sell-by dates and guidelines pretty unhelpful, I've opened "fresh milk" that I couldn't drink. I also had a quart of milk that went sour in 45 minutes as I was drinking it. Once milk is open, especially, the amount of time it's safe to drink is a crap-shoot based on environment, and your nose/tastebuds are the best judge at that point. Guidelines don't know where you live or how often you ferment things on purpose.
Equating soured milk due to holes packaging and mistakes in manufacturing to milk that has been sitting out for hours is not an equivalent comparison.
This column is advice for the general public, not for your brother or your child. As such, we should be erring on the side of caution and safety. This answer is not.
@yuritsuki this advice is unethical and wrong. First of all, if something tastes bad, you should't eat it, even if the label says it's not expired. Second, nothing spoils on the date of expiry, those dates are set s.t. 99.999% of all products aren't spoiled at this point, many products keep for much, much longer. Third, your body has evolved to notice spoilt food for millions of years. Depending on the type of food, it's really good at it. Your philosophy results in a lot of uneccesary food waste.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.151159 | 2015-02-20T14:25:06 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54955",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Cascabel",
"Cindy Wood",
"David Stern",
"Doug",
"Escoce",
"Ishgun Kaur",
"Jan Marcoccia",
"LabGecko",
"Martin",
"Mr. Mascaro",
"Nearoo",
"Pacerier",
"Robert Jones",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Sun shine Baby",
"Zibbobz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130523",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130526",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130529",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130560",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27095",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97622",
"kitukwfyer",
"rashid ebrahim",
"rfusca",
"tim steadman",
"yuritsuki"
],
"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
} |
22714 | Safety of coffee in thermal flask, long periods of time
How long is it safe to hold coffee in a thermal flask? Is coffee (prepared in a cezve, Turkish method, no sugar) carried in a thermal flask for 24 or 48 hours still safe?
I'm asking because black tea, for example, goes really bad in just a few hours.
What do you mean, "really bad"? There is a difference between unsafe (bacteria/mold growth) and bad taste. If you don't have put sugar or milk in your black tea, it is safe for a lot longer than a few hours. It may taste bad, but this is a different problem.
By «really bad» I mean unacceptable for consumption, because either of: repulsive taste, unpleasant sensations in stomach, toxicity. AFAIK stale tea that went cloudy is all three.
Coffee in a container is approximately as safe as boiled water in a container. While it may be unpleasant tasting, the water in coffee and tea is almost universally boiled, and the scalding liquid is placed directly on the grounds/tea leaves. There is a little nutritional value in coffee and tea extracts, providing some support for new microbes introduced after the boiling, but not much.
There is no reason to be wary of coffee kept in a clean, sealed container for a day.
All this provided that is plain coffee or tea. Adding sugar and/or milk changes a lot.
This is true, but the question specified how the coffee was prepared explicitly enough that I didn't think the caveat necessary.
While it is perfectly safe, I suggest you shake it up a lot before drinking. It also may not be very tasty, sorry to say, after sitting for 24 hours.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.151781 | 2012-04-02T08:28:32 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22714",
"authors": [
"Ellen",
"Jacek Konieczny",
"Mirella",
"Mischa Arefiev",
"Myrddin Emrys",
"chx",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51193",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8486",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
43834 | Storage of Pecorino cheese — is room temperature ok?
Is it permissible to store and transport an intact wheel of Pecorino cheese at room temperature for 2 or 3 days before putting it back into refrigeration?
possible duplicate of At which temperature Parmesan cheese must be transported?
I don't think it's a dupe. Since Parmesan and Pecorino are both hard cheeses, the answers to the questions are similar, but I wouldn't assume that everybody knows that they're basically the same as far as storage.
Parmesan and Pecorino are made of different kinds of milk (cow and sheep respectively), so I posted a new question in case storage procedures for products from sheep milk differ from cow milk products.
Nice save there, buddy! ;)
@Jolenealaska The definition of a dup is that the answers are the same, even if the asker didn't know it. I didn't make up that rule. See for example the turkey stock question closed as a dup for chicken stock. http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37354/chicken-stock-gelatinous
If the wheel is intact, 2 or 3 days at room temperature will be fine. Hard cheeses like that are aged at temperatures not far below normal room temperature. If the wheel were cut, if the temperature got above room temperature or if you were asking about a longer period of time, I might be slightly concerned. But in your situation, your cheese will be fine. On the off chance that it develops some mold, cut the mold away with at least a one inch buffer.
Thank you! Does the hard cheese require a sealed bag, or is a non-airtight plastic bag OK?
A still intact wheel? non-airtight is fine.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.151954 | 2014-05-02T11:35:34 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43834",
"authors": [
"Airicas",
"Billie Jay Hensley",
"Harrison Barnes",
"Jolenealaska",
"Mischa Arefiev",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Schmuck281",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102844",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102847",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102849",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8486"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
24373 | Which type of chilli peppers for which cuisine?
Indian food typically calls for chilli powder, what I believe is called cayenne pepper in other parts of the world.
Preferring spicier flavors, I find myself adding a pinch of this to other dishes even when the recipe doesn't particularly call for it, but I find that it throws the flavor off and adds a Indian touch to it.
What type of peppers would suit other cuisines? Specifically mexican, italian and chinese? What peppers should I choose to marry well with the inherent palates of these cuisines?
Each variety of chile has a subtly different flavor, but generally the kind to use is determined by how spicy you want the dish to be; spicier dishes need hotter peppers, otherwise you end up with a dish dominated by the peppers. For this reason, most people sort chiles by their spiciness, measured in Scoville Heat Units (SHU). The exact same papers can be used for Mexican and Indian cooking, as long as you want similar spiciness.
To give options, I like to keep 3 kinds of dried peppers: a mild paprika, a standard hot pepper, and a ground, smoked one. The sweet paprika is for savor, the hot pepper to add spiciness, and ground, smoked peppers bring that distinctive smoky flavor to dishes. I usually use de Arbol pepper flakes (about 30k SHU) to add heat, and smoked hot paprika for smoked stuff. When I have a dish that showcases the flavor of a specific pepper, it's time to get fresh ones from the store.
For general purpose cooking, many people use mild paprika to add sweet, smoky flavors to Italian, French, Spanish, and Balkan cuisines. Generally these are of the Capsicum annuum species.
Indian, Szechuan Chinese, and Central American cuisine normally use moderately hot peppers, in the 10-30k SHU heat range. Cayenne, tabasco, and de Arbol peppers are good examples. Thailand (and some parts of India) use very hot peppers up to 100k Scoville, called Bird's Eye or Thai chiles. These peppers may be either Capsicum annuum (normally milder) or Capsicum frutescens (normally hotter).
Finally, Mexico and northeastern India use the hottest peppers of the Capsicum chinense species, including habaneros and the naga jolokia, which go from 100k SHU to 750k SHU.
Mexico is a special case, because many varieties of pepper are mixed to get the desired flavor. Everything from bell peppers to habaneros gets regular use, and may be used smoked or dried.
the last paragraph was what I was looking for. thanks :)
C. annuum up to 100k Scoville?! What cultivar is that?
@Peter Taylor: Texas Chiltepin. Generally C. annum is milder, of course. Very few get anywhere close the 100k figure, but some do get over 30k SHU. Sources: wikipedia pepper list,SHU scale
@Dharini Chandrasekaran: The last paragraph is now the second paragraph, to make the answer a little more helpful.
I also like to categorize by fruitiness vrs smokiness. Northern desert cuisines (Rajastan or Sonora) wouldn't use Habanero/scotchbonnet/Chinese Lantern
@PatSommer: I like to categorize by sweetness/fruitiness too, and I seriously considered adding this to the answer. Chinense peppers, such as habanero, definitely impart a distinctive fruity flavor in bulk. In the end, I decided that it probably wasn't helpful for 95% of people, since most people just use peppers to add spiciness. Plus then I'd have to include an exhaustive list of peppers, and there are just too many. I think the cuisines you mention fall under the category of "showcase the flavor of a specific pepper" where it's time to "get fresh ones from the store."
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.152121 | 2012-06-12T00:41:07 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24373",
"authors": [
"Adele Funz",
"BobMcGee",
"Cortex",
"Dale",
"Dharini Chandrasekaran",
"MarLo",
"Nicolas Hemelsoet",
"Pat Sommer",
"Peter Taylor",
"Tilsath",
"ZilWerks",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55480",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55520",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9262",
"stirstick"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
29051 | Brown Blob in natural maple syrup?
I was pouring out my natural maple syrup today and found gelatinous dark brown blob in it. This syrup was stored in the refrigerator in a large plastic bottle. It is not past date on the bottle. Once I pulled this blob out it would not rinse down through my sink strainer very well. What is this blob and is my syrup still good?
Maple syrup can develop a skin of mold but a number of afficianados suggest removing the mold then reboiling the syrup and then continuing to use the syrup:
Chowhound.com maple syrup mold growth discussion
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.152406 | 2012-12-09T19:53:16 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29051",
"authors": [
"DJ Collins",
"Devin Rhode",
"Hillary",
"N. Carroll",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67300",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67310"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
75882 | What counts as "anaerobic" re: botulism?
I've always heard that C. botulinum needs an "anaerobic" environment to grow. But what exactly counts as that?
Presumably stuff like sous vide bags. Or oil (like in herbs under oil). Seems fairly clear.
But then I read this in a 2011 Harold McGee column (http://www.curiouscook.com/site/2011/08/bending-the-rules-on-bacteria-new-york-times.html):
One such spore-forming bacterium is Clostridium botulinum, which can
grow in the oxygen-poor depths of a stockpot, and whose neurotoxin
causes botulism.
So what other not-obviously-anaerobic environments can C. botulinum live in? The center of a casserole? In the middle of an hunk of solid meat or plant?
Anaerobic simply means "absence of air."
Any liquid food environment basically counts as "anaerobic." Yes, there may be some dissolved gases and exchange of air may happen near the surface of a liquid like water, but deeper in an undisturbed liquid, there's often not enough air to prevent botulism growth. Some basically "solid" foods count too, if they aren't porous or are highly viscous (but apparent solids) and contain a high enough moisture content for bacteria to grow and spread. Any solids that are relatively moist and close-packed are also a particular problem (think sausages).
Whether all of these anaerobic environments will grow botulism then depends on various other factors. Botulism bacteria need food. They dislike acidity or excess salt (think pickles) or excess sugar (think preserves) or alcohol (think fermentation), which are all traditional preservation methods. They need a certain level of water -- hence why drying was also a traditional preservation method and why solid hunks of stuff are less likely to cause problems (unless they have sufficient internal moisture). Also, oil-rich environments lack water and may not grow botulism (think mayonnaise) but water-containing food within oil can (think garlic or herbs in oil).
All of these may be "anaerobic" environments, but the other factors can prevent botulism.
Lastly, you have things like temperature -- chilling will slow botulism growth to a crawl and at low temperatures stop it completely. That's the last traditional preservation method: chilling or freezing.
Basically, anything under liquid left at room temperature for extended periods could conceivably grow botulism bacteria, assuming adequate "food" (for the bacteria) is present and none of the "preserving" environmental conditions mentioned above. Note the "extended periods" -- compared to other food poisoning bacteria, botulism grows more slowly and generally needs at least a couple days to grow to appreciable levels. And that's why any type of canning recipes, etc. from official organizations are rigorously tested with exact measurements for preservation agents (like acid, salt, etc.), unless they undergo a "pressure canning" step that heats the food hot enough to actually kill botulism spores (which will survive boiling). Similarly, preserved meats (especially processed ground ones) that can remain at room temperature need to be treated with excessive salt for long periods (sometimes acid as well), and often other agents (like nitrates or nitrites) to inhibit botulism growth.
So yes, as Harold McGee mentions, stock left at room temperature for a few days can definitely grow botulism bacteria. A casserole left at room temperature for a few days could likely grow them too. Meat left at room temperature can definitely grow botulism, which is actually one of the biggest problems for actual cases of botulism after canning -- improperly preserved meat not kept under refrigeration.
"Solid" meat and vegetables are less likely to have botulism bacteria far in their interior in the first place (and often aren't "wet" enough for the bacteria to spread far), but if they become contaminated, they can be a problem too. For example: baked potatoes stored in foil and kept at room temperature have been known to be a cause, as have pickled eggs that were pricked before pickling (thus inadvertently introducing botulism bacteria into the otherwise sterile yolk).
To quote the FDA:
Botulinal toxin has been demonstrated in a considerable variety of
foods, such as canned corn, peppers, green beans, soups, beets,
asparagus, mushrooms, ripe olives, spinach, tuna fish, chicken and
chicken livers and liver pate, and luncheon meats, ham, sausage,
stuffed eggplant, lobster, and smoked and salted fish.
So cooked foods that sit at room temperature for several hours may well give you food poisoning from other things, but probably not much of a botulism risk because there's simply not enough time for it to really develop?
@QuantumMechanic: basically, yes. Most foods are more likely to spoil in several different ways and smell awful (making them inedible) before they are likely to have enough bacteria growth to cause botulism. Also, many foods will contain some acidity or salt or residual oxygen, which will slow down the growth even more. Botulism cases are exceptionally rare, even with poor procedures, and it usually takes specific types of environments (improperly canned foods, sausages without preservatives kept at room temp, improperly smoked seafood, etc.) to get enough growth before spoilage.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.152492 | 2016-11-26T04:07:21 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75882",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"QuantumMechanic",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5755"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
32136 | Sous Vide without vacuum. What liquid should be used?
I'm new to sous-vide and I am trying to figure out how to do it without vacuum. I've seen how other people have done it with oil to displace the air in the bag. But is this the best liquid to use? This is for pork. I am concerned the oil might change the flavor of the meat and was wondering if there is any other liquid I can use.
If you look here, at the last paragraph of Yossarian's answer, he gives you a fairly easy way of removing the air from a plastic bag without a vacuum.
Put your food in the bag and then submerge the bag in water just to the zip. The pressure will expel all the air. Then zip the bag up as you pull the closed portion underwater. This gets results comparable with a home vacuum sealer, I think, with the added benefit that you can include liquids easily.
While I wouldn't consider myself an expert on this topic, I wouldn't fill the bag with anything you wouldn't want to marinate your meat in.
Thanks, without any liquid, it wouldn't displace the air as much especially if the food is solid irregular shaped. But I agree I wouldn't use anything I wouldn't marinate with.
i would stick to the method described above. Adding liquids or oil to the bag may be nice for certain applications but IMO it's a waste of oil and water/other liquids may alter the food in undesirable ways (i.e. salt content, diluting flavors). The word sous vide or under vacuum is kind of misleading. It generally means cooking in the absence of air which this method above accomplishes, even my chamber vac doesn't evacuate all the air. You just need to remove enough to allow the food to be submerged and be in as much contact with the water as possible.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.152840 | 2013-02-22T19:25:20 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32136",
"authors": [
"Ariston",
"Brendan",
"Gene Monaco",
"MSC02476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73956",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73957",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73961",
"pixelfreak",
"tellis",
"user7298403"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
32061 | Are all pork in supermarket previously frozen? Where can I get fresh ones?
Are all pork in supermarket previously frozen? Where can I get fresh ones? Is there a way to easily tell visually if a meat has been previously frozen?
this is really 3 questions. The first two depend hugely on where you live. The second one is far too broad and is probably off topic as a shopping question. The last one, how to determine if you're being offered meat that was previously frozen, might be ok but it would be good to expand it a little. I recommend editing your question to focus on that.
Try to find a local butcher. They can sell you never-frozen meat, and may carry different breeds of pig than your supermarket does. (Comparing pork from a butcher and pork from a supermarket is more practical than discussing hypothetical pork anyway.) I find the difference (and the value of my butcher) higher for pork than any other meat the supermarket carries. (The butcher also sells goat, duck, and other things I can't get at the supermarket.) Of course, depending on where you live you may not be able to find a butcher, or the difference from the supermarket may be stronger or weaker than it is where I live.
A tip: the cool trendy new butchers are on the Internet. I follow mine on Twitter to be the first to know when specific products are available. A good butcher drowns you in information about the product: not just whether it was frozen, but the breed, what it ate, exactly where the farm is, the farmer's children's names - they want to tell you all this if you want to know it. Mine gives me brochures from the farm with pictures of the fields and buildings and people.
Tip 2: my butcher's prices are roughly double the supermarket's. I just buy half as much: we 're happier eating half a delicious steak or chop than a whole boring one. We were probably eating overly large portions before anyway.
There are fresh ones if that supermarket has a butcher to "butch" the pig because the meat is normally good for only that day, or else the pork are either frozen or previously frozen. Normally one the package it would be labeled as "frozen" instead of fresh, but I would normally judge by the bloody liquid coming out from the meat since fresh meat usually hold the liquid much better.
meat can keep for longer than one day refrigerated
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.153007 | 2013-02-20T07:41:36 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32061",
"authors": [
"Bryan Grapes",
"Elbert White",
"Epiccat",
"Erik Rothoff",
"John TireSwing Bates",
"Kate Gregory",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73744",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73745",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73746",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73750",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73761",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73786",
"sean-thomas"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
32091 | Should a sous-vide-cooked meat be frozen then reheated?
New to sous-vide, I was wondering, once you are done cooking, will it degrade the quality of the meat if I freeze it then reheat it back? The method of reheating probably matters, but let's say I am gonna re-sous-vide it back to eating temp. Also, this is for pork if it's relevant.
This shouldn't be a problem. What I recommend is to go in this order:
Don't pre-salt the food, other seasonings are fine but anything with a high sodium content should be left out
Cook to your desired temp (and I would recommend pasteurizing since it's not a direct serve situation
Pull food from bath and plunge immediately into an ice bath filled about half and half with cold water and ice to rapidly drop the temp of the food
Once chilled, put in freezer to store, leave them directly in the bag your cooking with. If your using ziplocks I would suggest wrapping them in plastic wrap and then putting them back in the ziplock before freezing.
When it's time to reheat, repeat your sous vide process from the initial cook. It will take the same amount of time it initially took to bring the core up to temp + the time it will take to unthaw the food in the bath. Reheating direct from frozen is your best bet for quality.
Post-sear the food and add salt at that point. Adding salt at this point will prevent the food from taking on a cured texture when it is frozen and held for a period of time.
Enjoy!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.153210 | 2013-02-21T02:13:06 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32091",
"authors": [
"BahLeaves",
"Chumpies",
"Sean the Bean",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73821",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73822",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73829",
"user3344977"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
32946 | Should I boil the alcohol out of marinade?
A recipe for cooking pork calls for sake in the marinade. Should I boil the alcohol out or should I marinate with the alcohol intact? I read somewhere that alcohol can cook the meat just like acid, but what I can't figure out is whether that could be beneficial and actually improve the end result.
See also http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/659/cooking-away-alcohol - it's not as easy as you think to boil off most of the alcohol.
Unless the recipe specifically directs you to cook the marinade, you should just use it as is.
The only time you would normally cook a marinade is after it is used, in reducing it for use as a sauce—and of course, not all marinades are suitable for such use.
That's part of the problem, the recipe didn't really say to cook it or not :(
Assume not. Its like a recipe calling for water--don't assume it is frozen or boiling unless specified explicitly.
Okay, that makes sense. But academically for my learning purpose, would the alcohol "cook" the meat?
It may denature the protein at the surface, but is unlikely to penetrate very deep; if you are subsequently cooking the item anyway (since you said the recipe is pork, I assume you are), I wouldn't worry about it overmuch. Whatever effect it may have is anticipated in your recipe. Countless traditions from French to Chinese marinate meats in alcohol containing marinades.
Not to mention, the alcohol content in these marinades is typically so weak to begin with, if it ever does denature anything, it would take days.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.153357 | 2013-03-23T18:38:13 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32946",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Azrose",
"Cascabel",
"David Graham",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"georgia",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76202",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76204",
"laxman",
"pixelfreak"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
12748 | What's the difference between tamari and soy sauce?
If a recipe calls for tamari, can I use plain soy sauce instead? If using one for the other, what effect would it have on a recipe?
I have a bottle of San-J Tamari (black label) in my fridge and the back reads:
Tamari is a premium soy sauce made with more soybeans than ordinary soy sauce giving it a richer, smoother, more complex taste. Tamari has more flavor enhancing properties than salt. Add 1 tsp. (320 mg sodium) instead of tsp. salt (590 mg sodium) to reduce sodium intake. Stir-fry or marinate poultry, meat fish and vegetables. Add 1-2 tsp. to perk up sauces, soups, gravies and casseroles.
In my experience, I use a little less tamari when substituting it for regular soy sauce. As Sean mentioned, it's definitely a bit stronger than regular soy sauce. I eyeball most of the time, but I'd say I use 1/2 to 3/4 portion of tamari when substituting it for regular soy sauce.
I reach for the tamari when I want a bit more of a complex flavor on something plain like rice - when the soy sauce is to be the star of the dish, essentially. I tend to use regular soy sauce when mixing into a larger homemade sauce or where the soy sauce flavor will blend into the background because the recipe calls for so many other strong ingredients.
Oh, and tamari seems to add a bit of an almost "smoky" flavor, it seems.
It doesn't answer the follow-up question, but one subtle difference is that tamari doesn't always have wheat in it, while soy always does.
This means, if you're cooking for people with gluten intollerance, some types of tamari is safe, while soy sauce never is.
(I've made the mistake of using soy when cooking for someone ... I now have a bottle of wheat free tamari stashed for the next time, but I've yet to compare the two directly)
That's a very interesting and important observation. I have a gluten intolerant friend, so I'll be on the lookout. Thanks, Joe!
@gordoco: I recently purchased a bottle of regular Japanese soy sauce that does not list wheat. Surprisingly, the label doesn't feature the gluten-free factor (unless it's only in the Japanese characters); I just happened to notice it while checking the ingredients for caramel coloring and other factors learned about on this site.
Tamari is a particular Japanese variant of soy sauce. It's a bit stronger, though I'm not sure of the actual differences in production between the two. If you substituted standard soy sauce in for tamari, I'd imagine the recipe would taste less of the sauce, at a rate proportional to the amount of sauce for which the recipe calls. Maybe adding more soy sauce to the recipe would approximate the effect, or reducing it by some amount before adding, but that is pure conjecture on my part.
Tamari is a byproduct of making miso. It is the real deal. Shoyu is a tamari imitation made by altering the miso process to increase liquid production without hurting flavor. (It almost succeeds. not bad but not quite as good as the real thing.) Soy sauce could be either of these mixed with other fillers to increase production volume or yet another product designed to taste similar. I have seen both variants. When substituting tamari for soy sauce I normally use 1/2 tamari, 1/4 pineapple juice, 1/8 Worcestershire sauce, a dash of ginger, a hint of tabasco sauce, and water to fill the volume if needed. Going the other way I just use extra and cut the water if needed.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.153524 | 2011-03-03T12:24:47 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12748",
"authors": [
"Barbara Shapiro",
"Daniel Walsh",
"Diane",
"Fiona Watson",
"MargeGunderson",
"Rana Prathap",
"cashnwho",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26335",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26344",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5036",
"juggler"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
98902 | Should I rinse the flax seeds after soaking them when making flax milk?
I started making my own non-dairy milk.
Having looked at multiple recipes, I saw that some call for soaking the flax seeds before processing them to make milk.
My questions regarding making flax milk are:
Should I soak the flax seeds before processing? If so, why?
If I should soak the flax seeds, should I rinse them (which removes
the jelly water)?
You should rinse them as if you were rinsing off rice. This allows you to remove the dust from storage and transport (may just be flax dust, may not...who knows?). Also, it allows you to do a final visual check and remove any big things (bits of stick, or staff) that may have made it through processing.
I don't have any sources to cite except personal experience working for Cargill in Uni. as well as making my own ground flax seed (can't rinse for a dry good but I did restrain it), soy milk and making these products as well as my work experience allowed me to see what can make it through filtration.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.153894 | 2019-05-09T19:46:27 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/98902",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
22195 | How to fix the consistency of blueberry jam?
I had purchased a jar of %70 fruit blueberry jam.
After consuming about %25 percent of it, I added into the jar some blueberries (10-15) that I purchased recently and I mixed it.
A day after, the jam has become very very runny.
What shall I do to fix its consistency?
I have no idea what happened to your jam (shot in the dark: enzyme activity from the blueberries), but I wouldn't add fruit to jam for food safety reasons. Fruit is mostly water; when you mix it with the sweet jam, you reduce the shelf life of the mixuture to maybe 3-4 days refrigerated, or a few hours on the counter.
I expect you don't need enzyme activity to explain this - adding a couple tablespoons of water wouldn't help the jam either.
Jam is fruit, sugar, and pectin. You added more fruit but all that liquid in the fruit wasn't gelled with the pectin and sugar.
You could try adding sugar and heating the jam to get the pectin to gel with the new juice. This could work but is likely to be error prone. Pectin gelling is tricky and it might not re-gel.
I would recommend adding some sugar, boil it for a bit, and use it as delicious syrup.
In the future, if you have fruit and want jam, just buy some pectin and make your jam from scratch. It's easy to do.
Hello!
Yesterday I did exactly what you have recomended. In low heat, I warmed up the jam and let it get rid of excess water a lil. It worked perfectly fine.
Thank you.
Throw it out and replace it with a fresh jar - and don't adulterate the new one.
What was your goal in adding the blueberries? You could make a thicker jam yourself, or a sauce (without the same keeping properties as a preserved jam).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.154019 | 2012-03-11T19:20:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22195",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"KJ Connors",
"Neil",
"Phil",
"Thibault D.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49705",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9458",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
90751 | How do I make sure I don't overheat my teflon pan?
I cook in my teflon wok pans all the time. I recently saw an answer here suggesting to preheat a pan to a high temperature and cook in small batches when preparing stir-fry food. I would like to try that, and several other things like roasting peanuts or spices. However, I know that teflon pans do not handle high heat well.
I do not want to ruin my pans and I prefer to err on the side of caution, but I think that maybe some of my dishes could taste better if I preheated the pan to a higher temperature than I do now. I'm afraid that I will overdo it though.
How do I preheat a teflon pan without having to worry about overheating it? Is there a technique that would help me find the sweet spot?
The real solution to your problem is to switch to a carbon steel wok. You will never stop struggling as long as you're using a teflon-coated wok. You will always have to worry about overheating it.
Teflon starts to degrade, giving off toxic gasses at 392F, and degrading irretrievably at around 500F. Whereas the minimum temperature you want for a wok surface is the smoke point of peanut oil, 410F-450F, and if heating a dry wok you may want to heat it up to 600F. I think you can see the problem?
If you can't find a carbon steel wok for some reason, I suggest switching to cast iron or stainless steel pan, which you can heat to more than 400F easily. You'll get better results than you'll get from a teflon-coated wok.
If you still want to use your teflon wok, then I suggest always adding some oil with a slightly lower smoke point to it, such as Canola oil. Then just make sure you don't ever heat that oil to smoking, and you should be below the danger level for teflon.
The problem with non-teflon pans is that every time I tried using them, the food was sticking to them like crazy. Even the ceramic pans kinda suck. Maybe I'm doing something wrong...
A carbon steel wok needs to be properly seasoned, cleaned and cared for just like a cast iron skillet. If food continues to stick, it is an indication that the surface is probably not properly seasoned
Sticking might also be caused by not using enough oil to cook with
Canola is the worst of all the oils in the kitchen IMHO. As BioDiesel it's a fantastic product though.
@JohnEye (pre-)searing at heat and slowly sweating or sauteing food are two different techniques, even though both are done in a pan. Teflon pans are not suitable for the first one, because the teflon degrades at the temperature needed. So, you can either drop the idea, or learn the technique, and use it with the appropriate tool. It does need more precise control of temperature, timing, and fat - once you do it properly, it won't stick, but you need focused practice to learn how to do it, you shouldn't expect it to work from the first try.
@rumtscho Noted, that would actually be a good answer to my question as well even though it addresses another point altogether. I guess I'll have to give it another try. If you happen to recall there being a good answer somewhere on this site describing the correct technique (and with your rep I guess you might), it will gladly link it to the question as well.
Sorry to respond so late - but your Wikipedia article cited doesn't seem to include anything about damage beginning at 392f. Most likely edited?
Apparently. It used to say so, that's where I got that temperature.
To best check temperature, you need a thermometer, and if you can, use a non-contact thermometer (infrared thermometer).
Teflon start degrading at around 260 °C (500 °F).
So check the pan temperature, adjust the heat of your range (electric, gas...) so that the temperature stay below that.
If you want to use high temperature for some applications, then invest in a carbon steel pan or cast iron pan or a stainless steel pan
PTFE Safety
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.154192 | 2018-07-02T19:04:13 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90751",
"authors": [
"Cynetta",
"Fabby",
"FuzzyChef",
"Hellreaver",
"JohnEye",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9475",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
108490 | How to prevent frozen food from freeze-drying?
I have one of those no-frost freezers and while it's awesome that I do not have to defrost it every once in a while, it has a nasty habit of freeze-drying everything I put inside it. This includes things like sealed trays of meat which I'd expect to remain stable since the water cannot escape the container.
I found this somewhat related question: Freezing meat in Tupperware vs freezer bag, but the advice does not really work for me. I've tried packing the food tightly in plastic bags, but even then ice crystals begin to appear within the bag after a while and if I do not consume the food for a long time, the bag ends up being full of ice and the food within rather dryer than before.
The only thing that seems to work is when I buy some vacuum-sealed piece of meat which has absolutely no air inside - then there is no space for the ice crystals to form and the meat can be stored for extended periods of time. This would not work for things like bread and similar items though.
How do I prevent my food from freeze-drying without having the equipment to vacuum-seal it completely?
The way to prevent freezer burn, or at least delay it as long as possible, is to remove air. Even fairly low-end vacuum sealers will help you here. However, if you don't want to get one, or can't, the next best thing is to use freezer zip bags and employ Archimedes principle. It's commonly used in sous vide cooking, but can certainly help to remove air for freezing. Another option is to seal a zip bag most of the way, with a straw inserted. Suck the air out, then, in one swift motion, remove the straw and seal the bag. By the way, both of these suggestions would work for more delicate items, like bread.
@moscafj gave a great answer
for completeness, but not for bread ...
Some foods can't structurally survive having the air sucked out of their packaging, but can survive being immersed in water, so another method is to fill all the air gaps with water. This also greatly slows down rancidification.
There's a half-way between the two, seen in grocery frozen food sections where, say chicken parts are frozen, then sprayed with water to give them a coating of ice, then packaged for retail sale. This delays freezer burn and rancidity.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.154513 | 2020-05-20T00:04:10 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108490",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
28510 | What would cause heartburn in marinara sauce?
So there's this pizza place in Rhode Island which makes some of the best pizza I've ever had. I tend to order the "plain" pizza, which is just sauce. It's that kind of pizza where the sauce is thick and excessive, dolloped all over on an equally thick bread, but it's extremely good sauce. That's the style.
The problem is that after eating it, I get heartburn for hours. It's bizarre, and I would eat there more often if that weren't the case but it's really rather unpleasant. I do not experience this with anything else whatsoever.
What ingredient would cause such a phenomenon, and is there a way to change it? I'm hoping I can notify them of this.
Also, is this the sort of thing that doesn't affect everyone? My father gets the same effect from their pizza, and he stopped eating there. I haven't asked anyone I'm not related to, so I don't know if it's just a genetic thing or if this is a common reaction.
Tomatoes relax the lower esophageal sphincter, a muscle at the top of the stomach that contracts to keep stomach contents from going back up the esophagus. The more concentrated the sauce the more the relaxing effect. Alcohol does this as well, and over-eating can lead to the LES muscle being unable to overcome the pressure. So if you had a big portion of pizza with extra strong tomato sauce and a few beers or glasses of wine it's a triple-whammy.
Alliums (garlic and onion) are also associated with GERD, as as fatty foods (the cheese on the pizza, potentially).
I didn't know that about tomatoes - that explains a lot.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.154990 | 2012-11-19T06:16:08 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28510",
"authors": [
"Denise ",
"Joe",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Kurtis and Luann",
"Ms._Williams56",
"annyushka enkeli",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65833",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
25152 | Pan frying chicken breasts?
I've got these nice chicken breasts, pre-marinated, from the supermarket meat counter.
There was a little sign on 'em that said "Great for pan searing!" (Is that different from frying, really?)
How do I go about this? How do I know when they're done? It's not like I can check the middle to see if it's still pink, as can be done with beef. How long should it take, what heat, etc? General advice appreciated.
why can't you check the middle? I sometimes do it, if I am caught in a kitchen without a thermometer.
Well...maybe this will sound foolish, but isn't chicken just white the whole way through? Whenever I'd seen my family fry chicken in the past, the whole thing was just white. Or at least it turned white almost immediately after the application of heat.
I'll leave cooking times and methods to others, but honestly - getting a thermometer to check this stuff is the easiest way BY FAR.
cooked chicken is white, raw chicken is pale pink. Only the outside turns white immediately, because it is ready immediately. If it is white on the inside (cut deep enough to see past the middle!), it is cooked through.
I've never been one to keep track of cooking times with meats, since it will vary wildly with meat thickness, burner strength and type, phase of the moon, etc.
Edit: I forgot to answer "how to go about searing". I sear chicken like I sear beef: hard and fast. The point is to get that Maillard reaction going to add some deliciousness and texture (not to "seal in flavor", which is hogwash).
Pat the chicken dry with paper towels.
Put just enough oil in a heavy-bottomed pan to cover the bottom.
Put the pan over medium-high heat and get it good and hot - the oil may just start showing wisps of smoke.
Lay the chicken in the pan carefully, being sure to start at the edge closest to you and lay it down away from you. This will prevent you from getting splashed with hot oil.
Let it cook for 2-4 minutes until you get a nice sear on it.
Flip, (the chicken, not you) again being careful to flip away from you.
Now if the breast is thin enough (maybe you butterflied it beforehand), you can just let it finish in the pan. Often, though, after flipping I'll pop the whole pan into a 400F oven and finish it in there. Again, times will vary, but I would start checking it after 5 minutes.
The most accurate way to determine doneness of any meat is with an instant-read thermometer. I love my Thermapen, but it's a bit pricey. You can find inexpensive dial or digital ones at your local grocery. The recommended internal temp for poultry is 165F.
Normally, I poke my chicken with a finger to determine doneness, then double-check it by cutting it open. Fully-cooked chicken is white all the way through, and the juices run clear when you cut into it. Under-cooked chicken is pink, and the juices run pink as well. I get fresh chicken from a local farm, so I cook it until it is barely done to be sure it stays moist and delicious. For supermarket chicken I would err on the side of completely done, since you have no idea where the meat came from.
For reference, fully cooked chicken:
Under cooked chicken:
Extremely under cooked chicken:
If it looks like the last one, I don't recommend poking a thermometer into it.
Answers like this are exactly why I love SE so, so much.
My only sticking point is that I was always taught to heat the pan before putting the oil in.
@rfusca Interesting, I'd be curious to hear any reasoning behind that. I like to add the oil first so I don't accidentally overheat the pan.
@Joe - http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/5824/1374 Good reading there.
+1 Thorough answer with the perfect mix of hilarity. Well done!
My Nana always said with boneless chicken take a teaspoon push down on chicken & if juices run clear it is done. Has always worked for me. Hope this helps. Cindy
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.155197 | 2012-07-20T19:47:38 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25152",
"authors": [
"Android Won Kenobi",
"Badmoonryzn",
"Jake",
"JoeFish",
"Lisa",
"Surbhi Chanda",
"Zena",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57491",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57492",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57493",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9655",
"rfusca",
"rumtscho",
"temporary_user_name"
],
"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
} |
54175 | How to avoid burned layer on seared hamburger?
I usually make my hamburgers at home by putting a little oil in a pan and then just placing the patty in it on medium heat for 10-15 minutes.
Inevitably, while the meat ends up about medium rare, there's a semi-burned layer along the bottom, where it's browned and crusty. I always have to pick this off and I'm finally sick of it.
What am I doing wrong?
What type of oil are you using? Some oils burn at lower temps, so if you're using something like olive oil, that could be causing the issue.
I have indeed been using olive oil, but just now I did it with no oil at all, to test that, and still got a browned crust (albeit not as thick).
Depending on the pan (are you using nonstick? or cast iron?), you'll probably still want to use some sort of oil. I would recommend the high smoke point of something like canola oil or soybean oil.
It sounds like your patty is pretty thick. If it's because you have too long a duration of direct heat contact in order to cook to medium-rare, you could remove the patties from the pan once you have achieved desired browning, and put it in an oven to finish the cooking to medium-rare.
Are you flipping the burger?
Perhaps not often enough!
Make sure you flip it reasonably frequently; that'll actually make it come up to temperature faster inside, so the outside won't have as long to burn.
Also make sure you haven't made your patties excessively thick. 10-15 minutes on medium sounds like a fairly long time for normal sized burgers, so possibly yours are on the thick side. If you do really want thick patties, you're probably better off using a more gentle cooking method like the oven for some of the time. You can bake until nearly done, then sear to finish, or start with a sear then bake til done.
Beyond that, if it's burning on the outside before it's done on the inside, the normal fix is to simply reduce the heat, so you cook more slowly, giving the heat time to reach the center without burning the outside. But at 10-15 minutes already, maybe you don't want to go much slower!
I like using a cast iron skillet under the broiler...like this: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/15457/6279
It will caramelize the outer layer of the meat without burning it...
Hamburgers can be cooked by the same method as steaks; if you have an oven safe pan, basically bake and sear or sear and bake; the former is a bit easier since flipping a mostly-uncooked hamburger can be very difficult.
Basic instructions: Place hamburgers on cast-iron or other oven-safe pan. Bake for 5-10 minutes (length depends on thickness) at 350-400°F. Remove from oven, place on stove over high heat; flip after 20 or so seconds (depending on how much of a sear you like) and then after the second 20 or so seconds remove to plate.
This is basically the reverse of the method in the first section here. SeriousEats also recommends this method at the bottom of this article, although they recommend in a very low temperature oven - I've not tried that before (but may want to this weekend!).
Incidentally, if you are looking to simply improve your burger experience overall, Serious Eats' Ten Tips to Better Burgers is a good place to start, or just start reading Burger Lab articles. They're outstanding, and usually very doable without being very strong in technique.
You could use a low temperature water bath (sous vide). Cook your burgers 56 - 60 c (depending on desired doneness), 1.5 to as much as 6 hours. Remove from bag. Put whatever sear you want on it, because the burger will be cooked.
I'm all for sous vide cooking, but unless you're at a restaurant or cooking for a large number it seems overkill (given the time it takes)... I rarely want to eat hamburgers 1.5 hours after beginning cooking them :) But then again the 225 oven is around 25 minutes so perhaps it's worth it to try this as well.
@JoeM Not overkill if you prepare burgers, sous vide, chill, wrap individually and freeze. Then, all you need to do is thaw and sear.
I use 80/20 beef for my burgers and don't have to use any oil in the cast iron pan. Cooking it on a medium heat. Kinda go by sight so couldn't tell you how long until you flip them but I don't have the issue of it being burned on the outside. I like my burgers medium as well. I do think that the fat percentage does make a difference and the type of pan you use. I know this probably isn't very helpful.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.155555 | 2015-01-30T00:48:26 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54175",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Connie Reid",
"Deborah Rodriguez",
"Joe M",
"Ming",
"Noel Botha",
"Ross Ridge",
"Stonebriar Moving Services",
"Taylor Jarmusz",
"Tom Heidelk",
"Xoilacz TV Trực Tiếp Bóng Đá",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127417",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127500",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127585",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9655",
"mark yates",
"moscafj",
"temporary_user_name"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
54063 | Using homemade pasta instead of dried in a bake
I'd like to use fresh homemade pasta tonight in place of bagged egg noodles. My question is, should I prep the noodles in boiling water in anyway, or should I skip that step and add the freshly made noodles where the recipe calls for it?
here is the recipe:
1 lb ground beef
1 tsp minced garlic
1/2 tsp salt
1/4 tsp black pepper
1/2 tsp Italian seasoning
8 oz tomato sauce
1 cup cottage cheese
1 cup sour cream
8 oz egg noodles
Brown and drain ground beef. Add beef back to the pan over low heat and stir in minced garlic, salt, pepper, Italian seasoning and tomato sauce. Simmer for 5 minute and remove from heat. Meanwhile, boil egg noodles for 2 minutes less than the lowest time on the package directions. (They WILL continue cooking in the oven. No one likes an overcooked noodle!) Drain noodles and combine them with the cottage cheese and sour cream.
Spray a 9x9 baking dish with cooking spray and put the noodle mixture in the bottom. Top with reserved meat sauce. Cover with cheese and bake for 20 minutes or until bubble and cheese is melted. You can broil the top for a minute or 2 if you want the cheese to brown. Remove from oven and serve!
If prepared like the recipe, your homemade noodles will likely be mush by the time the dish is cooked. Dried pasta is specially formulated (and the drying is the most important part) to cope with this sort of cooking. Fresh pasta is generally meant to be cooked for less than 2 minutes. There is no reason you couldn't prepare the sauce without the noodles and spoon it over, though.
Personally I'd suggest blanching your pasta. By blanching:
I mean get a big pan of heavily salted water on a rolling boil.
Drop your pasta into the water, give it a stir.
After 1 min or when the water has come back to boil drain the pasta off.
At this point your pasta will still be el' dante but not raw which is what I suspect the directions are suggesting when they say "2 min less than instructed" then just use it at the mixing with sour cream step.
If you were to just use the pasta freshly made it will likely not have the texture desired. Boiling it will help moisten it up and start to cook the flour.
Cooking fresh pasta for 2 min may already be well past the '2 min less than instructed'
I think my thumb hit the wrong digit on my phone. Changed that to 1.
I've made lasagna several times with homemade egg pasta. The pasta cooks in the steam generated by the ingredients you're baking and there is no need to blanch, parcook or do anything to the homemade pasta before using it in your recipe.
The noodles can be quite fragile and moving them around once they are cooked can easily tear them or stretch them out to breaking thinness.
As fresh pasta typically only requires a minute or two to cook, I'd be inclined to do one of the following:
Only shock the pasta in water. (dip in, immediately remove and mix in with the sauce)
Cook the pasta in the sauce on the stovetop to soften it (maybe 30sec to a minute?), then place it into the casserole dish, then stir in the dairy products.
If you're dealing with smallish tubes (ziti, penne), I'd be more likely to go with #1, or thin the sauce slightly so that you can make sure that it will seep inside. For all other cases, I'd go with #2.
You may still want to thin the sauce slightly for #2. Maybe 1/4c to 1/2c of water before you bring it up to a simmer. You can also reserve some of the tomato/meat sauce before thinning it & adding the pasta if you want to make sure that's top most on the casserole.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.155940 | 2015-01-27T22:37:20 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54063",
"authors": [
"Doug",
"Joe",
"Kathie Gundlach",
"Larry Schott",
"Lesa Morris",
"Mary Anne Hensman",
"Mary Dean",
"MaternityNew",
"Mr. Mascaro",
"Samuel Hoffman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127150",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127153",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127155",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
21301 | Meat and fruit dessert
I'm having an event where one of the rules is that every dish has to contain both fruit and meat. I've spent the last half hour pondering as to what should I prepare as dessert.
Question: What makes us consider a food "appropriate" as a dessert?
(Subquestions: Has anyone studied it methodically? Would it be the absence of umami flavor or is that irrelevant? Is there some technique I can use to make these flavors blend better together?)
Well, I've heard of bacon chocolate chip cookies, so I don't think desert is about absence of umami - though I haven't tried them, and don't know if people actually really like them or if it's just part of the bacon fad.
@Jefromi, I wouldn't call cookies dessert, but that could be me.
@Mien: Well they might not be a very fancy dessert, and are certainly eaten as snacks too, but I think most people in the US would say they could be dessert - see the first sentence of rumtscho's answer!
How about a mincemeat pie? Sure, many prepared mincemeats you buy now do not have any meat in them, but you should be able to find a recipe for mincemeat. I think the meat is usually venison, with apples and raisins and spices.
How strict are the rules? Does gelatin count as meat?
@MSalters Gelatin wouldn't count as meat. The point of the event was to challenge oneself in terms of culinary imagination a bit.
The recipe for Mincemeat, in Joy of Cooking, is outrageously delicious. As @thursdaysgeek says, it calls for venison, but you can substitute. It takes a couple days, but mostly unattended time. I totally recommend it.
The only thing which makes food considered appropriate as a dessert is cultural convention. This is obvious once you observe the differences between cultures.
In some cases, the difference is very clear-cut. The only tastes acceptable for desserts are sweet and sour, with sweet being banned from all other courses. This is common in cuisines inheriting Ottoman traditions. Desserts there are very sweet, and the addition of a sweet taste to a main dish (e.g. duck with oranges) or non-sweet to a dessert (e.g. salty caramel) is considered very strange and unpleasant. Other modern cultures are more permissive. There are well-known sweet-and-savory pairings even in Western cuisine (the abovementioned salty caramel, melon with ham, sugar-glazed carrots), and Asian and South American cuisines seem to be even more prone to such mixes (e.g. a meat pie in a plantain crust). Then there are cases where no sweet dessert is eaten at all, for example the French tradition of viewing a cheese plate as a dessert. And historically, there was no distinction at all, with nobility eating everything expensive they had mixed in a single dish, so that you had rose water mixed with black pepepr, rice and honey served to meat, for example. There is a reason why older books on English cuisine list "savoury puddings", even though today "pudding" in its broad sense has come to mean "dessert". For further reading, also see this article - it is mostly on food pairings, but you can see how North American cuisine builds two clusters of food combinations, one centered on baked desserts (flour, eggs, vanilla) and the other one on savory ingredients, while in Asian pairings, the effect is much less pronounced.
That said, I suspect that if you are serving your dessert to people with predominantly Western upbringing, they would have hard time accepting something very meaty as a dessert. While ham with apricot and almonds is an acceptable combination by Anglo-Saxon standards, it is not served for dessert. I would make something with a strong fruit component, and combine with a small amount of delicate meat. A fruit salad with a few shreds of proscuito should work. Alternatively, you could take some meat without much taste on its own, like chicken breast, include it in some kind of filling, and combine with lots of fruit.
Even modern books on English cuisine could well list steak and kidney pudding and Yorkshire pudding.
How about being a bit playful and swapping the usual roles of fruit and meat. Make the meat sweet and the fruit savory. You could try pairing candied bacon with a smoked, roasted, or grilled fruit. You could apply any of those techniques to a good peach and have something tasty. Tie the course together with more familiar flavors, maybe nuts, a good, creamy cheese, and a glass of port.
I make a chocolate beer maple bacon cupcake that is delicious. I don't add any bacon to the cupcake, but that could easily be fixed by either adding chopped bacon or using some bacon grease in the batter. I do use bacon grease when making the frosting and crumble up the candied bacon I made onto the frosted cupcakes. I just remembered you needed a fruit in it. Maybe bananas? Bananas go well with chocolate and potentially with bacon. Maybe make a banana chocolate cupcake with a maple bacon frosting?
And, apparently, I'm answering an almost three year old post, so I'm a little late to the party! LOL Whoops!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.156283 | 2012-02-13T01:28:32 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21301",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"G. Blake Meike",
"Jakub Hampl",
"Kate Dakotas",
"MSalters",
"Mien",
"Peter Taylor",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123755",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31038",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9122",
"thursdaysgeek"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
21769 | How much "alternative" flour can I substitute for white wheat flour?
Most of the bread and bagel recipes I use (such as no-knead bread) call for only white wheat flour. I'd like to integrate other flours (such as whole wheat, flaxseed, and buckwheat) into the recipes.
How much of the white flour can I replace? 50%?
Which grains are better than others for wheat bread?
Are other changes to the recipe necessary?
Very nice question, but it will probably depend a lot on what you are using. Things like spelt or whole wheat flour can be used as a replacer in large amounts, less similar ingredients like sorghum probably can only make up a small proporion.
@rumstcho What do you mean by "similar"? What makes spelt more similar to wheat flour than sorghum?
"Similar" means that, in combination with water, it creates a dough which is similar to white wheat dough in its microscopic physical structure. I'm not sure what makes one grain build a more wheatlike dough than another, I suspect that it depends on its gluten content, hygroscopy, and the absence of yeast inhibiting enzymes, but don't know enough about it to make it an answer. As for how to recognize which grain is which, no idea, for me it is a matter of experience, starting with recipes which have some amount added and knowing by feel if it can tolerate more.
Mark Bittman actually includes a very handy quick-reference flour substitution table in How To Cook Everything (mine is the 10th anniversary edition, not sure if it's in previous editions). This assumes that the bread recipe calls for all-purpose flour and tells you how much you can substitute for the quantity the recipe calls for:
Whole wheat: use up to 50% in recipes
Rye:
light: up to 40%
medium: up to 30%
dark/pumpernickle: up to 20%
Cornmeal: up to 10%
Buckwheat: up to 20%
Rice: up to 25-30%
Nut: up to 25-30%
Soy: up to 25%
Spelt: up to 100%; then either decrease water by 25% or increase flour by 25%
Oat: up to 25-30%
The reason that different types of flours substitute at different ratios is primarily due to gluten content. Breads (both quick and yeast) made with alternative flours, especially non-wheat flours, will be heavier, denser, and less elastic; the substitution ratios above are meant to provide a nice balance between the nutritional and flavor advantages of the alternative flours with the texture qualities of all-purpose flour. For more information about the specific properties of each type of flour listed here, see the section called "The Basics of Flour" in How to Cook Everything (p. 835-838 in the 10th Anniversary ed.)
Note: These substitutions are specifically for breads, where you want a sturdy, elastic structure. Low-protein or low-gluten flours may substitute at different ratios in other types of baked goods like desserts where you want a finer, more tender crumb. But I didn't get into that since the question was specifically about bread.
With the no-knead, there is such good gluten formation that the texture will be quite similar even with half wholewheat. Past half, the liquid portion would need adjusting.
Buckwheat I find holds a lot of water but tends to dry out a loaf in texture: just wants to be crumbly and less 'juicy'. Start with 10% sub to be on the safe side. 20% will have a pronounced flavor like the pancakes (check out the proportion in Buckwheat pancake mix).
Flaxseed unground can be added liberally as the dough is coming together. It is really an addition not a sub for flour. Even 10% of the weight of the flour would be a very flecked dough. Most any bread recipe can handle that weight. Taste wise, a nice mix of seeds can go to 40% but requires a reliably strong well-developed dough to lift all that without becoming overly dense. Think sourdough.
Quinoa flour at 10% won't give you any trouble either. Fine cornmeal generally does make a loaf denser: holds water but doesn't hold the bubbles to allow as good a rise. Unless willing for big texture change, sub just a bit.
I make buckwheat pancakes 50/50, but I suppose the liquid ratio is already adjusted in the recipe.
I've found in most bread recipes, you can replace up to 1/4 of the flour with another flour without problematic effects on the dough. Some recipes may allow a higher level of replacement, and of course it matters what you're replacing the white flour with. White whole wheat flour is very similar to white flour, but things like flaxseed flour are not, and the more similar, the more you can replace.
In some cases, such as replacing white flour with cornmeal, semolina, or rye flour, it will strongly affect the flavor of the finished loaf. But you should be able to follow the same instructions for kneading, rising times, shaping and baking as the original recipe. Some grains affect the amount of water required for the recipe, though (buckwheat and cornmeal are especially absorptive).
I've done this many times, with a variety of different recipes (batard, focaccia, sandwich bread, pizza dough, etc.).
past 10% rye, the recipe will need a sour ing. to react with the rye allowing the gluten to be useable. it's the pantosane starch surrounding the gluten.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.156787 | 2012-02-27T00:18:30 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21769",
"authors": [
"Engineer",
"Pat Sommer",
"bflipped",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48379",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48492",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9288",
"kevingessner",
"rumtscho",
"tigz"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
22789 | Fastest way for cloning Milk Kefir Grains
It's about two weeks that I make Kefir at home. I started with three mid-size Kefir grains, and now I have six ones (three of them are really big)
Now my friends get interested in making Kefir too. But I don't have enough Kefir grains to share with them.
Is there any quick method for cloning Kefir grains? For example, keeping them in warmer place, giving them richer milk, or something like that?
The kefir grains are a culture of bacteria and yeast that are active at near-room temperatures. Their ideal temperature is 71F (22C). Below this and they will grow too slowly. Above this temperature, up to 86F, for extensive periods the grains will be damaged.
http://users.chariot.net.au/~dna/kefir-faq.html#temperature
Building the grains takes time- there's no way around it.
You can keep the grains at exactly 71F to maximize their growth. You can also change the milk often and keep the milk to grain ratio high to ensure that the milk doesn't acidify too quickly and the grains stay active.
You may see an improvement using organic milk as it won't have residual antibiotics in it.
http://users.chariot.net.au/~dna/kefir-faq.html#growthrate
I have not read anywhere of a way to modify the milk itself to encourage growth. You might experiment with adding a small amount of milk powder to make the milk more nutritionally dense but my gut feeling is that this would have a negligible effect if any.
I'm afraid your friends are just going to have to wait patiently.
Links you provided said that using Raw Milk will increase the grow rate, because they don't have antibiotics. Also it mentioned that using low grain-to-milk ratios may increase the grow speed (probably because grains gain more nutrients) I'm going to try them!
@Aidin- it's true. The link does say that. I apologize it didn't occur to me to include those. Adding to the answer.
For good milk kefir grain growth use a shallow wide container to grow your kefir grains.
This will give each of the grains more access to feed on the milk instead of clumping up at the top of a narrow jar and only a few being free in the milk. You can also stir the culturing kefir a few times during the day dispersing the kefir grains through the milk. Don't skimp on the quantity of milk used. Milk kefir grains love Full cream milk. and yes, raw organic full cream milk grows the best milk kefir grains.
I have got a jar of kefir going that is made with whole milk powder. The grains seem to grow a lot faster then even with whole milk from the farmer. Try it, you don't have much to loose.
I started making kefir 2 weeks ago, with 1 large grain. Not being certain about quantities, I used 2 cups of milk in my first batch. 30 hours later, I had cultured milk.
As those quantities and time frames worked, I have just continued with that, although the time is now down to almost 24 hours of culturing.
In between I made a batch of yummy sour cream, (popped my grain into a cup of whole cream). Clearly the grain loved the fat in the cream, it multiplied and cultured within 30 hours!!
I have since given the new grain away to a friend, but the one grain I kept (my large and original one),is doing a great job of culturing 2 cups a day.
Interesting, I will experiment now with a batch of tiny grains using only cream.
I would go with a shallow wide container, and since kefir feeds on lactose, you can add powder milk to natural whole milk to increase the lactose in the mix. It should give your kefir colonies more food to process.
I made mine grow by adding it to half and half milk and then to cream. Alternated this and the tiny little grains were swollen like cauliflower pieces.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.157185 | 2012-04-04T17:15:14 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22789",
"authors": [
"Aidin",
"Aigle",
"Justus Grunow",
"Kent K",
"Louise Adams",
"Matt P",
"Sharon Suzuki",
"Sobachatina",
"TheLegendaryCopyCoder",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101497",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120719",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51380",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9780",
"oliverjake23"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
22980 | How do you make sure aubergine doesn't go bitter when cooking?
Sometimes aubergine and courgette tastes fine when cooked as is, but other times they are so bitter that they're almost inedible. I've tried dry salting and leaving the slices in salt water beforehand for various lengths of time, but this is a mission and can often make them too salty. Also the outcome seems pretty random given that sometimes this isn't necessary. Is it to do with freshness?
Yes, it is to do with freshness - the fresher and younger the aubergine, the less bitter it will be. If you have an old aubergine, you could try peeling it, as the bitter compounds are concentrated just under the skin.
supposedly, male vs. female matters too (females being more bitter), but I've never done a taste-test myself.
In Turkish cuisine the tradition is to peal the eggplant lengthwise in zebra stripes an inch wide and to slice the eggplant into thick wedges which are then soaked in very salty cold water for at least a quarter hour. Just before cutting smaller and cooking you squeeze out the salt water.
This should help against them turning dark and bitterness.
I have also seen advice to salt eggplant slices to draw out the bitter compounds -- probably the same process as the salty water.
I always salt my eggplant. You can't over salt it if you rinse off the brine before cooking. I just put it cut up in a steel mixing bowl, add a handful of table salt and then cover with water.
I slice them into 1-2cm thick circles, sprinkle granular (coarse) salt on both sides and let sit for at least half an hour, preferably in the sun. Afterwards rinse with water to remove the salt and extracted liquid and proceed with the recipe.
When i am cooking courgettes, i usually taste a thin slice from each one - raw. If it is bitter i just discard it. One bitter courgette can ruin a dish. Regarding aubergines... no raw tasting, of course. Then i go for the salt trick.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.157500 | 2012-04-12T12:52:38 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22980",
"authors": [
"Chris Cudmore",
"Ednor Rowe",
"Edwad",
"Joe",
"Martha F.",
"MikeRoger",
"Mirte",
"Patsy",
"fredsmom",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51916",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51981",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52311",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
28585 | Do I have to tie my turkey legs together?
I forgot to buy twine for tying my turkey's legs together. How important is that? I've heard that it's mostly for presentation, but it may also help prevent the turkey from drying out and may help keep the stuffing in.
Is there any validity to these claims?
Also, is there an alternative I might have around the house? I've thought about sewing thread, but that probably has polyester in it and it seems like it could melt.
A couple of paper clips
Do you have any fishing line in the garage? Or maybe those wire ties that hold and contain the excess lengths of cable, etc. for your home entertainment system? Or strip the plastic off of a few inches of speaker wire if you have a spool of it lying around?
I wouldn't use plastic, it would melt in the oven. Maybe use white cotton sewing thread (fabric colors aren't healthy to eat), you can crochet it into a line if you are afraid it will tear.
Some people, and some well known Chef's (Micheal Ruhlman, Julia Child) swear that trussing is necessary. I say that it is not, and that the meat between the thigh and the breast, on a trussed bird, cooks too slowly so that the rest of the bird risks overcooking. I do just the opposite and splay out the legs as much as I can.
My two favourite sources for recipes (Heston Blumenthal, and the cookbook The New Best Recipe) do not truss for Chicken and I wouldn't for Turkey either.
Unless you are convinced that a trussed bird cooks more evenly, I would say that it is mostly for presentation.
Here's exactly what The New Best Recipe says, "[trussing] is said to promote more even cooking. We trussed a bird [...] and cooked for what seemed like a long time, 1 1/2 hours. The white meat was overcooked, but the dark meat was just right. We concluded that trussing makes it more difficult to cook the inner part of the thigh properly [...] An untrussed bird took only one hour to cook, and the white and dark meat were both nicely roasted."
If you're following a particular recipe to the letter, and it specifies tying the legs together, then you might want to consider it. Otherwise, I wouldn't bother.
Trussing a bird will pull it together into a more compact shape, the reasoning for cooking being that it will cook more evenly if it's closer to a uniform spheroid shape, rather than having leg and wing bits sticking out all over. The argument against it is that it decreases total surface area, increases total cooking time, and causes the outside parts (particularly the white meat, which overcooks sooner) to cook more before the inner parts are done. The variations in your oven and in the turkey itself will cause just as much (or more) error as trussing.
That can be risky with stuffing, which will be the last to fully cook, and might have soaked up all those yummy raw turkey juices. Leaving the legs open (not to lewd) can give the stuffing a bit more surface area, and will expose the thin flaps of skin on the sides to allow even more heat to get to the stuffing sooner.
As far as keeping the stuffing inside, I doubt it will be a problem unless you have a very dry and loose or very wet stuffing - and if some spills out, so what? Extra crunchy bits.
I agree, tying is really just for the look of the bird if you present it whole and carve at the table. I haven't tied my turkey legs in many years--lately, I cut them up into parts -before- roasting, even, but that is another story.
I didn't tie the legs and stuffed the bird with cornbread apple stuffing, turned out very well cooked. I made sure to baste every 30 minutes and cooked this 20 pounder for 4 hours.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.157701 | 2012-11-22T18:38:27 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28585",
"authors": [
"Chris Steinbach",
"David",
"Jeff",
"Joe Halloran",
"MargeGunderson",
"Patty",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Stephanie",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66052",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66139",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66140",
"rumtscho",
"user30440",
"user66052"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
46015 | Do I have to cook salame
My specific query is to the products on http://www.columbussalame.com/products/italian-delicacies
The website says that it is "cured and naturally aged"
Does this mean I dont have to cook it before eating?
One of those (the pancetta) specifically says you need to cook it, so it's probably pretty safe to assume that the ones that don't mention cooking don't need it.
The website specifically says :
All of our salame are cured and naturally aged. Other salumi items like our Mortadella are spiced and cooked in the Italian tradition.
The problem is that there are two classifications of meat that only vary by a letter:
Salami (the plural of salame) are cured, air-dried meats. They can be stored at room temperature (at least before you cut into them), and would be fine to eat raw.
Salumi (the plural of salume) is a larger classification of salted meats, that includes not only salami but also cooked or raw products, such as mortadela and pancetta. The cooked products (eg, mortadela) would be fine to eat as-is.
Pancetta is salt and spice-cured pork belly, is still raw, and should be cooked before eating.
Think of Pancetta (Pahn-cheh-tah) as Italian bacon - you need to cook it.
@jsanc623 : actually, think of it as salted, spiced pork belly -- as classic bacon is smoked, there are plenty of curing methods that may make bacon that is safe to eat raw. (although I wouldn't do that with your general supermarket bacon). See http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/13962/67
Well, today I learned something new. Many thanks Joe!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.158040 | 2014-07-31T04:07:45 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46015",
"authors": [
"Amber Samuelson",
"Berna",
"Brinn Gerber",
"Cascabel",
"Diane Rutherford",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109743",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109744",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109745",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jsanc623"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
35711 | How to use a microwave oven's grill mode
I am trying to use the grill mode in my microwave oven. I would like to know what type of utensil can be used in it? Steel/microwave safe etc
Do you have some sort of hybrid or combination oven? What does the manual say? (I know, crazy, but...)
@SAJ14SAJ It is a microwave oven with options for convection and grill modes
Does grill mode mean a conventional (non-microwave) heating mode?
jogabonito, we can likely skip a lot of these back and forth questions if you simply tell us the make and model of the microwave; hopefully there's a manual online. Your question is mostly equivalent to "does it use microwaves while in grill mode" - and we don't know for sure, since there are a lot of different microwaves out there.
@Jefromi My model is Sanyo EM-C7586V. I didnt find too much about the grill mode in the manual. I could look up if you want something specific. The input grill power is 1100W
If you're lucky, the owner's manual is clear or there's a "microwave on/off" type button that you can use to make sure that no microwaves are used while in grill mode.
If in doubt, you have to assume that the microwave still uses microwaves when in convection or grill mode, since many definitely do. That means you need microwave safe dishes (generally, no metal).
Or else, you can test by simply boiling some water. Try in normal microwave mode, see how long it takes to boil, then try the same setup in grill mode. If it takes substantially longer (or you get bored before it starts boiling), it's probably not using microwaves, so you can use whatever heat-safe dishes you want in grill mode. If it boils just as fast, it's using microwaves, and you need microwave-safe dishes.
(I suppose if you're reckless/impatient, you could also test by putting some aluminum foil in, be ready to quickly stop it, and just seeing if it sparks/catches on fire...)
nice tip about the boiling water test
Check the manual which comes along with the Microwave. If you have lost it search the manual for the model number. Most of the times 2 models with slight variation will have 2 different model numbers, but the working principle is same
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.158203 | 2013-07-31T15:02:09 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35711",
"authors": [
"Carol Varney",
"Cascabel",
"Dan Inactive",
"Joe Bolis",
"Paul G.",
"Periodic Maintenance",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"bobby",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83616",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83677",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89605",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9912",
"user83614"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
44834 | Is cooking beans or any other food in metal cans safe?
Occasionally, I go camping and cook beans over a fire inside of the [what I am assuming is tin] can it comes packaged in (after opening the lid). Does heating the metal can release any chemicals in the food? Is it safe?
I usually have the top of the can open and stir it frequently.
Even "real" tin cans have generally never been tin cans - they are tin-plated steel. And most modern ones skip the tin in favor of the plastic coating, at least on the inside.
The interior of modern cans are a heat resistant plastic (remember they pressure cook the cans at the factory), and will be fine for heating liquid things
Just don't try using it to fry stuff!
+1 but remember to not use it for long duration cooking as the chemicals can start to leech into the content of the can (though even then it'd take exposure over a long period to build up to anything approaching dangerous levels in the human body). Heating a can of product or water ok, just don't let it simmer for hours :)
@jwenting I don't think that point is valid. Below 100°C should be fine for a very long time. Epoxy just doesn't break down in that temperature range. With the right catalyst it will degrade at 130°C, otherwise expoxy is good to about 170°C, and even then it's just losing strength, not chemically degrading. When it chemically degrades, it emits a very obnoxious taste and smell. You couldn't eat the food anyway
There are even some recipes that specifically call for cooking the product in the existing can, like boiling a sealed can of sweetened condensed milk to make a caramel sauce.
Nice. I'll try this when camping. But I do believe there is some plastic leaching going on... so I won't cook in cans as a permanent lifestyle choice.
This also means you should be careful when stirring your food, as you might scratch off little flakes of the plastic coating, in particular with a metal spoon. They're probably not poisonous, but still unappealing...
A can being pressure canned puts the plastic in an anaerobic environment, reliably heat-sunk by liquid, not subjected to tool contact, and heated at a controlled temperature. This is not fully the case when using it as a cooking vessel...
A campfire reaches quite high temperatures compared to cooking at home. I'd worry about hotspots melting the plastic into my beans.
Steel cans might release trace amounts of chromium and nickel when heated but aluminum leaches much more easily, according to Scientific American Magazine. Aluminum is linked to significant health problems, including disorders of the nervous system.
The linings that coat most cans of either type may contain BPA, a chemical linked to cancer and reproductive diseases.
If you dig hard enough, everything causes cancer...
Be especially aware of cans with plastic liners. Remember it's plastic, chances are it will melt off into your food. It's a wiser practice to first burn out the can, i.e. Roast it in or over a fire to melt/ burn any undesirable chemicals/ plastics before you use it. After doing so wash it out and you're good to go.
That sounds like quite an elaborate procedure just for the simplicity of cooking your beans in a campfire. Probably easier just to bring along a lightweight pan.
googled and found some people warns about not scrubbing away the liner or whatever the plastic is in some or many of the cans. found out a company that sells cans and they said like scientists has researched and found it BPA is the safest way for food storage so well...
i say burn it. the last thing we would want in our bodies is BPA. burning is probably way easier and goes with less little time also than scrubbing. plus you already have the fire going so whats the problem.
i would probably take with me some sandpaper and scrubb it also. perhaps some of the chromium and other stuff that makes the steel looks shiny and sweet goes away then too.
buy organic bpa free canned beans and you won't have a problem and a tonne better for you...
I guess you're saying it's not safe otherwise? I don't think that's true.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.158410 | 2014-06-13T03:15:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44834",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Christine Harrell",
"Dusty",
"Ecnerwal",
"Leslie Lorusso-Kemp",
"Lorel C.",
"MeltedPez",
"MommaG",
"Paulb",
"Robert",
"Spammer",
"TFD",
"Toffomat",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141990",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148254",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5770",
"jwenting",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
79379 | Is it safe to cook raw meat (beef) and veggies in the same pan?
Is it safe to first make sautéed onions and then cook raw (thawed) beef in the same pan? I plan on cooking the meat thoroughly (no pink), so I figured I should be okay, right?
As long as you cook the meat thoroughly (i.e. if it reaches a safe temperature), most pathogens should be dead and it doesn't matter in which order you put the vegetables and the meat in. However, the order does matter if you don't want to have your garlic or onions burned while the meat is undercooked or raw vegetables while the meat is overcooking.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.158893 | 2017-03-24T01:11:25 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79379",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
55841 | Placing a ceramic bowl over stainless steel saucepan
I have a few ceramic bowls that are oven, microwave, and dishwasher safe (I normally hand-wash them, though). I was looking at recipes for lemon curd and some of them recommended putting them in a metal bowl over a saucepan that has steaming water in it. Is it possible to instead use a ceramic bowl? It would not touch the water below, only along the rim of the saucepan.
Would this be bad for the bowl? I can deal with a few aesthetic scratches and scuffs on the side.
Will this take a lot longer to heat up?
I feel that it'd be too insulated to work properly... it's a double-boiler and you need a good amount of heat or it won't thicken... or all of the timing the recipe gave would be off significantly. Is there a particular reason you want to use ceramic instead of metal?
I'm just cheap and don't want to buy new cookware if I don't have to. I also live in NYC, so space is limited.
Let it preheat for a few minutes and it should be fine.
It will take longer to heat than a thin metal bowl. It probably wouldn't crack, being oven-safe - it's just being exposed to steam, not direct flame, so long as it is above the water, not sitting on the bottom of the pot (which is what you describe.)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.158972 | 2015-03-19T00:48:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55841",
"authors": [
"Carolyn O'Meara",
"Catija",
"Ecnerwal",
"Richard",
"Sheshana Arnold",
"Steve Gables",
"dbmikus",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132706",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9944"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
23473 | Mixing mozzarella without clumping
Whenever I use mozarella in a pasta dish, and attempt to mix it in like you would cheddar or anything else, I end up with one giant clump of mozzarella.
Ex) I cook some pasta, and add the cheese/milk right after draining and attempt to mix.
Is there a way to thoroughly mix this hardheaded cheese?
Are we speaking of fresh mozzarella or of the hard stuff that is sold as such?
I'm just using store-bought shredded, like the latter picture "hard stuff"
OK, because the fresh one does not really melt.
You need to add in your cheese in small quantities and stir after each addition.
I'm not sure what you're making, but you could make a cream sauce prior to mixing the pasta with milk/cream, cheese and butter. Again, though, you'll want to add the cheese in small quantities and ensure that it's incorporated before adding another batch.
Great, thanks! I'll try that. As far as the cream sauce, how would you advise making that to avoid the same problem? Just put a pinch in, let it melt, and repeat? Or is there a method to the madness?
Yeah, you'd basically be making something like a Mornay or an Alfredo sauce. Melt the butter, incorporate the milk/cream and, once hot, sprinkle the cheese in smaller than 1/4 cup increments stirring constantly. Once all the cheese is in and melted, you can then incorporate your pasta.
Your cheese is clumping like oil and water.
Okay, it is perhaps oversimplifying slightly, but this is the basic issue--your cheese is made of, essentially, fat and protein (assuming you're using low-moisture mozzarella). The fat and water repel each other, meaning breaking up that ball of cheese is like trying to mix oil throughout a pot of water--it's going to tend to clump together.
What you need is an emulsifier, an agent that will act as a liaison between the cheese and the water to turn it into one smooth mixture. When making sauces, your go-to emulsifier is starch. This is actually quite handy because when you're making pasta you have starch in abundance! When you're done boiling your pasta, just take a bit of the water and add it to your cheese and pasta. With a little mechanical action, you'll see it all turn smooth and even before your eyes.
As far as how much to add--well that depends on how much pasta, how much cheese, how starchy your water is, etc. What I often do is drain my pasta over a bowl, add a ladle-full of water back to my cheesy sauce with the pasta, and stir for a few seconds. It will quickly become clear whether it is mixing well or whether I'll need more water.
3 table spoon of butter
Melt in sauce pan
3 table spoons of flour
Add to melted butter
Slowly add 2 and half cups of milk GRADUALLY until mixture is right thickness for u
Add your cheese and stir with mixture
Hope this alternative method is useful
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.159125 | 2012-04-30T12:32:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23473",
"authors": [
"Betty Libbey",
"JWiley",
"Jacob G",
"Lisa McMaster",
"Lizzie Bottomley",
"gwen wells",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53132",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53135",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9973",
"nico"
],
"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
} |
30113 | How to thoroughly bread meat with eggs and flour for frying without the mess
When making dishes like Chicken Parmesan, fried zucchini, general tso's, etc, and prepare the breaded item, I first scramble a few eggs then dip the the item from there into either flour or breadcrumbs then straight to the pan.
Flour is the worst, as the egg can get into the flour and create a cement like mixture that's very difficult to clean from your hands. Breadcrumbs aren't as bad mess wise, but can still be an issue when the goal is a clean, even coating all the way around.
So my question is what is the best process to use when preparing fried foods like these in an assembly line-like fashion, without the huge mess and splotchy coating, or are my ingredients themselves to blame?
Get a set-up like this: http://www.ifish.net/gallery/data/500/12-06-09_Deep_fried_panko_clams_3.jpg otherwise, egg washing is generally a mess. I like to do as much of one step at once as I can - put everything in the flour, get it coated, transfer as much as I can into the eggs, etc.
That link doesn't work. Dammit. The pictures is here: http://www.ifish.net/board/showthread.php?p=3938296 about 3/4 down the page.
so it's flour->eggs->flour again->pan, not eggs->flour->pan, is that what you're saying?
I do flour -> eggs -> breadcrumbs -> pan.
The eggs stick to the flour and the breadcrumbs stick to the egg. Your egg first method is why you get egg in the flour, natch.
@ElendilTheTall is that how you make lembas?
Gloves :D And use one hand for to dip it in the wet stuff(eggs) and the other to coat the dry stuff (flour)
... or use several pairs of tongs if you really want to avoid getting your hands messy. Also, buttermilk for the win for breading chicken :-P
@jwiley you'd have to ask my Elf friends about that...
I personally like to use forks when I'm breading, so that I don't have to keep reaching into the containers. I use a pair of forks in each containers, which I use to move the food around 'til it's coated, and then lift them to drop into the next container (important -- the forks should not go into the next container ... grab from one end, lower in, but release before the forks touch the stuff in the next one).
You can also use chopsticks or tongs, but I prefer the forks as I can use them to scoop up a bit of flour or breadcrumbs to sprinkle on the bare spots of whatever I'm breading.
Other tips:
Prep all of whatever you're going to be breading first (assuming you're cooking alone, and don't have a helper). Having to wash up because your hand's all chicken-y really slows you down.1
Never go backwards. Yes, some people like to go back into the flour, but if you're looking to be mess-free, don't do it.
Shake off items before going into the next container ... you want a minimal coating of everything -- flour won't stick to flour, so shake off the loose flour before going into the egg. Let the egg wash drip for second or two before going into the crumbs, and shake off the loose crumbs before going into the pan. This will both create a crust that won't separate from the food as easily, but also prevents that growing cluster of crumbs forming in the third container.2
If you're looking to do some breading with the kids, and the kids are too messy, the crumb and flour can be placed into paper bags, and you drop items in, seal up the bag (fold over + binder clips), and then let the kids shake the bag. You might also be able to use containers with a tight-fitting lid. It'll slow you down overall, but it's no worse than the constant 'I want to help' pestering.3
1 You'd note that I said "hand" and not "hands." I keep a strict rule that whenever possible, I only touch raw chicken with my left hand, so that my knife hand never gets slippery (and so I can grab the phone if need be without washing up).
2 Some people also disagree with this step, as in the case of fried chicken, you don't get those extra crunchy bits on the outside. There is, however, a solution ... take the fork in the egg wash, and let it drip into the crumbs, then use the crumb fork to coat them, and lift them to the top of the container ... then set the item to be breaded on top of them as it comes out of the egg wash.
3 Before you worry about me suggesting that I have kids and I consider them pests, no, I don't, but I frequently cook at a friend's house and they do, so we have to set up the breading station away from the stove so that they can help (at home, the crumbs would be right next to the hot pan). Although some people put the crusted objects on a tray or wire rack and let the eggwash dry for a few minutes to reduce crust separation.
There's no way to avoid mess when breading things using egg, no matter what the order you do it in, it's just the way it is. To help deal with the mess:
get some plastic food prep gloves you don't get your hands dirty
put newspaper down on the surface so you can roll it up and throw it away afterwards. Not eco friendly, but neither is using harsh cleansers
Soak the bowls and dishes you use in cold water right after you finish prep. Hot water will make the proteins stick, cold water will keep them from sticking
I like the newspaper idea. Unfortunately, I don't read the newspaper. +1 on the cold water though, I did not know this.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.159452 | 2013-01-15T18:18:01 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30113",
"authors": [
"Baldrickk",
"Dharini Chandrasekaran",
"ElendilTheTall",
"JWiley",
"Joanne",
"Michael Roberts",
"User1000547",
"YetAnotherBot",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137362",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70269",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9262",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9973",
"kdojeteri",
"صفوان جمل فضائل"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
30110 | How to prevent sliced vegetables/roots from sticking to the blade
This is especially problematic with garlic, but onions, roots and other vegetables are sometimes just as bad.
When making thin slices, with the problem worsening as the portions are cut smaller, the garlic clings to the blade and I have to wipe it off after each go. Are there any tips or tricks used to prevent this?
I've never seen a chef on a cooking show do anything special to their blades beforehand, and they never seem to have the problem. My knives are high quality and very sharp.
This bother me too. Might oil work (I doubt it)?
http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/22733/4638
@rumtscho so that covers garlic. I've never seen a cooking show where this happens though, do you think they wet/oil up their blades before hand?
Could you tell me why you need to wipe off the vegetable slice between each go? Just cut through the vegetable again and it will slide off. There is a problem with this if you have a small cutting board (it can fall off), but a large cutting board is almost as important as a sharp knife.
@citizen See my comment to Kate Gregory, but it's mainly an annoyance when mincing garlic. The suggestions to keep cutting may help with larger sliced portions but when I want a fine mince or chop it's still a problem
with larger veg, bracing the end you start cutting on as you hold opposite end, creates a self-wiping mechanism. zucchini and pot work for me well this way, carrot less so (rolls)unless I slice first lengthwise
I forgot to mention in my answer that there are specially designed blades to prevent food from sticking, but that's more true for larger pieces like potatoes. I'll edit my answer to include that.
@BaffledCook thanks! Every answer had something useful in it, but alas I can only mark one. I found my slicing and dicing technique to be a little rough, and adjusting it helped. Thanks everyone!
You could look at your knife skills. Professional cooks are either faster than ordinary cooks, so the food doesn't have time to adhere to the blade, or maybe their knives are sharper. Do you hone your knife (correctly) before you start cutting?
Another thing is the way professional cooks cut, they use the knife to slice through the food making a slicing motion. Some people just press their knives against the food and apply pressure, which is the wrong way.
Lastly, when dicing, you could make one or two horizontal cuts, then nine or more vertical cuts... without cutting through the base. This way, the food is still attached to the base and will not stick to the knife. Lastly, you turn the food 90º and make the last cuts to create smaller or larger dices.
Edit: There are knife blades designed to reduce the food sticking to them. They have dimples or 'cullets'.
I just ignore slices that stick to the blade. Each typically gets pushed off by the next one, so you only have one or perhaps a couple of slices on the blade at a time. When I've sliced the whole thing, I can wipe them off. This doesn't work when you're rough-chopping, in that delightfully casual way the TV chefs say "just run your knife through it all a few times" since half the stuff is on the blade, but it does work when you're slicing a carrot or garlic or whatever.
Just now, I sliced potatoes thinly for gratin and noticed that I semi-automatically gave each slice a little shove, using one of the fingers from the hand that was holding the potato, just as the slice finished. Obviously this only works for slices large enough to stand up past the top of the blade, but it's a technique you can use for some roots and veggies, even if not for garlic. I'm pretty sure I don't do that for things I intend to chop again in another direction, but only for things I am slicing.
so say I'm mincing fresh garlic, and the larger sliced pieces are adhering to the blade while I more finely chop the rest, so I have a bunch of mixed sizes. Ignoring the larger ones stuck to the blade isn't going to make them magically the same size as the rest..
Slice the whole thing one way. When you've finished slicing, wipe off the one or two slices that are still on the blade, gather everyone together, and slice the other way. Don't wipe off each slice as you do it, that's too time consuming for no gain.
Right, which is how I do it now. But my question was more of how to prevent the sticking from happening at all.
I don't think your going to have much luck making garlic not stick, it's naturally a sticky ingredient and yes it sticks to the blades of the tv cooks all the time they just wipe it off quickly or with tv magic cut back to a pile of minced garlic. If you truly are pissed about it get a garlic press.
@Kate Gregory if prepping several kinds of veg, especially to different sizes or to be added at different times, leaving anything on the knife when changing veg is not a option - garlic pieces in onions that are supposed to be fried golden brown will be literally bitter news. Also, a mix of eg garlic slices and brunoise dice will cook very unevenly :)
@rackandboneman in which case "the whole thing" is all the garlic, or all the thinly sliced stuff.
It helps a lot if you wet your knife blade before mincing garlic. It'll still stick to the blade some, but not quite as much, and what's left is a lot easier to brush off.
For bigger things, you can try knives with dimples (like Kyle suggests), and sometimes a wet blade helps here too, but these things only go so far. Stuff is going to stick, and the key is to learn to deal with it sticking. One thing that really helps is to slice with the knife angled slightly, cutting just a bit toward the bulk of the vegetable, so that the slices are tilted away from it and when they get pushed up and off the blade, they fall away from the part you're chopping and don't get in your way. You'll probably still feel the urge to brush it off, but eventually you'll get used to letting it fall.
Beyond that, BaffledCook's tips on knife skills are good - read and upvote them too!
I have this same exact problem and for me the solution was to use a hollow edged knife instead of a hollow ground one. The little pockets on the knife allow the air to separate the slicing easily instead of it being stuck to the blade.
With garlic, give it a rough smash and chop, then let it sit with some salt (preferably coarse) for a couple of minutes. That makes it much less sticky.
Why coarse? How does the salt reduce the stickiness? Is it just adding the physical abrasiveness?
not to mention you're still suggesting I chop it first, and waiting around for it to sit with salt doesn't really save time.
I don't think you have to use coarse salt - that's just how I learned it. And I don't know how it works but it does! You don't have to let it sit too long so you do end up saving time because you aren't cleaning off your blade constantly.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.160001 | 2013-01-15T16:41:37 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30110",
"authors": [
"1C17 Wong Ho Lai",
"A. DeAngelis",
"ArunM",
"BaffledCook",
"Bl8rchk",
"Brendan",
"Cerberus",
"JWiley",
"Kate Gregory",
"Michael Schuck",
"Nikayla Waters",
"Pat Sommer",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Saint Razz",
"Sarah Weiss",
"Sven",
"Wendy Lindsay",
"citizen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15270",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70253",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70276",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70462",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70570",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9973",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho",
"user10443184"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
75865 | Dutch oven bread - bottom always burns
When I bake bread in my dutch oven, to get the bread crust a darker brown and where it should be, the bottom will burn. I've used several recipes and different ovens with the same problem outcome. The dutch oven is as high as I can put it in the oven, which helps but it's still burned slightly.
The recipes always call for a pre-heat of 475F before the bread goes in, 25-30 top on 15-20 top off. I'm trying to adjust the temperature now, but I don't see how this isn't a more common problem. Any suggestions for this?
Are you going only by time? Do you use an oven thermometer?
No oven thermometer, just time yes.
Of possible interest: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43537/preheat-the-dutch-oven-and-the-oven-itself-for-no-knead-bread-experiment-res
You mean "30min lid on (to keep steam), 15-20 lid off"? Or are you referring to the top element ON/OFF?
I've had the same issue at home, with a very hard or burnt crust bottom:
I've made the following adjustments through experimentation. This will help greatly, but might not fix the problem entirely. I routinely preheat my empty dutch oven in the oven set to 500F with the lid on. When baking, I take it down a notch to 475F. I do one or more of the following steps before I place the loaf in the hot dutch oven:
Convection: I'll mention this first, because it makes the largest difference. If your oven has the convection baking feature (mine does not), enable it. It moves the heat around evenly, but it also helps the thermostat do its job properly and keep the set temperature.
Add a layer of semolina/cornmeal/flour: Add a generous layer of durum wheat semolina at the bottom of the dutch oven. Don't worry about putting too much on. You can brush off the excess after baking. Whatever doesn't stick to your bread will just fall out of the dutch oven (no cleaning needed). I've also successfully used corn meal as a substitute, but corn meal has a tendency to caramelize a bit more if you leave it on the surface of the bread, and it also has a sweeter taste. The semolina will brown, but it will form a small heat barrier between the dutch oven and the loaf. I use parchment paper to transfer the loaf into the dutch oven, and so my semolina ends up under the paper. You can try semolina without parchment paper, but it will add texture to the bottom of your baked loaf (which can be quite good!)
You can also combine this with a layer of flour on the bread which will also protect the bottom somewhat, but not as much as semolina or cornmeal. Semolina has larger grain size and I find it provides additional "spacing". Also consider modifying the recipe, and roll your loaf in sesame seed when you add it to your proofing basket. I find this helps too, and you can scrape the dark ones off easily after baking. It also looks (and tastes) good.
Add a layer of chaff/bran: If you mill your own flour, you can use a layer of chaff/bran (the stuff you sift out) at the bottom of the dutch oven. It's a good insulator. Brush it off when your loaf is done. Got this tip from the perfect loaf.
Add parchment paper: If you use parchment paper to transfer the loaf into the dutch oven, you can use a second layer of parchment paper. Make sure you trim whatever protrudes from the rim of the dutch oven -- you want a good seal on the lid to trap steam in.
Move to a higher rack / use baking sheet(s): Move the dutch oven to the highest position that your oven can accommodate (farthest away from the element), and place the whole dutch oven on a baking sheet. You can insert an additional baking sheet on a rack below. I suspect using a baking stone (or baking steel) under the dutch oven would protect from direct heat even more. A stone or steel should dampen changes in temperature when the heating element starts/stops. Covering an area with foil would also work (I'm used to cookie sheets because I would pour water on them to steam the oven -- I find they're less trouble than foil).
Switch to cast iron: If you are using a ceramic/earthware dutch oven, try switching to a cast-iron dutch oven (enameled or not). The heat retention and conductivity of metal is much higher and more heat is radiated by the sides of the dutch oven. This may seem controversial, given that so many bread cocottes are made of clay/ceramic -- but my personal experiences with my (cheap/inexpensive) clay pot is that my sourdough breads were carbonized on the bottom.
Toss an icecube I can change the texture of the bottom by throwing one or two icecubes next to the loaf, inside the piping hot
cast iron dutch oven. It makes it a bit more crispy, and a bit less burnt. But I wouldn't try that on a glass or ceramic dutch oven.
The brand of cast iron doesn't matter so much in my opinion. I've used several brands of cast iron dutch ovens (Lodge, Staub, Lagostina), all with similar results. What I've found matters most is not so much the brand, but rather how well the lid fits -- you want to trap the steam as much as possible (it keeps the loaf cooler). If your lid doesn't make good contact around the rim (e.g. if there's a wobble), you can try making a "gasket" with a silicone baking mat sandwiched between the lid and the pot.
Use finer marks on analog knobs / monitor temperature: The temperature dial on my oven is analog and doesn't have much tactile feedback (no notches nor clicking), and there's probably a 10-15F average error when choosing a setting because of the size of the paint notches on the temperature dial. This is slightly OCD, but I line up the edges of the paint lines rather than the centers, to get a reproducible setting between bakings. An oven thermometer might be a good investment if your kitchen oven's like mine, and you need to fine tune the rheostat to recalibrate dial markings to "real" temperatures.
Adjust baking temperature / baking time: Lastly, this is somewhat obvious, (but sometimes non-trivial depending on the recipe,) but consider reducing your baking temperature to account for any make/model discrepancies for your oven. Get an oven thermometer to monitor the real oven temperature (or even inside the dutch oven if you have a probe). Adjust the recipe time accordingly.
Live with it: This is somewhat of a boring solution, but find a way to appreciate the darker/thicker crust, or scrape the burnt bits with a knife. Different unique flavors get brought out in the crust. If you find it difficult to cut through thick bottom crust with a serrated bread knife (which is personally what I dislike the most about thick crust), try slicing with a long and sharp chef knife instead, and rock back and forth on it -- i find it easier.
Something else I haven't tried yet, but could work well, is to use a thick silicone baking mat at the bottom of the dutch oven instead of parchment paper. But it might need to be cut to shape (and hence, sacrificed for that purpose) to avoid deforming the loaf as it expands -- they are far more rigid than parchment paper and don`t hug the sides of the oven as well, esp when the mat is square and the oven is round/oval. If your oven is of the "cloche" kind, then of course the shape/size of the mat doesn't matter as much if you can close the lid down hermetically over the (protruding) mat.
If you can’t find semolina in the store, check to see if they have farina in the breakfast foods section (usually near cream of wheat if they have it). It’s what Thomas’ English muffins use on the bottom
My approach for burnt bottoms in various ovens around the world involves aluminum foil to deflect some of the heat on the bottom. You could either set a sheet on the rack, shiny side down, or if that proves inadequate (or fragile) hang a sheet under the rack, crimped onto two of the wires - in either case, set your dutch oven on top of the area protected by foil.
Given the lack of oven thermometer I'd also be inclined to suggest turning down the heat (and extending the time, if needed), but try the foil first, since most practitioners of the sort of baking you are trying seem to like it hot.
you can also put a sheet pan on a lower rack instead of just the foil.
Top on first doesn't make that much sense, you generally get a better rise if you start with bottom heat and only later add top. Doing it the opposite way - starting with bottom and top on, then switching to only top - is what you need, especially if your bottom is burning. I can't tell you when it is best to make the switch, you have to try it with your own oven and find out what works best. The middle of the baking process might be a good starting point.
I think "top on" means the lid of the pot on... that's how I interpreted it, anyway... but we can't control the upper and lower heating elements so...?
why can't we control the elements?
I've never had an oven that allows it in the US... the only upper heating element is the broiler and it only has one or two settings - high and low.
Any oven I've ever seen had controls of this kind, even the cheapest ones: https://s3.amazonaws.com/opensymbols/libraries/sclera/oven%20knob%20b3%20upper%20and%20lower%20heating.png. I can't imagine how I'd bake without that. If US ovens really don't have them, then I really don't know what will help in this case.
Crush some parchment paper good and crinkly and press on bottom of pot prior to heating. Transfer dough into hot pot cradled in a layer of parchment on top of crinkly base.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.160674 | 2016-11-25T16:57:47 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75865",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"JWiley",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"NadjaCS",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50550",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9973",
"init_js",
"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
} |
103075 | Red ptitim (pearl couscous)?
I used to work in an office by a restaurant that served red ptitim - Israeli-style pearl couscous, today are cooked in some sort of tomato sauce and come out red tainted - but not wet: i.e they're not swimming in sauce: they're served just sightly moist like any other ptitim dish.
I tried to reproduce this at home by cooking the ptitim in tomato juice, tomato paste and even ketchup - but to no avail: they either come out in a lot of sauce or properly dry and not red.
What am I missing?
Could be red pepper paste instead.
I've never cooked ptitim specifically, but for Mediterranean[1] rice, bulgar, orzo or cous cous, the recipe varies only slightly - so I imaging ptitim to be very similar.
Use a ratio of 1:1.6 grain to water, by volume.
You can add optional onion/peppers etc to this. Soften first, remove & re-add just before the water, or part-soften, leave in, then proceed as follows
Sauté the grains in olive oil in a saucepan on medium heat until they start to change colour [not just clarify because of the oil, actually start to go golden].
Add approx 1tbsp per cup of grain of either tomato purée/paste, harissa paste[2] or any combination of both, then continue to sauté for another 2 minutes. Sautéing tomato paste makes it sweeter & less bitter.
Add your water, straight off the boil from a kettle.
Salt to taste.
Give it a quick stir, drop the heat to minimum & put the lid on.
Allow 13-15 minutes for the water to be absorbed. Don't take the lid off to check. At most, lift it a tiny bit & see if you can hear the crackle as the last bit is used.
Switch off the heat.
Put a tea-towel or paper towel over the pan top & put the lid back on over it, trapping the towel.
Allow it to rest for 15 minutes.
Fluff with a fork & serve.
Brighten the flavour & presentation with some fresh flat-leaf parsley.
Sprinkle Aleppo pepper flakes for an extra burst of colour, heat & flavour.
[1]Generally, anywhere from Greece right round to Morocco uses a variation on this method.
[2] Both will add a similar colour, but tomato adds sweetness & harissa adds spicy heat.
Ok, so if I understand correctly, what I was missing was to put in the tomato paste during the sauteing part and not during the cooking part?
Possibly so. Sautéing the grain is also important, though - it changes how it reacts with the water somehow & keeps everything separate & nicely glistening at the end, rather than dull & clumped.
Yep, I have been doing that, but I only added the tomatoes during the cooking part. I will try that, thanks!
Maybe it was chili oil and not tomato-based? That was always my impression at Sosta in Raleigh, but just a guess!
In my case it was definitely tomato based and not spicy, but using chili oil is something I'd need to try - thanks :-)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.161530 | 2019-10-25T19:29:33 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103075",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Guss",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9322"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
54590 | What causes gnocchi to pop violently when fried?
I came across this video about frying gnocchi, and am now quite curious what causes the reaction shown, especially since gnocchi is made from potatoes, and we have all had a fried potato in some manner or another.
I've actually had similar behavior from chestnuts, because I got tired of cutting a little 'x' in the bottom of each one before roasting them. And they hurt when they explode. (and I'm glad I wear glasses)
I think it's because there is water inside the gnocchi paste, which turns into vapor and builds up pressure. A little bit like why you shouldn't throw an ice cube in hot oil.
You can pan fry them, but not deep-fry them.
Really? Most gnocchi I've cooked was very dry, since the store bought is similar to its pasta counterpart in that it's dehydrated for packaging. Possibly the video is using homemade gnocchi and thus there is more moisture?
@JWiley Sure, it was partially dehydrated (not anywhere near as thoroughly as pasta) but then it's been cooked in boiling water before frying, right?
@Jefromi Ah, yes, yes it was. For some reason I thought he was deep frying the gnocchi without precooking, not sure why. That explains it then, thanks!
For store bought gnocchi, frozen is a possibility also. Frozen would not be dehydrated.
@JWiley popcorn seems utterly dry and yet has enough moisture to explode. I would expect gnocchi to have more moisture than dry popcorn.
Also - gnocchi are BIG compared to most pasta. There's lots of interior volume for moisture to hang-out.
“It's the water content in the gnocchi reacting to the hot oil. When water hits hot oil, the water boils very quickly and turns into gas, creating a very fast expansion. Because the gnocchi are relatively soft and light weight, the force of that expansion inside of the gnocchi is stronger than the tension of the gnocchi structure and the gravity holding the gnocchi inside of the pan, and therefore they explode and "jump" out of the oil.” — TheStupidistRedditor
This explanation came from the reddit responder, TheStupidistRedditor.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskCulinary/comments/44r2wy/please_explain_what_is_happening_to_the_gnocchi/
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.162127 | 2015-02-10T18:56:06 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54590",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Cindy",
"Dorothy Martindale",
"JWiley",
"Joe",
"Luca Mironescu",
"Susanne",
"ed mowatt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128517",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128518",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128519",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9973",
"john3103",
"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
} |
125803 | Modern zucchini cooking time?
I have multiple recipes for soup that include zucchini (courgette) that are all at least 30-40 years old, and all of them seem to have you add the zucchini late in the cooking time,
as if the zucchini needs to be treated gently. But my experience is that zucchini needs to be cooked with no uncertain vigor, and I will generally add it earlier/cook it longer.
Question is: are “modern” US supermarket zucchini substantially different from those of the past, perhaps in the same way that science has given us hard, flavorless supermarket tomatoes — or do I just prefer softer zucchini than these cookbook authors?
The supermarket zucchini (summer squash) I'm used to don't need to be cooked particularly aggressively. I've never had zucchini in soup, but if I were to add chunks to a soup my instinct would be to add them at the very end of the process within minutes of it being finished. I'm curious if perhaps what you're calling zucchini is not what I call zucchini.
I remember as a child travelling to Blackpool [N. UK, 60s/70s] & being able to smell the tomatoes growing in the nearby fields from inside the car. My mum would always buy some to bring home. Now you can barely smell them if you put your nose in the box :\
To answer the question directly: no, there is no difference in the zucchini. I grew up with the zucchini in my grandmothers' gardens, and nowadays, I'm eating supermarket zucchini - this is in Europe, but I don't think the big growers are selling something radically different in the US.
To my taste, all the zucchinis I've ever had, supermarket or homegrown, are very tender and should be heated minimally. Especially in something like a soup, I'd also add them very late, maybe even after I've turned off the heat.
It seems that you have a personal preference for long-cooked zucchini. This has nothing to do with the recipe, its age, or with the zucchini supply. The recipes are the same, the zucchinis are the same, your taste simply differs.
Makes sense to me, thanks!
Perhaps to add, if you cook zucchini too long in something like a soup, it will tend to fall apart and get mushy. It won't be like cooking zucchini on a gridle or grill, if that's what OP is after.
@SnakeDoc yes, true about the gill. The OP made the question about zucchini in a soup.
@rumtscho it'll become mushy in soup also if cooked too long, that was the point.
Cooking zucchini for a long time removes most of its water, greatly reducing its volume and turning it into a "pulp".
If that's the effect you want to achieve, then you indeed add it early in the cooking process (I do it for example when making a zucchini and salmon pie, or a soup).
If you instead want to preserve its texture and leave some crunchiness, you add it later in the recipe (extreme example: diced raw zucchini in salads)
It's possible that modern zucchini has a higher amount of water (selected to make it grow bigger and faster) than the zucchini of the past, therefore requiring more time to take that water away when needed.
Do you suppose the recipes I’m looking at want you to end up with slightly crunchy zucchini in a soup ( like a minestrone?) Seems wrong to me, but maybe that’s just my tastes.
Zucchini only needs to be cooked for around 5 minutes to soften it. If it takes you more than 5 minutes, what you're cooking isn't zucchini.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.162376 | 2023-11-13T23:24:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125803",
"authors": [
"Ernest Friedman-Hill",
"FuzzyChef",
"Roddy of the Frozen Peas",
"SnakeDoc",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10037",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
121110 | Chopping shallots super fine
My favorite recipe for deviled eggs involves finely-chopped shallots and a piping bag. It’s rather labor-intensive to chop the shallots finely enough to avoid clogging the piping tip. My knife skills are up to the challenge, but as I was doing it today I was wondering if there might be a better way. I’ve never tried grinding them with coarse salt and the side of a knife, as you can do with garlic; I suspect it wouldn’t work. Any other ideas?
Maybe this method? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBj9H6z6Uxw
@jinawee that is more or less what I do — followed by another pass to get it even finer!
Use a grater
If you use a box grater (or a microplane style grater), you can peel and grate your shallots very easily. By holding the root end, you can grate the entire shallot pretty easily and quickly.
Grated shallot won't look as pretty as a carefully cubed dice. It will have some "shaggy" edges and resemble pureed shallot. In a dish like deviled eggs, this lets the shallot show up with flavor, even though it's not seen. On the other hand, as a garnish, grated shallot won't look very good.
I’ve had much success grating shallots and garlic. It seems like I get more flavor for the same amount of shallot or garlic when grating vs mincing.
I can recommend this as well. Using a fine Microplane grater, I routinely grate garlic, shallots and even regular onions when the recipe benefits from it. It works perfectly when using for taste, not looks.
Great idea, will give it a try!
@ToddWilcox because you do, using a garlic press or grating destroys a lot more cell walls, resulting in more garlic flavor. That being said, it means both will lose their flavor much more quickly when cooked.
Tip: To prevent your shallot, onion, or garlic from getting "angry" when grated, grate it directly into an acidic ingredient of your recipe. Grating the shallot into the Dijon mustard or pickle relish would work for deviled eggs.
You can certainly do it with salt and the side of a knife, but you would have to chop rather finely first. So, maybe not worth it. Alternately, you can use a mortar, but again, this requires initial chopping.
Depending on what are the shallots mixed with, maybe you can use a stick blender? This also requires some initial chopping, but maybe blending together gets the shallot fine enough for your application. You may note that there is a flavor difference between grinding and chopping. If you go down the grinding path, you may try to use less at first to balance the flavor.
If you stick with the fine dice, a super sharp knife will make things easier. In the end though, shallots are a bit of a pain to work with given their size and shape. I find onions easier to manipulate, and can't say I really notice a flavor difference in applications where shallots are called for. Often, I just go with the onion.
An alternate solution: Use a larger tip on the piping bag.
Well, tastes vary of course, and recipes vary. I generally prefer shallots to onions in most recipies when I can get them, but I have had one recipe where they were (surprisingly, to me) not noticeably different to my taste, so I do that one with onions now and save the shallots for where they do make a difference to my taste.
@Ecnerwal of course, you are correct about taste. I purchase and use shallot from time to time, but I usually have at least two varieties of onion on hand. While I can certainly tell the difference between onion and shallot in a side-by-side comparison, for me anyway, that small difference is often offset by the convenience of onion in the vast majority of applications.
I have considered buying a larger star tip but I’m pretty sure the bits would still get stuck in the “points”
I use a cheap mini food processor for small tasks such as this - ones where my full-size gear would just be too big & I'd either lose most of it round the edges or it would just go underneath the blades & I'd spend all my time bouncing it up & down trying to get it to work on such a small quantity.
Small batches, but you only need to rough chop initially, so time is saved overall. It will chop really finely, but doesn't go on to liquidise unless you really go overboard.
Asda, 8 quid [ten bucks or so] No clue what make it is. Plenty powerful for its size.
Hand-held so you can estimate its size.
I actually have one of these in the back of my cupboard — I haven’t used it in a while. I will pull it out and try it! Thanks for the idea!
I actually use mine only occasionally, yet more than my full-size blender, purely on 'ease of cleaning' grounds. The blender is a total nuisance to clean & can't go in the dishwasher or be immersed in water. This can, you can drop everything bar the motor in the sink. Easy.
I picked up (only one of the two or three on hand that day - restraint!) a smaller Cuisinart for a similar price at the Goodwill when I wandered by and saw them. Handy to have the small one as well as a bigger one. Not going to quadruple my investment by getting the part it didn't come with I'd rarely use, though. ;^) I do like them as compared to the black & decker we gave away when the bigger one got to us, because they run much more quietly than that howling banshee did, even just spinning empty.
Chopping things finely is one of the several things that a food processor does reasonably well. Stop before it's paste, or don't, as you find works better. If paste works for you, a blender could also do it. A food processor is better than a blender at "chopped but not paste."
You could also run your shallots though a mandoline first for an even thin slice crossway to the rings, then chop the result further with your knife, or food processor. Or slice them with a disc on the food processor before using the blade.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.162680 | 2022-07-23T00:13:44 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121110",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"Ernest Friedman-Hill",
"Tetsujin",
"Tinfoil Hat",
"Todd Wilcox",
"eps",
"herrbischoff",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10037",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64014",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81717",
"jinawee",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
21167 | How to clean non-sticking pan from burnt pepper juices
A couple of times I ruin good non-sticking (teflon) pans in the same way - I fry or roast a bell pepper with too little fat, the pepper juices stick to the non-stick surface and I have to use really hard steel wool to scrub them off.
One problem is that no-matter how hard I scrub, small spots remain on the pan's surface and after that almost everything I fry tends to stick there (even with enough oil). The other problem is that at least in a few cases, I've managed to dent the non-stick coating so deeply that metal showed through.
This time, it is my favorite Bialetti pot (water boiled out while I forgot to turn off steamed peppers) and I want to make everything possible to save it.
Any suggestions are welcome...
Are you sure you were scrubbing off the pepper juices and not the non-stick surface? The surface could be already damaged – deformed and partially separated because heated too much.
After the first time I am avoiding scrubbing too hard/using metal scrubber, but then the problem is that small spots remain. I have no problem with heat-damaged coating - in the case where the metal showed through it was just deeply scratched (I was using metal scrubber and a wooden piece to press hard against the pan).
Have you tried simply soaking it overnight in soapy water to loosen the burnt bits?
That was the first thing I tried - it helps for almost everything but bell-pepper juice.
How about a mild acid like vinegar or lemon juice? Or you could try mixing vinegar with cream of tartar which reacts together to make a quite effective cleaning paste.
soak with dishwasher detergent, undiluted, overnight. If using powder, mix with a bit of isopropyl alcohol to make a paste. That stuff breaks down all organics, they use it in forensics to clean bones...
I don't want to disappoint you, but I have never been able to remove burnt-on pepepr juices - and in my case, they are on stainless steel, which can be cleaned with much harsher methods than non-stick. Most of the stuff went away, but small spots remained on my pot too.
I would advise to leave out all scrubbing. It is not very efficient even on steel, and it can easily damage a non-stick surface. Non-stick happens to be a chemically inert molecule, but it is very susceptible to physical damage.
The nice side of "chemically inert molecule" is that it can withstand a lot of chemical solvents - and these are better for burnt-on stuff anyway. I would go in there with concentrated acid first (citric acid solution at around 2 pH - try it in the same way as decalcifying a kettle, but use a higher concentration than written on the sachet), then, after a really good washing, switch to a base (for example a very concentrated baking soda solution, I would be afraid to use lye on a non-stick pan because it could seep through scratches to the interface between alu and non-stick surface and start corrosion spots). If that doesn't help, probably nothing will.
And I would strongly recommend to not roast peppers in a non-stick pot. Roasted peppers need very high temperatures. Non-stick coatings start changing their properties at around 250°C, this is a low-to-middle hot setting on most stoves (my resistive stove goes from 1 to 9 and 4 is already too hot for non-stick). The best method is a broiler in the oven, but if you don't have that, you can consider using a steel or iron pan which you don't mind accumulating some discoloration and spots (they are not too problematic on steel), or putting alu foil directly on the (resistive) hob and discarding it after the roasting.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.163169 | 2012-02-08T13:34:02 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21167",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"Jacek Konieczny",
"dandavis",
"ddimitrov",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61679"
],
"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
} |
13555 | What oil is best for seasoning a cast-iron skillet
I just cleaned up a rusty cast-iron skillet and I would like to season it. The thing is that I don't have lard handy and I'm wondering whether any of my other oils and fats would do.
I have: canola, olive, sesame and almond oil.
Also, I've heard that appying the oil and reheating multiple times improves the seasoning. Is it true? How many times does it make sense to repeat the process?
The best is flax oil. The next best is soybean oil. The third best is liquid canola (not hydrogenated Crisco).
This is because of where those oils are listed on iodine index; which is a measure of how much an oil will polymerize. Polymerization is when oil turns into plastic and is the actual chemical process responsible for "seasoning".
Here's a whole site dedicated to this topic with more detail:
Chemistry of Cast Iron Seasoning: A Science-Based How-To
-1 because I would argue explicitly against high iodine - see the answer I posted.
I will disagree with the top answers here and say that it is best to look for something saturated, with low iodine value. I personally stand by lard, but there are other options.
The advice that suggests high iodine oils is based on their easy polymerisation. So, if you don't execute your process perfectly, you end up with a polymer layer for a high iodine oil, and a greasy pan for a low iodine oil. Sounds like high iodine wins, right?
Well, this superficial advantage is actually their biggest disadvantage. The polymer you get from a badly executed seasoning with a high iodine oil is a major PITA. Enough of the abundant "sticky sites" on the molecules of the oil have made a connection to form the polymer - but even more are still free, available to grab on to something else, for example the food you are frying. The coating is soft, gummy, and sticky, and I have had it come off in patches during use. It can be hardened under the right circumstances, but that's not easier than getting a low iodine oil to harden (and I suspect it might be even trickier).
Save yourself the grief and go for the low iodine oils. I would say that whatever makes a nice firm bar of soap - lard, palm oil, coconut - is a good choice here. If you can get it right, it's a great layer - and if you can't, you at least know that you're back to the drawing board, instead of a silent failure that will cost you nerves down the road.
Update: I cannot vouch that the iodine number is the cause for the nice polymerization properties, although it sounds intuitively logical that oils which make harder, nonsticky soap might make harder, nonsticky pan surfaces. I can however tell you that, from personal experience, there is a very high correlation between the {low iodine, high saturation} combination of the oil and the final quality of the polymer layer. And for my kitchen, that's quite sufficient.
Could you explain what your answer is based on, please? Thanks.
@JonasStein On personal experience. I have used flaxseed oil for many applications, including soapmaking, wood finishing, caring for garden tools, etc. And with time, I came to recognize the gunkiness and stickiness that is always present in its polymers, it is the same one I was seeing in my pans seasoned with flaxseed oil. When I used other fats, the hardness and smoothness of the seasoning roughly corresponded with the hardness and smoothness of soaps made with the same fat, and I assumed that this is due to the iodine number, since that is well-known in the soap making literature to...
... create that difference in hardness. Also, it makes theoretical sense, since the iodine number is a proxy measure for how many "holes" there are to fill in the polymer on the molecular level. I admit that my explanation for the reasons may be wrong, but I still can confirm my empirical observation that flaxseed oil makes a gummy seasoning layer that is sticky and peels off easily, while saturated fats make a hard, shiny, durable layer.
This question has been answered several times as part of more general questions about seasoning. See the (closely) related links in the related questions list.
This one in particular:
What's the best way to season a cast iron skillet?
Specifically about oil- you want to use an oil that has a high iodine value:
http://www.journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_yield.html#highiodine
Of those you listed canola (rapeseed) would be highest. If you can find soybean oil it would be even better.
These oils polymerize more easily. To create an even coating with good adhesion, multiple thin coats work well. I have read of people doing as many as 6 coats but, in my opinion, you should do at least 2 or 3.
Wait, is there anywhere you can't find soyboil oil? Check ingredients on the bottle labeled "vegetable oil", it's probably either soybean or a mix of soybean and canola. Also refined flax seed would be better (but that actually is much harder to find)
In your reference about iodine values, it says that sesame oil is 104-120, and rapeseed is 94-120. So sesame is actually better.
From personal experience, I have seasoned my Lodge cast iron skillet recently following the process described here and I achieved good results with basic Crisco, which is more or less Canola oil. So far so good: no sticking and great tasting results. I went through the process five times, but I think that may have been a little overboard. Perhaps someone with more practical experience can comment, but I didn't see a huge difference between the fourth and fifth seasoning. After the third round the pan was already a rich, black color with the sheen of a well seasoned cast iron utensil. However, if you are starting from a freshly scoured pan--you mentioned that you are cleaning up an old rusty pan--it may make sense to go through the process a couple of extra times to make sure all the nooks and crannies are properly filled. Mine came from the factory seasoned, but it wasn't done very well--I had food sticking after about a month. Since I re-seasoned myself it's been going strong for a couple of months now.
I'm sorry, but there is no Crisco around here (I'm in Japan). I've got the oils that I mentioned right now. If none of them works, I'll go and buy some lard, but I'm trying to save me a trip to the store :-)
You could use Canola, as that's more or less what Crisco is. I'm sure someone with more expertise can give you the comparisons between oils. I just wanted to share my experience :).
Having grown up in the southern US, the traditional seasoning of cast iron in those parts was to simply cook bacon in it a few times. Nothing near as fancy and involved as what you see recommended these days. That has been my usual lazy approach.
On a recommendation from a cast-iron retailer, I have started using the new fancy approach (rub with oil, bake to polymerize) using flax-seed oil. I have to say that the flax-seed oil gives a very strong coating. Nearly impossible to remove from the sheet pan I used to catch the drips during the oven 'cure'.
If I have a complex-shaped cast-iron item (grill, back-side of skillet) I use the flax-seed approach. If I want to simply build up the coating on the inside of a skillet, I cook the bacon. Always a good excuse to cook up a batch of bacon.
The reason bacon works so well is the salt, which has iodine in it :-)
Only if the salt is iodized. I'm not sure that would necessarily be the norm for curing bacon.
The iodine value of a fat is a metric for saturation but not an indicator of any amount of iodine present in the fat. It's called the "iodine value" in reference to the fact that you can test how saturated a fat is by iodometric titration. I am suspicious about the relevance and veracity of @Escoce's comment.
For seasoning cast iron cookware use Mineral Oil (food grade)
Mineral oil is a petroleum byproduct. It can be food grade, but keep that in mind when using it to season something you cook on. Personally I would stick with a vegetable oil.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.163471 | 2011-03-29T13:38:38 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13555",
"authors": [
"Air",
"Anthea Van Wyk",
"Escoce",
"HelpXpat SEO",
"Jduv",
"Jonas Stein",
"Lydia Marson-Polito",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Simon David Pratt",
"ddimitrov",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149556",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48395",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5280",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68084",
"lemontwist",
"maricris-sn",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
13581 | Does turning a gas stove on high move the heat to the outside of the pot?
When you turn a gas stove on high, you get a big flame with a wide diameter. When you lower the heat, the diameter of the flame shrinks. (I'm not sure this description makes sense. Does it?)
Does turning the heat up all the way move the hottest part of the burner to the outside of the pot? And further, does reducing the heat just enough to shrink the diameter of the flame cause the heat to be more evenly distributed across the bottom of the pan? I've noticed that, while trying to boil water, it tends to boil first around the edges of the pot and doesn't necessarily ever get to a big rolling boil like I've seen on an electric stove.
I was just doing some Googling to try to find out what the temperature distribution is in a natural-gas flame, and I see that Google has a logo up celebrating Robert Bunsen's 200th birthday!
Your stove should have various sized 'rings', and as Philip pointed out depending on which one you use the flame on the outside of the pot effect will differ.
For my stove, the largest ring actually has two rings - so even if I turn the gas up, the inner ring will stay in the middle (the outer ring does tend to grow and sometimes go outside of the pot).
Given that design, I would imagine that yes, if you turn your gas up too much the flame will tend to heat up the outside of the pot.
On a side note, I believe that it is bad for the flames to be heating up the sides (especially the walls of the pot) so I guess it is best to use a pot that is larger than the ring itself, or turn the flame down so it is less than the diamater of the pot base.
Is your pot too small for the eye you are using? If the pot and the flame diameter are roughly the same size the effect you're describing probably happens.
Here's a trick. Take a few staples, and place them between the burner base and the cap. That will lift that metal cap off the base just enough to reduce pressure and allow the flame to rise from the center. It likely won't impact combustion as the gas and O2 have mixed prior to the point in combustion. This will "Loosen" the flame a bit and bring it back to the center of the pan. It works great.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.164195 | 2011-03-30T06:21:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13581",
"authors": [
"Ward - Trying Codidact",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/266"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
81657 | How can I know if I'm purchasing "mild" chorizo or spicy chorizo?
I have a recipe that calls for "mild ground chorizo". At my regular grocery today I saw three brands of ground chorizo, but all were simply labeled "chorizo". The listed ingredients included "spices" but no hints about the level of heat.
I've had chorizo dishes in restaurants that varied from mild to super spicy. The last time I purchased chorizo I believe it was very spicy out of the package.
How can I know if I'm purchasing mild chorizo or spicy chorizo? I plan to visit other grocery stores to see what they have. The recipe includes additional spices that will add some heat, so I would prefer not to start with chorizo that may already be too hot. Alternatively, would another variety of mild sausage be an acceptable substitute?
All chorizo is spicy to a certain extent, but some more than others. Dulce would be mild and Picante would be hot.
Do you have a butcher in town that sells chorizo? They'd be able to better tell you how spicy the sausage they are grounding is going to be and can even mix a mild and hot one if you want something in between.
Ultimately I bought some from a butcher who told me he had never heard of mild chorizo, but that his chorizo was not overly spicy. I was lucky - after the added spices in my recipe it tasted very balanced.
You realistically can't, unless they print it on the wrapper. If the manufacturer gives more detail in the ingredients, maybe. But if it just says "spices", it's trial and error, unfortunately.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.164428 | 2017-05-13T23:38:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81657",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Scott Mitchell",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5036",
"juggler"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
13078 | What are the benefits of Ceylon cinnamon over Chinese cinnamon?
I have read that Ceylon cinnamon is sweeter. It is also 3X the price. Is it really worth it?
They both have a similar flavour but Ceylon cinnamon but your right that it can be slightly sweeter. It also has a different texture (more crumbly) which you may prefer for use in recipes. Chinese cinnamon does have a stronger flavour but some people actually prefer this so it's really just a matter of taste so it's difficult to say whether it's 'worth it'. It can be difficult to get hold of hence it being so expensive. If you're a huge cinnamon fan perhaps purchase yourself a small amount so that you can compare?
The different types of cinnamon are the bark from different types of trees (of the same genus), so naturally, the flavour is a bit different. Which type of cinnamon is more traditional for a particular dish depends on which type of tree grows in that region. It's not so much a case of one being better than the other, but that one might suit the recipe you're preparing better than the other.
Almost all cinnamon available in North America is the "Cassia" cinnamon and it has a spicier flavour, is a darker colour, and when sold in sticks is thick, hard, and forms a loose double-roll shape. "True" cinnamon from Sri Lanka is milder, has a lighter colour, and when sold in sticks is more papery, brittle, and forms a tight single spiral shape.
I recently read that Ceylon cinnamon is also safer because Cassia cinnamon most commonly used can be harmful to the liver if taken in doses over 1 teaspoon a day. One website that spoke about its safety and use is WebMD.
http://www.webmd.com/diet/supplement-guide-cinnamon
It likely depends on what you're doing with it; most recipes from the U.S. are written for cassia, and it's got more a punch to it than ceylon cinnamon, and in my opinion (it might just be because it's what I'm used to), it holds up better to longer cooking times like what you'd have from baking.
Ceylon desn't have the same sort of heat, but it's not as one-dimensional; it tends to have some almost citrus notes to it.
All that being said, I'm not sure which is the standard in most recipes that call for 'cinnamon' ... I think that south american cooking uses ceylon, not cassia.
I'd say that it's sort of like cold-pressed extra virgin olive oil -- it's good for finishing touches, but it's a waste to substitute it all the time.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.164575 | 2011-03-13T14:06:53 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13078",
"authors": [
"Andrew NS Yeow",
"Ivo",
"Joshua",
"algiogia",
"chhavi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27091",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27134",
"zachron"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
46872 | Is all bee's honey the same?
At the supermarket, I found many different brands and varieties of honey. Each came from a different place, but most were marketed based on flower-type. I bought a few different brands, but could not identify a difference.
Does the taste of honey vary depending on which flowers the bees lived around? Or are there other factors that create variety in the taste?
You didn't mention the country. There are different regulations regarding what may be called "honey" and what not. In USA, anything may be labelled as honey, though sometimes they contain zero percent of honey bee.
@roetnig - the FDA says differently. They say that if it is labeled as "honey," then it must be honey, and only honey, and that they can take enforcement action if that's not the case. Can you point me to a source for your claim? In addition, they have specific alerts out for checking for adulteration with sugars and/or chloramphenicol and fluoroquinolones. http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/ucm389501.htm
And how you explain the lack of pollen in most US brands ? Why US commercial honey doesn't crystallize ?
@roetnig - lack of (obvious) pollen can be explained by filtering, by less or more elaborate means. And the honey I've seen does crystallize eventually, it just seems to take a very long time - much longer than the best-by dates they sport - possibly due to something in the process of filtering or heating, or water content, or something. And there may well be adulterated honeys out there, illegal does not mean it is always caught, but that doesn't mean there is no regulation or requirements. Though your zero percent claim really could use some source.
Filtering honey doesn't eliminate pollen. You should micro-filter it to get rid of pollen, and the process isn't cheap. Commercial USA honey doesn't crystallize as natural honey does (and should do under certain conditions because it's over saturated sugar). Most of USA commercial honey is produced abroad, and absence of pollen indicates two things 1) micro-filtering 2) you cannot trace it's origin so may be a mix of honeys from different countries, corn syrup or whatever... oh see? corn syrup doesn't crystallize either... and finally, off the shelf honey in USA doesn't taste at all like honey
It's ALL different from year to year - from season to season, from area to area.
Honey is nectar that has been converted to an invert sugar by the bees. Then moisture removed to < 18%, then sealed with wax over the comb.
The flavors and quality depend 100% on where the bees are collecting the nectar. I have found no difference in the type of bee, however. Some bees collect more nectar, work longer hours, swarm easier, and have other traits that make life easier for the bee keeper, but in my apiary - I found no preference to the flavor of one type of bee over the other. (Italian vs. Carniolan, vs. Caucasian). Some were a bit different because I think some flew earlier and foraged longer, and may have gotten nectar that was from different mix of flowers.
There is also almost NO true "organic" honey. This is because you cannot guarantee that a bee ONLY has access to property that falls under the organic guidelines. With a flight radius of 2 Miles or more, thats a LOT of acres that would have to be certified 100% organic.
Most Clover honey will usually taste about the same, mesquite, about the same - but having sampled lots of it - it DOES change from season to season and area to area. Various regions and seasons have different mixes of flowers and trees producing nectar at any given time, and that is what flavors the honey.
For the best honey, get Pure, Unfiltered, Raw honey, from a Local source. You may try a farmers market. It's a hot, hard job, and the pay is not so great, but most beekeepers (as most other farmers) do not do it for the big bucks - but for the love of the land, the bees, and farming. Note that some honey may be adulterated by the use of pesticides that are not allowed in the USA. And some large companies buy honey from anyone and any place and it all gets mixed together.
Related: another question. While pesticides might not be the problem, some countries have banned import from others due to contamination with antibiotics, lead, and other trace toxins. There are certainly issues with USA regulations, but that doesn't imply that all foreign farmers are likely to be better.
My dad raised honey bees when I was a kid. Sold a good portion of the honey to people he knew from his day job as a scientist. There never a problem with having not enough people who wanted the honey. The last place we had them, we lived on the top of a hill near the high school. The top of the next hill was a farm that was mainly fruit orchards (and they had a small community theater run out of one of the barns). Needless to say, they were happy to be the host location for my dad's hives.
Clover is generic in the US, there are other very cool varieties but they might not be as easy to find.
Grocery store clover honey is pretty much a commodity, I buy 5 pound bottles of Sue Bee Clover Honey, made in Iowa, for less than $15. Watch for phonies: How to tell if it is honey, super filtered honey, or corn syrup?
Wildflower and Orange Blossom are not terribly rare, and can sometimes be found on grocery shelves. The differences between these "grocery store" varieties are pretty subtle, but they're there. As Kogitsune noted in comments, sometimes you can get lucky and find more interesting honey in the grocery store.
From Honey at Home
The color, flavor, and even aroma of a particular variety of honey may differ depending on the nectar source of flowers visited by the honey bee. The colors may range from nearly colorless to dark brown, the flavor may vary from delectably mild to distinctively bold, and even the odor of the honey may be mildly reminiscent of the flower.
Varietal honeys may be best compared to varietal wine in terms of annual climactic changes. Even the same flower blooming in the same location may produce slightly different nectar from year-to-year depending upon temperature and rainfall.
Special honey is a boutique kind of item. Around here (Alaska), Fireweed honey is big.
(from above link)
From Amazon
Buckwheat honey is very rich and almost black.
Checking out honey varieties is really pretty exciting, but you're not going to find much at the local mega-mart. These are usually small-batch, specialty items. Look at the link at the top of this answer, it goes into very nice detail.
This depends on your location, as do many other things - my local grocer consistently stocks Orange Blossom and Alfalfa in addition to the typical Clover, plus any rotating stock. Definitely recommend trying other varieties than clover or wildflower, especially if you feel you don't really like honey.
@Kogitsune Absolutely right. There's so much variety, it would be a shame to think you don't like honey because you don't care for one type.
Honey is one of those ingredients where it's worth finding a small, local maker. Especially if you can find one at a farmer's market who's willing to give samples. (although you won't necessarily find fireweed honey ... I've only seen that when visiting Alaska)
There are, or were, supermarkets which stock multiple distinctly different honeys. The one I went to about a decade ago made a point of having a range available; I grew very fond of sage honey, for example.
If you check farmers' markets you should be able to find "wildflower" honey (ie, whatever the bees happened to gather, possibly blended from multiple hives), and if the vendor has an orchard or other large farm which they're using bees to pollenate, they'll be likely to have honey mostly gathered from those flowers.
Given the problems bees have been having recently, it may be more difficult to find specific honeys than it used to be. You may have to resort to mail-order.
Some vendors have been suspected of stretching honey by adding sugar from other sources. I don't know whether there's any truth to that or not, but shop carefully.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.164793 | 2014-09-04T11:36:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46872",
"authors": [
"Ahmad Siblini",
"Athanasius",
"Carmen Chiong",
"ChinaCreek OutDoors",
"JEANNE RIZZO",
"Joe",
"John Rea",
"Jolenealaska",
"Joseph Q. Pham",
"Kogitsune",
"Marie Engle",
"Megha",
"Molly W",
"Pamela Wilson",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Sharlene Blau",
"Stacy Husby",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113054",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113055",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113085",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113091",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"roetnig"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
46995 | How to authenticate food products?
I recently encountered some sellers trying to pass off what probably was counterfeit food at my supermarket. The counterfeiting was easy to detect. Some products had labels that were faded and not as bright as they usually appear. Other items had crooked labels and strange blotches around the letters that appear to have occurred during, not after printing. Others, I only identified after eating and found the taste quite inconsistent with what I usually get.
Suppose I find food items that do not have such obvious printing mistakes. Are there additional ways I can determine if a product is genuine? Can any of the labels, such as the numbers printed on the bottom of canned soup, tell me if the product is authentic?
In order to answer this question, it's very important to know where you are. The answer will differ in different jurisdictions.
The marks and various labelling quirks might help you but this is something that's going to vary hugely from product to product. Ultimately, I can't see a good solution that doesn't involve talking to the genuine version's creators.
They might be able to explain printing errors or recipe changes,
They should be able to describe their product so you can compare (you could do this yourself),
They might be familiar with existing fakes out there,
They're the people who should be most motivated to end the fraud.
Even if this isn't a counterfeit, you'll help the manufacturer by reporting a dodgy batch. In my experience, they reward this with coupons that usually more than cover a replacement.
If after all this you still suspect something is wrong, you should probably also notify authorities. In the UK we have Trading Standards (local council), Action Fraud (police) and Brand-i (trademark body). You might have similar where you are.
But most importantly, check what you're buying before you buy it. By the sounds of it you've already eaten this stuff and that's just something I'd never do. The food is counterfeit for a reason: it probably doesn't meet standards put in place to protect your safety.
Europe has a legal procedure to thoroughly monitor all types of foods when buying any Food or Product. The buyer may require a document called a certificate of compliance. With this certificate, legal claims may be raised in the absence of traceability of the chain
Nowadays all food products have the scannable codes which can use to check the authenticity of the product. They are the codes like barcodes, QR codes etc.
For eg. Neurotags(Anti-counterfeit solution) is providing the tags using the QR code to verify the originality of the product.
Hope you find this useful.
Most, not all, foods do have bar codes. (At least in the US.) Unfortunately, scanning a bar code does not authenticate a product in any way.
Yes, barcodes and QR codes can also be counterfeited.
It is possible to authenticate the product using Nuerotags- anti-counterfeit technology. You can check https://www.neurotags.com and this tags cannot be counterfeited.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.165457 | 2014-09-09T05:39:58 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46995",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"Glenda Ann Reaves",
"Jack Shaughnessy",
"James McLeod",
"Jolenealaska",
"Shrola Fourtunia",
"Tina",
"Vorie Turner",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113375",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113384",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68157",
"mayuri"
],
"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
} |
49277 | What is the difference between Paris ham and French ham?
My supermarket sells two kinds of pre-sliced ham. One is called Paris-style and the other French-style ham. Both kinds of ham are from the same company and the names are no indication of where the ham is made.
Are these names widespread terms to used describe different types of ham?
If so, what is the difference between how these are made?
A check of the ingredients might give you a clue. Jambon de Paris is a specific type of lightly spiced ham. 'French style' ham sounds like marketing speak to me, because there is no one definitive French style of ham. You might as well say 'American-style hamburger'.
I agree with @ElendilTheTall that it is probably marketing speak. However, since is is the same brand, there most likely is a difference in the two products. Check the ingredients and method of preparation. Is it possible that one is Jambon de Paris (cooked) and the other is Jambon de Bayonne (dry cured)? Being that it is a style of ham, where it is produced would not be a factor. If all else fails, ask your grocer what the difference is. I would be interested to know what you find out! :)
I little digging into it shows that there's also a "Jambon de Paris Fumé", which is smoked. I have no idea if that would show up on an ingredient list.
I have only been able to find one brand, A TABLE, (http://www.sinodis.com/en/brand/table) that appears to have both pre-sliced/packaged French ham and Paris style ham. However, when I looked at each the descriptions were the same. Another suggestion might be for Village to contact the mfr. and ask for details.
Yes, that is the very brand. The packaging does not give much detail about the ingredients. Probably since they are a French-owned company that is why they add the word "French" to some of their products.
Jambon de Paris (Paris Ham) is a slow cooked ham. The slow cooking means it retains a large percentage of its moisture and absorbs the flavours of the ingredients with which it is cooked.
Jambon de Bayonne is a dry cured or smoked ham that may or may not be further cured in red wine and given its name from the region in which it originates.
Both are sometimes identified as French Jambon ham. French-style ham would probably indicate the use of one or both methods to produce the final result. But as Elendilthetall mentioned it is just marketing speak for an imitation.
French ham is slowly cooked in just-simmering water and is seasoned only with salt. It is made with high-quality pigs and is hoped to be very juicy, almost wet. It is the preferred type of ham for ham and butter baguette sandwiches, a French staple.
A French ham is like a Boston ham. Cut from the shoulder. Packed tight in a cask. Then shipped. on ships for food for sailors or to America as food for troops in the civil war. Not the best of ham but good enough for those type of people. It packed well in cask in the 1800s Did not need refrigeration. Also known as Nausue ham or pork. Shipped all the way from Nausue France to feed the troops. Paris ham was good enough to keep in France for food. You could always tell French ham by the special greenish color.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.165740 | 2014-10-27T11:58:24 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49277",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Gaurav",
"Ian Hartshorne",
"Jaeheon Shim",
"Joe",
"Sam Colvert",
"Village",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152566",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9519"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
48887 | How to keep cream cheese for a long time?
I discovered that I can buy cream cheese at 1/4 the price per pound, but only if I buy it as a solid 10 cm x 10 cm x 40 cm brick. Assuming I only eat 1/10th of this brick per week, is there any way I can store it so it does not go moldy in the meantime?
The "best before" date is usually way out. Cut it in slices that you will use within a week. Still Tasty recommends that you use opened, refrigerated cream cheese within a couple of weeks. Very well packed (well wrapped or preferably vacuum packed) cream cheese really should last longer than that. I'd try for keeping a month's worth, refrigerated, in well wrapped packages that you won't open until the last one is gone. Freeze the rest. Frozen, it will lose some creaminess, but will still be good in cooked applications. Again, Still Tasty is a bit (IMO) overly conservative. They suggest (for quality only, not safety), keeping opened cream cheese in the freezer for only two months. I'd allow at least three, if not four. Of course it will stay safe in the freezer indefinitely. In the fridge, just watch for mold, toss the whole thing if it develops mold. You can't just cut off the moldy parts like you can on hard cheese.
EDIT: Just FYI, some places in the US that sell the 48 ounce brick also sell 50 count, 1 ounce packages. Quite a deal for less than $2 more, epecially if the sell-by date is well out. (This picture is from Sam's Club, but I think the other big warehouse store carries the small packs too.)
I don't know about that. While bacteria are not a problem, open cream cheese tends to go moldy after less than two weeks.
@rumtscho It may not make a full month, but I think this gives the OP a pretty good shot. I've used the brick, pretty much like I've outlined (although I didn't freeze any of it). I'm not sure I went as long as a month, but it had to have been pretty close. At any rate, the OP will still be ahead of the game if (s)he gets through half of the refrigerated portion before it develops mold. Since trying it isn't a health risk, I think it's worth a shot. A big key is wrapping well and not opening the later packs again until use.
@rumtscho - if open cream cheese goes moldy in your fridge that quick you may want to adjust the temperature down. Mine lasts 2 months easy.
I suggest freezing it in oil (so that ice crystals do not form), according to the following procedure:
Acquire a sealable plastic container, such as Tupperware, just a bit larger than the total amount of space (volume) the stored cheese will occupy. Obviously you're not limited to the configuration you described. But this method will preserve the cheese for several months in an airtight environment.
Place the whole block of cheese in the refrigerator and leave it there long enough for it to come down to refrigerator temps; this will make it easier to cut it without deforming it, leaving you nice clean little bricks to work with and enjoy.
Place a medium-size bottle of vegetable oil in the freezer, and leave it there long enough for it to come down to freezer temps. Vegetable oil cannot freeze in a typical household freezer. Also add the container you'll be using to store the bricks of cheese in.
Separately, prepare sheets of wax paper, the dimensions of which are the same size as the broad side of each individual brick of cheese, (whatever size you choose), plus of course just a slight amount of overlap (especially on one end). Refrigerate them too, that and one large sheet for your work surface. If you own stone plates of any sort, (a pizza stone will do just fine), go ahead and refrigerate one of those as well (or freeze it if there's room for it). The general principle is to keep everything down below room temperature as much as possible. So once you get started with the cutting process your aim is to work as quickly though safely as possible.
Temporarily remove the block of cheese from the refrigerator, just long enough to remove it from its wrapper and score it along its top side, making marks wherever you intend to cut it. Place it right back in the frig.
For cutting you will need an ample supply of unwaxed dental floss, a long thin-bladed knife (carving knife), a small kitchen brush (flat and broad), and a shallow bowl of refrigerated vegetable oil. Set up your work surface with these items about the perimeter. You'll also want a bar towel to clean the knife off with as you work.
Place your refrigerated stone plate onto your work surface, Cover it with that large sheet of refrigerated wax paper. Place your opened oil container (the one you'll be storing the bricks in) to your right or left (depending on which hand you are). Brush a thin layer of oil uniformly over the center of the wax paper, covering an area just larger than that of the block of cheese.
Wasting no time, remove the block of cheese from the frig and place it on the stone plate. Brush oil over the top of the entire block of cheese, and pour a little oil into the storage container (meaning the oil from the freezer).
Oil an appropriate length of dental floss, and use it to cut your first slice. Just wrap ends of the floss around your hands/fingers and pull real tight for this, forming a length of string only slightly longer than the cheese is wide. Don't saw. Just go straight down though the soft cheese. Still, it won't go all the way through (along the middle of its course). So brush more oil into the new gap, oil you carving knife, and gently use it to complete the process. Allow the brick of cheese to fall over into your hand and onto the little piece of wax paper you made for it (them), and press it (rub it) on. Immediately lower the brick into the oil container with the paper side down, and add enough oil to now submerge that brick.
Quickly repeat this process for each brick of cheese. Then cap the container and place it back in the freezer. Any time you want to replenish your supply you'll simply have to remove it from the container, drain it, and then wrap it for a little while in a high quality paper towel. Now transfer it to whatever you normally keep your cream cheese in.
Your answers would be a lot more useful if you could get to the point more directly, and avoid all the embellishment. In this case, I don't think your suggestion is even useful: it's a lot of trouble for no real benefits over simply freezing it.
@Jefromi Having the soft cheese encased in oil (while in the freezer) prevents water crystals from building up on it and thus from reducing its storage life. Though it is perfectly understandable one would suspect this ineffective, please feel free to shoot me an email (give me a chance to convince you) before discouraging use of my advice. All else is specific to how it is that I do things and is understood to be optional for readers less patient/compulsive than myself, as it would compound things even more if I constantly try to parse between what is vital and what is convenient. Thanks.
Discussion in comments is fine and even good - it lets other readers see the points for themselves; no need for emails here. (Indeed, users here can't normally see each others' emails. I can as a moderator, but it'd be an abuse of my powers to use it for something like this.) As for your points: it's true, ice buildup in the freezer can be a problem. But it's only on the surface, so you can avoid it with tight wrapping.
(That said, Jolene's point about it getting less creamy is a reason to do this, if you're trying to keep extra cream cheese around for non-cooking purposes!)
My main suggestion if you want to keep all of the detailed instructions would be to begin your answer with a quick summary: store it submerged in oil, to keep it perfectly airtight, and slice off pieces when you need. That'll be enough for a lot of people, and save them a lot of time, but people who want more detail can get it!
I hope you don't mind, but I made some formatting changes to make it easier to read. I personally love detailed step-by-step instructions like this, since it reduces the chance of getting it wrong, but it's hard to find what step you're on without numbers.
Oh, I misread the first time, I thought it was storing in oil in the fridge! In that case, I guess this is just a slightly more reliable method than wrapping tightly, say in plastic wrap? It definitely sounds like it'll work, don't get me wrong, I just feel like it might be overkill :)
Wow, didn't see the ten steps coming! Nice. Grazie!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.166035 | 2014-10-12T23:17:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/48887",
"authors": [
"Brandy Banks",
"Cascabel",
"Dante Odom",
"Jackie Cansdale",
"Jeffrey Pruden",
"John Armour",
"Jolenealaska",
"Rachel Andrews",
"Richard Bogoger",
"Stacy Nylen",
"Thomas Raywood",
"Yamikuronue",
"blankip",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116645",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116650",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117085",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28723",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"mel fontanez",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
47667 | Should ciabatta sandwich rolls be dry and dense?
I found a recipe calling for ciabatta sandwich rolls. My supermarket sells these, baked in their bakery, however, I found this bread dry and dense, which I do not find appealing. Should this kind of bread have this quality?
Ciabatta should be crusty, with a chewy crumb and big air pockets. Neither "dry" nor "dense" would be adjectives one would associate with good ciabatta.
This is what good ciabatta should look like:
Source: Michael Ruhlman (highly respected recipe and author)
Sometimes the loaves may be flatter, but the chewiness, big air pockets, and crustiness are what define good ciabatta.
Source: Brown Eyed Baker
If you can't find good ciabatta at your store, would you consider making your own? Both of the above links have highly regarded recipes. The Brown Eyed Baker link will lead you to the same recipe as in the video I'm about to mention.
I have had great luck with America's Test Kitchen's ciabatta recipe and video, but it only shows the forming of loaves, not rolls. This recipe describes a method for shaping ciabatta rolls. I really appreciated the video since I had never before dealt with a dough so "wet" (80% hydration, nearly pourable). ATK offers a 14 day free trial, so I'd recommend trying it and checking out that video. These pictures are from my first ciabatta from ATK's recipe:
I was very pleased, I followed every little fussy step in the video. That broke it down into manageable chunks, and made it seem easy.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.166782 | 2014-10-05T02:44:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47667",
"authors": [
"5 Star Processing",
"Alice Hagene",
"Anna Fishpool",
"Chris Haddock",
"Emma C",
"Lindsay Clarke",
"M A",
"Octobyr H Toby",
"Sandra Welford",
"Spammer",
"alan cowlishaw",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115081",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115097",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115099",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115110",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115115"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
49278 | Is unsour sour cream too new or too old?
My supermarket only has one supplier of sour cream, so I always buy it. It appears to be made by a small company.
All last year, when I purchased the product, it appeared like any sour cream you can purchase in the US. But during the last 3 times, the taste and texture was different. First, it was not sour, the nearest flavor I can imagine would be cottage cheese, but not so sweet. Second, the texture was quite unusual. Rather than having the usual creamy texture, this was grainy, as I imagine sour cream would look if one mixed in some sand.
The date I purchased the cream was 10 days after the produced date.
Is this taste and texture and indication that the sour cream is too old?
Or perhaps an indication that the sour cream needs to age more to become sour?
Or just a different style of sour cream?
It sounds like the sour cream was frozen and thawed.
Yep, I agree. I have accidentally frozen sour cream a couple of times, and the result was like the OP describes. I didn't notice the lack of sour as much, but the graininess was off-putting.
Never tried US-made sour cream and never tasted anything like you described, but here in Russia when the sour cream goes bad, it smells either rancid, rotten, or moldy (depending on circumstances of going bad). 10 days after canning is close (for cheaper brands) to or (better) past its expiry date.
Perhaps what you have is from a bad batch: not fermented enough, or milk was too hot or too cold, or lactobacteria died due to contamination of competing organisms, or was just stored improperly or for too long. Again, as I have never encountered sour cream that resembles what you have described, my reaction would be to discard it as it is completely useless as sour cream and of questionable non-toxicity.
Do not forget to check its expiry date. If it was sold to you past expiry, it may be wise to talk to the store owner or even file a complaint.
Judy's guess is one good possibility. The other possibility is that it was curdled by something. As sour cream is quite stable and rarely curdles even if too old, it could have happened through heating. Still, going bad cannot be ruled out (because it is also a cause for curdling). But it might also have been benign.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.166949 | 2014-10-27T12:18:54 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49278",
"authors": [
"Amanda Wahl",
"Charles Fingers",
"James Buxton",
"Jolenealaska",
"Peter Spivack",
"Stefanie Nabors",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117676",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117677",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117678",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117687",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"user117676"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
47666 | Why use a sandwich press instead of an oven or pan?
I often make hot sandwiches. Usually I just put butter on the outsides of the bread, then put them in the oven just until the cheese melts. I see other people just put the sandwiches in a pan with butter, and flip it a few times.
I notice the store selling sandwich presses, but am confused by the purpose. They do not seem more convenient than an oven, because that just adds another item to wash, and they seem to smash the sandwich.
Is there some advantage to using a sandwich press in terms of convenience or of taste?
They press the sandwich, making it thinner and sometimes adding ridges. It's a texture thing, mostly.
There are sandwiches where smashing the sandwich is desired ... cuban sandiwches, panini, etc. If you just look at your basic 'grilled cheese', you have significant differences in the crust if you toast it in the oven, cook it on a pan or griddle, or cook it under pressure.
We tend to put a piece of oven paper between the sandwich and the sandwich press, so there's no extra item to wash.
I usually wrap fireplace bricks in foil, heat them up in the oven, and use them to press the sandwiches.
There is really no advantage or disadvantage to using a sandwich press. This is more a choice of preference from person to person.
For me, a sandwich press is preferable as it toast the bread on both sides simultaneously, so you get an even toast on both sides, and it also presses the sandwich together so that it does not fall apart. A sandwich press also heats up faster than an oven (note, I'm talking about electrical ovens that is commenly used in RSA) and consumes much less electricity to do the same job.
So yes, this is all about what you prefer and what works best for you
It's funny, this issue just came up in chat. No question, it comes down to personal preference. Of the two people involved in the discussion, the pan-on-the-stove method was much preferred to the press for grilled cheese. However, a muffuletta or similarly over-filled sandwich just begs for the press (IMO).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.167158 | 2014-10-05T02:38:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47666",
"authors": [
"Carmi",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"K W",
"Preston",
"System Folder",
"Thobani Nzama",
"ann ayers",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115076",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115077",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115078",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user115076"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
20858 | Adding pasta to soup
Is there any way to add pasta to soup without the pasta doubling in size and getting mushy in the fridge later.I've even tried putting uncooked pasta in with the same result.
There might be a solution for the 'mushy' part: acidity. (and egg noodles). See https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/51629/67
If you're going to hold soup with pasta in the fridge, store the pasta separately, and add it when reheating the soup. This also goes for soup with dumplings.
This does mean that you'll need to cook the pasta separately from the soup, which is another pot. If you look, though, this is what a lot of recipes recommend.
Negative!
As soon as cooked pasta is added to liquid, it keeps growing and growing and growing.
The only way to work around this is to add the cooked pasta at the last minute, so it can warm in the hot liquid.
I agree with this. I cook the pasta separate, and then combine the pasta and the soup in the bowl. The pasta remains al dente and the soup doesn't get starchy.
Left over soup and pasta goes in the fridge separately. For lunch the next day, I can still head up a portion of the soup and at the last minute, add the pasta and I still get al dente pasta in my soup.
First cook the soup. When it is ready get the amount you need and cook the pasta in there, then serve. You can add more pasta to the soup you put in the fridge when you reheat it.
The only problem with this method is that if you mistake the amount of soup that you'll need, and you cook the pasta in that separate pan of soup, then you either end up with leftover soup with the pasta in it, or if somebody wants seconds, and you're out of the soup with cooked pasta, then you have no easy recourse, unless they want to wait 8-10 minutes while you make another batch with pasta.
I also don't like the way that cooking pasta in the soup makes for a starchier soup.
@MarkS: I guess that goes down to taste. I actually like to cook pasta in soup... Otherwise Doug's answer is probably fine (although my brain refuses the concept of storing plain pasta in my fridge... pasta has to be cooked at the moment :D).
I like to cook pasta al dente, then chill it in the fridge. Once cooled, add the pasta to the finished soup. This is not perfect, but in my opinion, close to perfection.
Use egg noodles. They seem to do better and not get mushy. I once even froze some chicken noodle soup made with egg noodles and after it was reheated, the noodles where not mushy.
Freezing is waaaay different than storing in the fridge.
I just recently cooked pasta before putting in the soup, but did not chill. It ballooned up like crazy and had to add more beef broth to compensate. I think chilling the pasta will def work! Thanks for the thought process.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.167373 | 2012-01-28T06:49:52 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20858",
"authors": [
"Beth",
"Fauxcuss",
"Joe",
"Old Man",
"Peeyush Kushwaha",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45908",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45989",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91764",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91781",
"nico"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.