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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
24385 | Why must potato salad be placed in the refrigerator before serving?
Many recipes for potato salad state that one should place the salad in the refrigerator after preparing. Some recipes state that one hour is enough. Others ask for several hours. Some recipes even require it to be stored overnight before being served. Why do these recipes have this requirement?
Refrigerating accomplishes several things:
It is the right temperature to get the intended flavor. Flavors change with temperature, and some dishes get the correct taste when cold.
Flavors get to blend more. Aromatic spices sometimes take time to soak into the sauce, and liquids absorb into the potatoes more
Cold is an easy way to prevent spoilage. Potato salad usually contains mayonnaise, which is a natural growth medium for bacteria. By cooling the salad you can leave it out to serve for a couple hours without risking illness.
Food safety of Potato Salad:
For potato salad, you have about 2 hours of safe eating in the 40-140F temperature range. Refrigerating is an easy way to extend this, by cooling below 40F. For hot salads, you can either reheat before serving, or keep it hotter than 140F by using a chafing dish and can of Sterno.
About Mayonnaise in Potato Salad:
Commercial mayonnaise is too acidic to spoil easily, but when mixed in with potato salad it can be diluted enough to spoil. It is better to refrigerate than take the risk, right? If you use homemade mayonnaise, you run the risk of salmonella on top of this.
While I mainly agree with your statements, I have to say that "Potato salad usually contains mayonnaise, which is a natural growth medium for bacteria" is a 'depends' situation. Commercially prepared mayonnaise tends to be full of acids and pasteurized eggs, and can be a bacterial growth inhibitor (the spoilage is more likely to come from the other ingredients in the salad). Homemade mayonnaise, which is made with raw eggs, is definitely a receptive environment for bacteria.
@HeatherWalters: You are correct that commercially prepared mayonnaise on its own is acidic enough to inhibit bacterial growth; however, when it is mixed with other ingredients, the acidity gets diluted and the combination can spoil. Given that it is pasteurized, you don't have to worry about salmonella, but the vegetables may introduce other pathogens that can grow in the mixture. Better safe than sorry in this case.
I agree. And who wants warm potato salad anyways? ;)
@HeatherWalters - There is a German-style potato salad which is served warm and is absolutely delicious. (http://allrecipes.com/recipe/german-potato-salad/ for example.)
Also, some (especially non-dairy) mayonnaises are best added with the potatoes cold, since they will melt and yield a suboptimal texture.
I love warm potato salad, especially with a salty porky dinner like oktoberfest sausages. If you are making it and serving it right away, it is not going to poison anyone - think of all those recipes for garlic mashed potatoes that basically involve stirring a mayo-based garlicy caesar salad dressing into mashed potatoes. After dinner if there is any left I put it in the fridge. (The next day, my teens are quite likely to microwave their portions - they prefer to eat it warm.)
Now if you're making it to take to a picnic, that's a different story. Get it cold right away and keep it cold while you're transporting it. But there's no need if it's for immediate consumption.
A good point -- there are potato salads intended to be hot. For these dishes, it's safe for at least 2 hours after it cools below 140F. If you store it at 140F or hotter, you can safely keep it much longer. At a picnic, the alternative to refrigeration is to keep it at temperature with a chafing dish and Sterno can.
I also find that refrigeration helps to thicken the dressing. I'm not a fan of runny potato salad.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.167635 | 2012-06-12T12:13:25 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24385",
"authors": [
"Benos",
"BobMcGee",
"Guest",
"Ijeoma ",
"KatieK",
"Larry Silver",
"Phyllis",
"brewster",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55523",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55750",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55751",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"huzzah",
"krayon",
"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
} |
14301 | How to enhance sweetness of a baked chocolate brownie?
I am not sure if it is even possible or not. I baked a almond and walnut chocolate brownie. While I was preparing the mixture I added extra cocoa powder, I though it will give the brownie a perfect chocolate color. This resulted in bit bitter brownie. The brownie is perfectly baked. I have never ever baked some thing so perfect and consistent like this brownie. Can I some how enhance sweetness of this brownie?
You could thin a little syrup or honey with water and brush it on the top of the brownies so that it soaks in a sweetens them a little. Try it on one first.
OK, I will try it and let you know.But wont it destroy the brownie?
It should be ok providing you don't make it too liquid. You need to strike a balance between soakability and not being so wet it breaks the brownie up. That's why it's a good idea to test it on one brownie first.
I tried it on a part, used honey, tasted bit sweet. I guess I will buy a small tub of vanilla and will devour this brownie with ice cream and chocolate syrup. I have some how lost around 2 KGs and hopefully will regain my round shape soon :P. Thanks for the tip.
You could always frost the brownies, or you could also sprinkle powdered sugar with a sieve over the top to add a little extra sweetness.
My Wifey had this idea on first place but frost or sugar will not add the sweetness consistently.
@Kumar : maybed not if you left it in typical brownie-sized bits, but if you cut it into smaller bite-sized bits, and enrobe it in the frosting, or a sweet chocolate, you'd be able to get the balance you're looking for.
Katherine, wifey frosted half of the brownie, she didn't like it but I liked it :)
Serve it with whipped cream or ice cream.
Next time, I imagine you'd have to increase the amount of sugar you use.
I would crumble it all up on a mixing bowl then add some honey or goldrn syrup. I would the mix it. Then I mould them back then freeze them.
Another way would be to slice the brownie down to very thin slices first, and then frost it as suggested by @Katherine Pitta. The combination of bitterness and sweetness will make it a very nice companion with tea or coffee.
all done and the brownie has been devoured, burp!!!
Obviously, (as mentioned before), you could add a little bit more sugar, or you could add instant cocoa which is essentially cocoa powder with a bit of dried milk and sugar added. This would work, though the full flavour of the cocoa may disappear a bit.
I had the same problem a couple of days ago, I ate a slice of brownie slightly warmed up with some vanilla ice cream and melted some milk chocolate on top. It was delicious, and perfectly balanced the bitterness of my brownie.
It would also work if you turned the brownies into cake pops!
Pour/spread over them sweeter chocolate melted and sprinkle lightly with high quality flaky salt like Maldon. The chocolate is only for the purpose of the salt sticking to it. I mean literally 5-7 crystals per brownie square. This will work in ratio for brownie recipe 1:1:1:1:1 butter, chocolate,eggs,flour,sugar by weight. Next time I would use dark cocoa (nixtamalized), like the one which goes into Oreo. If you need to have more cocoa in it, the best I thing would be just very dark chocolate 70%+ at the start, without the cocoa. Chocolate has better balance in solids flavour.
Solved a bland batch of almond-flour brownies by serving each square with,first, a good trickle of Hershey's no sugar chocolate syrup and then a good tablespoon of Breyer's "Carb Smart" vanilla ice cream. Diabetic heaven.
If it were me, I would dump the idea that these were eat-alone brownies, and see what else could be done with them. That bitter chocolate makes me think of Mexico. How about this: Oaxacan turtle sundaes, with vanilla ice cream, your brownies, caramel sauce, and ancho-dusted pecans (ancho is a dark red pepper with a fair amount of heat. Ground ancho can be found many places with a decent spice selection or Mexican grocery). For extra points, sub cajeta (caramelized goats milk) for the caramel sauce
Maybe try your own version of tiramisu. One piece at a time, pour very sweet coffee over it until it puddles on all sides of the brownie. Let it soak in for about 10-15 minutes. Mine tasted better, but still bitter. I’m slicing ACROSS the middle (sideways),sprinkling some sugar substitute IN it, replacing the top, and pouring coffee on again. Gonna try very soon!
U could always crumble the brownies and add frosting, and make cake pops or “brownie pops” it’s super easy crumble the brownie mix in frosting the mold into a ball, poke a stick into it and dip into any coating (candy melts, icing, even frosting) add sprinkles on top for more sweetness, freeze and enjoy!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.167980 | 2011-04-24T08:33:32 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14301",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"Joe",
"Kumar",
"Tony Joyce",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161327",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5272",
"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
} |
13671 | What is wrong with my icing?
I have read recipes that says mix half cup butter and 1.5 times the icing sugar and beat, add some milk, not more than 2-3 spoons. I have been beating it for last 30 minutes and tasted it, the sugar is still not dissolved in the cream, am I doing some thing wrong?
Did you use the correct sugar? Icing sugar is the one like baby powder.
hmm...its not finely powdered but still quite powdered, the pack says icing sugar and am a n00b chef all excited after acquiring a new microwave oven :(
It should be like dust. There shouldn't be any discernible grains. If you want to try again, run it in small batches in a blender (or rotary coffee/spice grinder) to grind it down as fine as you can.
Chris, though its not dust but its not crystal either, its more like fine sand, I and my wife are taking turns to beat it, it will be 1 am soon and I asked this 1 question 35 minutes ago, we are wasting a Friday evening with wrong ingredient for cake :P
That sounds like "fruit sugar" or superfine. Icing sugar is like dust, and it dissolves instantly. I think you should give up. It won't dissolve. Spread it on your breakfast toast with a bit of cinnamon to use it up.
:-( ok, I have already baked the cake, will store it in the fridge, will get icing sugar tomorrow, thankfully there is a departmental store at a stone's throw from my apartment, but thanks for your advice. I wish I could choose your comment as an answer
Based on comments to the original question:
It sounds like you used the wrong type of sugar. Icing sugar is also referred to as powdered sugar or confectioner's sugar. From your description, it sounds like you used what we call (in Canada) superfine or fruit sugar (sugar for sprinkling on fruit, not from fruit).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.168605 | 2011-04-01T18:51:37 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13671",
"authors": [
"Chris Cudmore",
"Kumar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5272"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
13178 | How to create the best veg noodles?
I am newbie to cooking,
I will have to create veg noodles , I am following this tutorial,
I want to know what are the add-ons I can add it to make it testy and best.
Thanks,
Your main sources of flavour in any Chinese-style noodle dish will be:
Garlic
Ginger
Chilli
Spring Onion/Scallion
Soy sauce
Oyster sauce
Rice wine / dry sherry
Sesame oil
Sesame oil has a very distinctive 'Chinese' flavour. It is very strong so you only need a little. You should not use it for frying - think of it more like a seasoning. Add a teaspoon or so at the end of cooking and stir through.
Any addition/correction if I want to serve it with Thai Curry ?
Fish sauce (nam pla), lime juice, and fresh coriander leaves. You want to keep it fairly simple so as not to clash with the curry itself.
If you want to serve your noodles with Thai Curry, I think you can use what @ElendilTheTall suggested plus serving with bean sprouts and maybe some mint and basil. I may also consider adding some fish sauce / lime and crushed peanuts. This is more toward to the thai flavour.
My recipe would have the following
Garlic
Ginger
Chilli
Shallot/spring onion
Soy sauce
Sesame oil
Fish sauce / lime
crushed peanuts
bean sprouts
mint / basil
Also, the type of noodles is important too. Since you will have it with Curry, I would suggest the thick white/egg noodles. The thicker noodles will absorb the curry better.
If you want to use rice noodles, maybe you can skip most of the ingredients above and just pour curry over the noodles with some bean sprouts and a bit of herbs. In that case, you can taste the true flavour of curry.
Good Luck
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.168872 | 2011-03-16T10:11:28 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13178",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"Harry McNally",
"Jigar Joshi",
"Sue Saddest Farewell TGO GL",
"Terrance Stewart",
"acidnbass",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5303"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
13344 | Preparing pork belly: Odd barn yard flavor
This might be a very silly question, but I'm sort a pork newbie.
Anyway, I recently went to the butchers and bought a big slab of pork belly, to make crackling.
Immediately, I noticed it had a very "farm-y" smell. I rinsed the pork belly but the smell was still there, mostly in the skin. I prepared it by steam cooking it in the oven for about three or four hours. But the smell made it impossible to eat, as the barn yard stench permeated the entire pork belly. It was nothing like what I'm used to when eating pork belly in a restaurant for example.
My question then is: Did I screw something up in the preparation, or did I get a bad piece of meat or what happened?
Another reason could be you didn't season it with spices like black pepper or you haven't eaten pork for a while. Pork does have a natural smell but isn't noticeable if you eat pork regularly. But if you haven't eaten pork for a month or two you might notice it, especially when there's no seasoning to cover it.
just seen this, I know it's a few years on but better late than never.
The smell is probably testosterone because the pig was male over 60 kilos and had not been castrated.
Having raised hogs I can say that the actual feed can make a difference on the taste and smell of the finished product. Clean feed and a clean lot can make a difference. There is also a difference in hogs fed on an open lot (grassy) v.s. a confinement.
Corn blend with soy protein - one flavor. Alphalfa pellets, another flavor. Open lot with wild onions or other strong products, another. Wood lots (acorns etc) another. It depends on what is desired, as these also will impact the texture and fat content percentage.
Its hard to say without knowing more about this 'farm-y' smell you mention.
I would say though that steaming pork belly probably isn't the way to go. Its a fattier cut that benefits from roasting, this will help release a nicer, less 'farm-y' smell. Plus you get nice crisp crackling.
Here are some recipe links I can personally vouch for:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/oct/11/nigel-slater-recipes-pork-belly
I see no links on your post.
@MarkShultheiss - sorry was posting at work and the Boss came over just as I was about to paste the link. Fixed now.
Damn, sorry for the late reply, but: steaming is probably the wrong word. I was a bit tired when I wrote it. Basically, I stuffed it in the oven at a high temperature, scored with some olive oil and salt on, and put a water bath below the pork belly, as to steam it from below and collect the fat drippings. Also, the scent was like... well, dirty pig, really. I don't know how to describe it better. Something like a milder touch of manure...
Eugh that doesn't sound good. Wild boar has that 'gamey', 'outdoorsy' smell but I don't think regular domestic pork should. Do you trust your butcher?
I remain unconvinced about the steamy aspect - for one thing the humidity in the oven would make the crackling less likely to crisp up properly - here water is the enemy, hence the addition of salt to the area you want to crisp.
Let me chip in if you have not solved the problem. Try blanching in boiling water for a minute or two and see if it works.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.169053 | 2011-03-21T19:27:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13344",
"authors": [
"Marcus Frödin",
"Mark Schultheiss",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5371",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54199",
"immutabl",
"user3528438"
],
"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
} |
37653 | Should a sourdough starter be left open/ajar after feeding?
I keep my sourdough starter (spelt) in the fridge and leave it out after feeding it. Should the jar that the starter be kept in be left open/ajar in order to encourage more wild yeast to colonize it - or be left shut so that it doesn't go off/die?
I keep the starter in a glass kilner jar with a clip lid that keeps any air out.
It's actually a bit of an old wives' tale that the yeasts colonizing your starter are from the air. Almost all of the yeasts in a starter are from the grains used to make it. This is why starters are frequently started with either whole grain kernels or grains like rye that are left mostly intact when milled. All of the microorganisms on the outside of the grain kernel are then included in your starter.
As to leaving your jar open, I certainly wouldn't seal it up, especially if the jar is glass. The carbon dioxide produced by the starter could cause the jar to explode if it can't escape.
Thanks, very interesting too! I've left it shut enough before even when it's had a few feedings and it's been quite warm - it just gives a very satisfying pop when you open it!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.169321 | 2013-10-16T15:02:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37653",
"authors": [
"Danger Fourpence",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9605"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
22465 | Is there any reason against using red onion, or a mixture of red and yellow onions to make an onion soup?
Should I use yellow onions, red onions or even a mixture of both to make the best onion soup?
I realise this is a subjective question, but is there any reason I shouldn't use red onions or is there an advantage to using a combination of onions?
I habitually make onion soup using a mixture of red onion, white onion, leeks(!) and shallots and personally think it tastes fantastic, so I don't see why not =)
So I should just throw in all onions and all onion-related vegetables in to the pot? I like it.
Take a look at this related question about red onion in soup: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/22124/8305
I would simply use whatever onions I had available! Red onions have a milder flavour than yellow onions (therefore red is usually preferred in salads) and obviously different colour but the difference is still small enough to interchange with no problem. Unless, of course, you desire a particular colour in the soup or are particular about the soup having a strong or mild flavour. Leek would make it even milder and sweeter. If I'd have to make a choice I would use yellow onions and spare the red ones for raw/decorative use.
There really isn't a reason not to use both other than preference. I make a delicious 5 onion soup that uses both red and yellow along with a few others of course. I know you didn't ask but to ensure it doesn't just taste like onion water I caramelizs my onions for the soup as well.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.169438 | 2012-03-21T10:34:53 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22465",
"authors": [
"AFranco",
"Danger Fourpence",
"Jani Hanak",
"Jay",
"Rob",
"Samrat Alamgir",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50515",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50548",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9605",
"verismeris"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
73476 | What food from Niue can I cook in the UK?
I want to cook a Niuean dish but live in the UK (not a city, best resource - Tesco etc). What recipes or dishes can I cook?
You've asked an extremely broad question, and no indication of what kind(s) of fish you have available, or want to use. Fish is a staple in the Niue Islands, and the seas offer up an abundance of such choices such as mahi mahi (dolphinfish or dorado), ahi (tuna), and ono (barracuda), coconut crab, red bass, sailfish. You can substitute any firm-fleshed white fish: cod, bream, hake, monkfish, sea bass, sole, swordfish, turbot. In truth, I would go to the fishmonger and get the freshest, firm-fleshed variety available (and the most sustainable). If what's available is frozen, go with that. Then make Fai Kai, massively simple, fish baked in an umu, an earthen oven, and requiring only two ingredients, fish and coconut cream. I checked and Tesco stocks the latter. Place the fish in a baking dish, pour over the coconut cream, cover the dish with foil, and let it marinate for about 30 minutes. As I'm pretty certain that you don't have an umu, or any plans to dig one, bake in a pre-heated 180 C (gas mark 4/350 F) oven until done, about 30 minutes.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.169586 | 2016-08-26T20:19:03 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73476",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
47817 | Is it possible to re-use pickling liquid?
I have previously pickled some cucumber in a pickling liquid of mostly vinegar, which was kept in the fridge. I have now finished the pickled cucumbers, but would like to pickle some more. Can I re-use this liquid to pickle the cucumbers?
Note: I made the original pickling liquid about 3-4 weeks ago, it is kept in the fridge, in a sealed jar.
I would say you could use it once, and probably just to make refrigerator-type, quick pickles. The problem is that you have no way to determine acidity or salt levels once you remove the previously pickled items. Of course it should look clean and clear. If you were previously doing a lactic acid fermented pickle, some of the liquid could be used to jump start your next ferment.
@Danger: I have re-used pickling juice in the past (once again), but the span was more like 3-4 days (not weeks). More than that (time or uses) and you'll likely get (possibly undesirable, for a quick-pickle) critters growing in there. As noted in this answer, if you're doing fermented stuff (e.g., as for sour pickles or sourdough bread) it's common to take a bit of your previous batch to "seed" and cultivate the (desirable) critters in the next batch, but really just a small fraction of the original volume.
Yep, the simple fact that you can't measure acid or salt content is reason alone to exclude it for making canned pickles. Accuracy and close adherence to a tested recipe is extremely important for preserving.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.169711 | 2014-10-10T04:34:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47817",
"authors": [
"Cynthia Fox Holt",
"Kim Myers",
"Michael Hunter",
"Yousousen",
"hoc_age",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25286",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
51949 | Is it ok to let vegetables cool before roasting?
Could I boil vegetables now (potato, beetroot etc.) And then roast them a few hours later?
This would be convenient, but would it effect their taste, texture etc?
Yes, this works, as long as you don't boil them too long. The idea is that by the time they get roasted properly (e.g. your potatoes are browned on the outside) the inside is only just cooked, not overcooked. I'd aim for very roughly half cooked, starting to be pokeable with a fork but not actually tender.
For flavorful things like beets, you may lose some flavor into the water, but they should still be quite good. If you want to avoid this, though, you can just steam them instead, or even microwave. It's not really much more trouble than boiling! If you do this, and get the timing right, it won't really affect the taste or texture much at all compared to just roasting.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.169855 | 2014-12-25T00:47:39 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/51949",
"authors": [
"Iris McDonald",
"Lorrie K",
"Matthew Melnick",
"Tabatha Hairston",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123202",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123278"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
65093 | What can I do to make wood dust for cold smoking?
In order to cold smoke, you need a fine wood dust.
I work with wood and have obtained, using a band saw, a very fine wood dust. The wood this dust comes from has been well seasoned.
Is it OK to use this wood dust in a cold smoker?
What can I do to prepare this wood dust for use in a cold smoker?
A router has a band saw totally outclassed as a producer of fine wood dust.
It is okay to use wood, you need to ensure that there is not pine or especially MDF dust in the sawdust that you are using. Approach with caution, unless you can absolutely guarantee the source of wood shaving/sawdust is what they say it is then leave it well alone. There are a lot of joiners using MDF and pine and to have a batch of oak or cherry contaminated with either of these products will render any food you smoke as inedible at best and actually quite dangerous.
If you'd rather enjoy a more DIY approach you can harvest wood after fresh autumn or spring winds. The best time for collecting wood is in the winter or very early spring before the sap rises. The sap will add moisture and a slightly bitter taste to your wood shavings due mainly to the higher resin and sap content of the wood. This can be avoided by choosing when to collect. I wouldn’t hold onto this rule, but if I had a choice, I would go for the winter harvested wood.
This is absolutely the best time. It is also not so coincidentally the best time to prune trees, because it harms the tree the least during times of dormancy.
Would you find MDF on non-plywoods? MDF is usually plywood for making roadside advert signage.
My concern is when there is MDF used in the same plant/factory as where you are getting you timber shavings. I am speaking about cross contamination rather than direct use.
Check out the Harbor Freight 7.5 amp electric planer with dust bag for 60$. You can set it to generate thin shavings and will get dust, all in the collection bag. I have on dedicated solely for my smoker.
I'm planning on using a surform (wikipedia) on oak or apple next time I try my homemade cool smoker.
I had some success using just whittled oak for smoking garlic and chillies. This wouldn't work in the smoker pictured at your link, butI didn't burn the wood directly. Instead I used a spirit burner outside the smoking compartment, with the wood in a beaker sticking out of the bottom of the chamber. The flavour after a few hours was a bit more subtle than I was aiming for but otherwise excellent. Finer wood should give me more smoke quicker. The burner wasn't ideal (fuel capacity too low), so I need to come up with a better heat source as well.
I am curious about the safety of this treatment. I make this statement this because burning wood by heat without direct flame produces gases that would otherwise be consumed by the flame. This process is used to create fuel gases. Reference "Gasification of wood", "wood gasifiers", or "wood gas"
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.169981 | 2016-01-05T23:06:07 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65093",
"authors": [
"Adrian Hum",
"Escoce",
"Joe Cody",
"Kirsten Bailey",
"Rianna de Guia",
"Vallery Shipp",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"gloria chaffold-dew",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155587",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155588",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155589",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
35762 | How do I get seasoning to stick to home-popped popcorn?
I've been popping my own corn and I want to season it with salt, but when I sprinkle it over the popcorn it just ends up at the bottom of the bowl without taking to the popcorn. How could I get the seasoning to stick to the popcorn?
Almost-duplicate (that person was already using oil): http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6865/how-can-i-get-salt-to-stick-better-to-buttered-or-oiled-popcorn
If you want dry seasonings to stick to popcorn, you will probably need to add a liquid to adhere them with. You could try adding butter or oil to your popcorn while it is hot, then adding the salt and tossing it together. If you're avoiding extra fat, a few spritzes of a non-stick spray (like Pam) might do the trick without adding significant fat.
I bought some expensive organic olive oil spray and thoroughly sprayed the popcorn but my nutritional yeast didn't really stick despite being ground fine. I saw a You Tube of someone called Mareko (I think) advocating Tabasco sauce or lime juice. Will try that next. Interested in hearing from any one who has done that.
I use one of the misting pump sprayers filled w/ olive oil. A little spritz, sprinkle with popcorn salt, maybe a second spritz if I made a large batch, then toss some more. The salt that doesn't stick falls through to the bowl, so it's the oil that actually affects how much ends up on the popcorn. And if you can't find popcorn salt, look for pickling salt, which is another fine grind (but also iodine free)
I air pop my popcorn and then I spray it with Dr. Bragg Liquid Aminos. It has a salty flavor and if you spray it lightly it doesn't make the popcorn soggy.
If all you want is the salty flavor then this will do it but it also has the added advantage of allowing other spices to stick as well.
In addition, as Sourd'oh says, to using some fat as glue. Water will also work if you don't want calories, but will soften the popcorn somewhat.
Use popcorn salt. This is salt that is very, very fine, so that it sticks more easily to popcorn.
Additionally, applying the salt immediately after popping when the popcorn is very hot will help.
I had wondered if you could perhaps mist the popcorn with a brine while it's still hot to minimize the sogginess. Time for experiments!
Put the salt in a spice grinder (such as this one)! My grinder has several options for granule size. Unfortunately, it has no markings or logos on it so I can't tell you what the exact type it is else I'd highly recommend it.
The problem is not liquid. The problem is the size of the salt. You have to grind the salt. If you don't have a spice grinder, (I use a mortal & pestle) you can put a cup of salt in a blender :) and use it in the future.
Why not add the salt to the oil while it is heating up - or otherwise mix with the kernels before throwing them into the oil? I have done this both with sugar and salt and it works well for me (and the salt does not appear to burn or damage the saucepan... If you shake everything up (as you should do) while cooking, then the popcorn gets evenly coated. However, no-one else seems to suggest this, so there may be something I am not considering...
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.170259 | 2013-08-02T22:00:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35762",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Charles Angus",
"JeffP",
"Joe",
"Krithika Radhakrishnan",
"Kyle Ridolfo",
"Lorna",
"SmallClanger",
"SourDoh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54703",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83764",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83768",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83769",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83785",
"mns",
"wintrymx"
],
"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
} |
33909 | What's the best way to keep sushi fresh for the following day?
I like to prepare makizushi in the night so that I can take it in to Uni the following day and have it for lunch. They're made using nori, sushi rice and some vegetables.
What's the best way to keep this fresh for the following day - I normally box them up the night before ready for the day?
I think the issue is that your nori will get soggy if you make the rolls in advance and store them overnight. Nigirizushi may be a better bet for making ahead.
Chirashizushi is an older style of sushi which is essentially a bowl of the sushi rice, with the garnishes either mixed in or on top. It should be well amenable to advance preparation.
Thanks. You're right, the nori is the problem as it gets a bit wet. I think leaving the rice to cool well might be a solution
If you are making maki sushi or other sushi with nori on the outside, then the simple trick is too roll or wrap it in baking paper (or plastic film, or waxed paper) just as you would with a sheet of nori. And stack them in an air-tight box or bag in the refrigerator until needed
Then just before serving unwrap carefully and wrap some nori around them as required. Perfect sushi made earlier!
The trick I've seen used in Asia is to place a sheet of plastic or cling wrap between the rice and the nori. For example, you could make a long roll with several layers like so:
plastic (outermost layer)
nori
plastic
rice
other ingredients
Roll it up in a long roll, and when you want to eat it, 'jerk' the inner layer of plastic out, thus allowing you to eat it. One problem you'll probably face is the inner layer sticking to the rice. A light application of vegetable oil on the side of the plastic sheet facing the rice might help with this.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.170544 | 2013-05-02T15:09:56 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33909",
"authors": [
"Alana Weirbach",
"Danger Fourpence",
"Jackie Klein",
"JollyJoker",
"Kathy",
"Martin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78774",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78775",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78780",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78986",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78991",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9605",
"user78986"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
37568 | What, other than popcorn, can be made in a popcorn maker?
What can successfully be made using a popcorn maker, other than the various kinds of popping corn?
I've tried pumpkin seeds and, while they didn't pop, they did become toasted and actually quite nice.
Is your popcorn maker the constantly stirring type, one to which you add oil?
I've heard that air poppers can be used for roasting nuts ... but I've never tried myself, so can't confirm it.
It's an air popper, I think, similar to this http://www.amazon.co.uk/Severin-117803-Popcorn-Maker-White/dp/B00008WV6Z/ref=tag_stp_s2_edpp_url
Many popcorn makers can be used to roast coffee...you will likely destroy it as a popcorn popper over time, however.
IIRC, only certain forced air models were good at roasting coffee. http://www.sweetmarias.com/airpop/airpopdesign.php
I think about this aswell, i feel that a popcorn maker and cook many things. i personally feel that many things can be cooked in a popcorn maker. including potatoes, chocolate cake, chicken, chips, and a personal faveroute battered sausages
Assuming that this post is not a prank, this is the first time I have wished to have two downvotes per post, I would have liked one for the chocolate cake and one for the battered sausages
I want to upvote this for its comedy value [but I won't]. I do think you ought to try tomato soup or lamb tikka masala too…;)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.170726 | 2013-10-13T22:43:54 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37568",
"authors": [
"Danger Fourpence",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kirsti Peters",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89911",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9605",
"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
} |
35425 | Could I use beer instead of/as well as water in my sourdough?
The sourdough recipe I use calls for 300ml of water to 500g of bread flour (along with the starter). Instead of this water, could I use beer - or a combination of beer and water? The reason I thought this would be possible is because the beer would add taste and air to the sourdough. Along the same lines of adding more air to the sourdough, would sparkling water be a good idea, if beer is not?
You may also find this question useful. http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53842/adding-things-to-sourdough-starter-culture
You can easily replace the liquid in most bread recipes with beer. This can have a very pronounced effect on your final dough as there is a lot more chemical and biological fun happening in beer than there is in water. In my experience, the dough with beer will usually rise faster than a similar dough with water. Generally, the flavor difference won't be that pronounced (usually a much more "bready" flavor, unless you use a beer that otherwise has a strong flavor, such as an IPA).
The acidity of the beer won't actually have that much of an effect on your final dough as the ph will be a weighted average of all of your ingredients.
so you don't think the type of beer matters really? Taking into account what yock said about the pH of beer possibly being over the "pH at which fermentation begins to suffer"? I.e. do I need to pick a beer with pH of less than 4.0?
@DangerFourpence as sourd'oh already said the pH of the beer will not have a massive effect as it will be affected by other ingredients too. I experienced some beers/ales (even some that weren't particularly bitter/hoppy) adding quite some bitterness to dishes, so you might consider this too when choosing the beer.
@DangerFourpence I don't think the type of beer really matters much. I once formulated a beer bread recipe for a local brewery, and while all of the beers I tried definitely improved the flavor of the bread, it wasn't until I got into IPA's and porters that they really imparted anything distinctive.
You're going to lose most of the carbonation when you pour in the sparkling liquid. You may trap some, but I'm guessing not enough to make a difference.
As for using beer for flavor, it sounds like an interesting experiment. Beer is much more acidic than water, but thankfully yeast likes an acidic environment. While I wouldn't replace all of the water with beer, judicious substitution of some water with beer shouldn't upset the pH of the mix beyond where the yeast can survive and multiply.
Some benchmarks:
pH of good lager beer: 3.0 to 4.5 (2)
pH at which fermentation begins to suffer: 4.0 (1)
Bear in mind that pH will drop as fermentation occurs since fermentation itself produces carbonic acid.
and @DangerFourpence you can also find some already tested recipes online: http://rcakewalk.blogspot.de/2011/01/here-it-is-beer-sourdough.html or http://breadbaking.about.com/od/sourdoughbreads/r/beersourdo.htm - sounds delicious to me =)
I have been using a starter I started with a Belgium blonde for some time now. I feed it every twelve hours because it stays out all the time. It has a great funky sour taste. I use it in everything. Never really worried about pH. It bubbles away and raises nice. I do sometimes add yeast though.
OP asked about baking the bread with beer instead of water, not making the sourdough with beer, so technically this doesn't answer OP'S question. I like your answer nonetheless, gives a nice twist to the questions. Welcome to the site!
well i must say beer is a great option i have made damper this way before it does work ok but remember use a beer that is active not one of them commercial swills .
british ales are good for this ,that all i use I go 70/30 real ale / water .
the real ale is kept at room temp not ice cold too before using .
i am no aficionado but its worth the experiment .
why did they not do this in science at scool is beyond me LOL .
this answer would probably be better if you cleaned up the punctuation, grammar, and capitalization. Also if you made it clearer what you were trying to say.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.170881 | 2013-07-20T19:56:49 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35425",
"authors": [
"Danger Fourpence",
"Esther",
"Manohar Bhagavatula",
"Martin Turjak",
"Neil Meyer",
"SourDoh",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137121",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9605"
],
"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
} |
25233 | Troubles with quinoa consistency
I've been having some trouble cooking quinoa. I know that it needs to be cooked for long enough so that just the spirals are left, but the quinoa can often dry out quickly and stick to the pan when cooked for this length of time. Not cooking the quinoa for long enough can leave you with a slightly stodgy quinoa.
So my question is how can I cook quinoa for long enough, without it drying and sticking to the pan? Do I need to just add a bit more water than the instructions state (2 cups water to 1 cup quinoa) as it dries out? Do I add a little oil?
How long do you cook it for? How long does the package say you should cook it?
stodg·y/ˈstäjē/
Adjective: 1- Dull and uninspired.
2- (of food) Heavy, filling, and high in carbohydrates.- I had to look this one up.
Quinoa is cooked much like rice- in fact it can be cooked nicely in a rice cooker.
The 2/1 ratio is correct. As with rice, the goal is to steam the grain. You should be cooking on low heat after it boils and is covered and you shouldn't be frequently opening the pot while it cooks.
I haven't had success adding water later in the cooking. It doesn't get a chance to turn to steam and instead just boils the grain to mush.
As with rice, some of the quinoa might stick to the pan, especially if it was cooked a little too hot or with uneven heating. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. With rice and quinoa I like the crispy bits.
Adding oil late in the cooking probably won't help you achieve the desired fluffiness.
This ratio is only correct if you cover the pot (for both rice and quinoa!)
Getting the best results often means choosing the right pan.
Quinoa to no more than 2inches/5cm depth dry with room to double.
Good heavy base that will hold heat, also makes a big difference: can turn off pot for last 2min of cooking (or when water is nearly gone) with a towel under lid. No drips making grain soggy.
If you must stir to check whether water is gone or sticking, try a chopstick or other slender tool -gently- that will not mash this very tender grain.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.171307 | 2012-07-24T14:02:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25233",
"authors": [
"Fisher Bredrup",
"Hl Chee",
"Jr. Rosario",
"Mien",
"Rusty",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57703",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57705",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57716",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57764",
"rumtscho",
"user57705"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
64880 | What is used in the production of dubu (Korean tofu)?
Tofu, in Korea, is known as 'dubu'. This product is very similar to (possibly exactly the same as) the Japanese counterpart.
What is used in the process of making authentic dubu?
A quick internet search has failed to give me any results for making dubu, but there are plenty for tofu. These recipes usually require soya beans, water and Epsom salt/lemon juice. I'd be interested to know if the Korean process is the same.
As far as I know, Korean and Japanese tofu are effectively identical in taste and preparation: my Japanese wife, who is generally quite particular about her ingredients, happily buys Korean brands from a Korean grocery for her Japanese cooking.
If you're dead set on making your own, in both countries the key ingredient for curdling is nigari (Japanese) aka 간수 gansu (Korean), basically magnesium chloride. Epsom salts are magnesium sulfate, so close but not the same thing; lemon juice is out of the question (for one thing, neither countries had lemons until recently!).
When experimenting, bear in mind that both countries use several different styles of tofu. "Standard" tofu/dubu is momen-dofu in Japan, but Korean soft tofu (sundubu) is even softer than Japanese kinugoshi-tofu and more akin to a rare Japanese type called oboro-tofu.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.171507 | 2015-12-28T19:01:49 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64880",
"authors": [
"Mark Searle",
"Nick Beale",
"Sharleene Demmery-Moir",
"companiesr estoration",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154947",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161652"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
24931 | Sticky and unmanagable sourdough
I've recently started a sourdough starter culture (using equal parts water and spelt flour) and have used it in a sourdough bread recipe I got from the Telegraph. I've halved the recipe in the article so that I am using 500g Brad Flour, 150g Starter, 10g Salt.
After following the instructions, I've found the dough to be a bit sticky and unmanageable to the extent that I had to add a significant amount of flour in order to make the dough workable. The dough seemed to be rising perfectly well and I baked the loaf (which turned out a bit doughy)
Is the ratio given in the recipe OK or am I doing something wrong - how can I make the dough more manageable? (e.g. giving the dough more time to rise)
Many high hydration dough resemble thick pancake batter and can be tricky to work with for someone new to high hydration doughs. I suspect the recipe is fine.
Did you follow the recipe's instructions for how to knead it? The author seems to be expecting that the dough is very stick and not able to be kneaded normally. For my part, I usually find sourdough to be quite sticky and difficult to handle.
@jay the recipe specifies a 60% hydration dough, this shouldn't be sticky at all even with AP flour, and the OP says they used bread flour.
Its 65% with a standard starter, and could be a bit sticky for somebody not used to slack doughs and using particular kinds of flour.
I don't think you're doing anything wrong, I think the dough is just more slack than you're used to. As @Jay noted, it can take some practice to work with a wet dough. But once you do, you'll be rewarded with a much more open crumb and a better final product. In my experience, I've found wetter dough and higher oven temps = better artisan bread (in general).
The recipe appears to assume the reader is familiar with the process, but does offer some hints. She talks about scraping the dough out onto the work surface, then stretching-and-folding.
The recipe isn't as wet as the ciabatta I'm making below, but the process will be similar, so I hope this is helpful. I start by putting a bed of flour down, then scraping the blob of wet dough out onto it.
Then comes the stretch-and-fold part, which is just as it sounds. Using a wet pastry scraper and/or wet hands, just get under one edge, lift and pull it away, then plop it back on top of the main dough blob. Then do the same with the other side. Cover with plastic wrap and walk away. There's no process of kneading like you're used to. This photo is after a few stretch-and-folds at 20-minute intervals (I think!), and you can see the dough has started to smooth out and become cohesive.
By the time you're ready to shape, the dough should be a lot more cohesive and easier to deal with. I folded mine into little slippers and put them on a couche to rise.
Add 500 degrees and a baking stone, and I'm rewarded with an open and gelatinized crumb, and a nice crisp crust.
Very nice crumb! :)
@rfusca thank you! The perfect crumb is a never-ending quest.
UV for a really nicely demonstrated answer and a lovely looking loaf .. but a quibble, too. about your phrase: 'better artisan' bread.. I used to live next to a small local Jamaican bakery in London, which made a wonderful wholemeal loaf, which had a very dense matrix, and weighed a ton. ... I love an open, waxy crumb as much as the next man, but what 'better' is, depends on what you're looking for... (OK, the OP was looking for this style...)
Instead of using more flour when handling the dough is to use oil. For wet doughs, I coat my hands and work surface with a little olive oil. Any oil that does end up in the dough is not enough to alter the recipe and your dough stays moist. Be sure to only use a little oil, though, as too much will keep your dough from readily sticking to itself when using the technique you link to (stretch & fold) or when you shape it.
Adding more flour is fine, up to a point, but the best bread is made from wet dough. Put plenty of flour on your work surface to prevent the dough sticking to it, and more importantly, wet your hands repeatedly with cold water when you fold the dough - you will find it much easier to handle.
I find using a dough cutter/scraper (also wet) makes things easier as well - you can get right underneath the dough with it.
Giving the dough more time to rise will make no difference in its manageability.
Giving the dough more time to rise will certainly improve its manageability. It will fully absorb the water into the flour and also start to form gluten on its own as the yeast kicks into gear - both of which improve manageability.
With the starter, it comes out at about 65% hydration which means its really gonna depend on the brand and type of flour you use as to how slack or firm it is.
With King Arthur All purpose or high quality bread flour, its probably firm enough to play with.
With Gold Medal flour or regular AP or even a cheaper bread flour, its likely fairly slack.
Luckily there's a few tricks to working with slack dough.
Give it an autolyse. A short rest after the dough is mixed, but not kneaded, of 30 minutes will help the water absorb into the flour and result in an easier dough to handle.
Chill it for a little bit. Chill the dough in the fridge for a bit, colder dough handles easier.
Don't try a traditional kneading technique. Make sure and use the stretch and fold as the recipe suggests. Its much more suited to slack dough and works wonderfully. But it will be a sticky mess to start with.
There are several methods to combat the stickiness. Namely, flour, cold water, and oil. I'm a fan of oil. I don't mind adding a bit to the bread as its kneaded and it makes the dough both slicker on your hands and more pliable by the end of the process. Just lightly oil your hands and the counter top.
You just have to keep kneading it. After 10 to 15 minutes it will begin to develop gluten and will become a silky (but still tacky, sticky) ball. You test if it's ready by doing the window pane test. Looking at your ratios you don't need to keep adding flour. It will happily soak it up and then you'll end up with an extremely heavy dough. Just keep kneading it and let the dough tell you when it's ready. I thought that was ridiculous until I just kept kneading, and kneading, and kneading.... And then magic happened. It turned into a dough ball. It was awesome.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.171648 | 2012-07-09T17:07:14 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24931",
"authors": [
"Christopher Whidden",
"FuzzyChef",
"Jay",
"Jk041",
"JoeFish",
"Jonathan",
"Mahiwa",
"Robin Betts",
"Victor Z",
"chrismanderson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56935",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56936",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56996",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8522",
"rfusca",
"rumtscho",
"user57035"
],
"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
} |
13448 | English Translation of Gastronomie Pratique
I was reading Julia Child's autobiography, and she mentioned that she loved the book Gastronomie Pratique by Ali-Bab. It's apparently a classic compendium of French cooking recipes and techniques. Does anybody have a particular translation they recommend?
There is apparently an english version however there are whole sections missing and it is poorly translated. You are far better off going with a different book or if you have the time taking up french. The Book I went with was Larousse Gastronomique which has been endorsed by Heston Blumenthal and Gordon Ramsay.
http://www.amazon.com/New-Larousse-Gastronomique-Hamlyn/dp/0600620425/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1302582324&sr=1-3
Thanks. I've been eyeing this one, and I think I'll get it.
There doesn't seem to have been an english translation of this book. Info here on all editions.
I know that there are a few. For instance, McGraw Hill published a translation by Elizabeth Beston a while back.
Do you have a link for it? I haven't had any luck looking for it...
http://www.amazon.com/Encyclopedia-Practical-Gastronomy-Ali-Bab/dp/0070010625/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1301249285&sr=8-1
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.172173 | 2011-03-26T03:31:38 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13448",
"authors": [
"Doug",
"Jackie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5436",
"technowizard12"
],
"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
} |
79519 | Method for including bacon in an otherwise vegan chili?
So I've got a vegan chili I make on a regular basis that I think is pretty darn good, but I'm always looking for ways to make it better. (I'm not actually vegan. Obviously.) Last time I included bacon and bourbon but the effect was... not what I had hoped. The bacon became very soggy and the bacon flavor was non-existent. (So was the bourbon flavor, but that's neither here nor there.)
Here's my current method for the chili in broad strokes (makes about 10 cups):
Saute onions, peppers (as well as the chili peppers), and cumin
seeds in some oil until onion is translucent
Dump in beans, tomatoes, liquids (usually beer + veggie broth), and spices
Pressure cook in the instant pot for ~6 mins
Add some tomato paste and then simmer to reduce for 30-60 mins until desired thickness
My first attempt at this was just throwing in 3-4 slices of already-cooked, chopped up bacon in during step 2, but clearly that didn't work so well.
How can I get this to go better so I have a present-but-not-overpowering bacon flavor without gross floppy bits of bacon everywhere?
Why bacon? It wouldn't be my first choice to add as it gets soggy easily.
I just thought the flavor would be a nice little boost. But yeah, that was the problem I was having.
I'm with you flavor-wise. Bacon good.
"Why bacon?" I can't believe I just read those words!
Bacon is always a good idea.
Mmmmm Bacon - Embrace the Darkside
Most vegan and vegetarian dishes are even more delicious with bacon!
What thickness of bacon are you using? If using sliced bacon, it may help to use slab bacon cut into ~ 1/2" (or larger) chunks.
Moving to answer for OP. If you want to save the crispiness, or a least some of it, the suggestions of sprinkling small pieces at serving time would seem the way to go. It will give you the noticeable contrast and even draw attention to the bacon while not over-powering the base chili flavors. The added bonus that eckes points out is that it gives the option to anyone who prefers to stay away from pork or meat in general to just omit it.
If however you prefer to get the flavor of bacon through the chili, the opposite direction is the way I would go. With things like chowder, many people start with a block of salt pork or slab bacon. I like the smokiness, so bacon for me. Toss that into your pot first and start to saute it,that is make it your step 0. If too much fat pour off some. Then saute your onions and aromatics in that and go from there. When done or well along, pull out the meat. If you want it back in, chop into small pieces and return it, but it will not have a crisp bacon texture. Small pieces will keep if for being off-putting though. This should get you a deeper flavor that permeates the chili.
You could in fact combine the two, use the slab to create the flavor base, then add the crumbles just before serving to accent and provide the texture.
You have two different approaches from Catija and eckes, depending on what you favor, but you could also combine both approaches -
Start by chopping up the bacon, and then cooking it in the pot until it's nicely crisped and the fat is rendered.
Remove the bacon with a slotted spoon, to paper towels to soak the remaining fat from the bacon and leave it in it's crisped state. Leave the drippings/fat behind in the pot, and use that instead of oil to saute the vegetables. This will allow the bacon flavor to permeate the dish, overall, a bit more.
Then, either just before serving, or on the side to sprinkle over the served dish, add the bacon or allow the eater to add, themselves.
This is what I do with my corn-potato chowder. Start the bacon in the big pot, take it out, use the fat left behind to cook the onions, then when everything's done, crumble bacon over the top. Works great.
@KateGregory - Your own home recipe, or do you have a link you can post in a comment? Sounds like something I'd like to try. I have a bit of a soup and stew fetish.
It's my own thing, but it's just onion, potato, leeks, chicken stock, and frozen corn, topped with the cooked bacon. Quick and delicious.
@KateGregory - Thanks! I should be able to figure out the rest from that info. Now I'm hungry.....
@KateGregory - Don't know if you have access to much sweet corn during the summer, but here is a sweet corn bisque recipe that is just out of this world. Also, I've used it as a base for other bisques. https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-69340130.html
I'm not sure the crumble-the-bacon-over-the-top idea is practical, given that I tend to make a whole vat of this chili that lasts over two weeks. I guess I could just fry up more bacon every few days.
(Edit: I just realized that sounded totally ungrateful. The rest of the idea is awesome.)
@Zelbinian- I'd go ahead and add it at the very end of the initial cook. It might still be a bit soggy. Depends on how big a deal that is to you.
I'd say you need to cook the bacon in step one with the onions, peppers et all... don't use any other oil, just let the bacon fat render out.
I recommend first cutting the bacon up in 1/2 inch (1 cm) squares rather than leaving it in whole pieces (so it's more similar in size to the onion pieces).
This won't necessarily prevent it from being soggy... the only way to prevent soggy bacon is to not put it in at all but to put it on top. There's too much moisture in the chili to keep the bacon crispy. Cutting the bacon into small pieces will minimize the gross appearance, though and will help it blend in a bit more.
All that said, if you have a lot of flavor in the chili already, I don't know that you're necessarily going to get much from the bacon... it's a flavor that likes to be the star and not compete with other similar flavors... and I don't think that chili is the place for that... but that's just me.
You might be able to help emphasize the salty/umami flavor of the bacon by adding some soy sauce, which I find to really help my turkey chili taste more like beef chili.
Fry the bacon separately and let it rest on a plate with kitchen paper.
When your chili is done, sprinkle the bacon over the individual portions while serving.
Your bacon will be crispy and you'll notice the bacon bits during eating.
This has also the advantage that you could invite your vegan friends for dinner and share the chili with them.
This has a lot of merit if you want the feel of notice of bacon. If you want the flavor to permeate the dish, I would try to other extreme, go with a chunk of bacon and start with that, saute it in you chili pot, then start adding ingredients using the bacon fat to saute. Once stewing is well under way, then I would remove the bacon, just leaving the flavor behind or cut into small bits and return it. Much like might be done to start a chowder or such.
You should post this as an answer hint hint
@Zelbinian If you want someone to be notified of a comment, you need to direct it at them in the same way I've directed this at you. Otherwise, there's no way to guarantee that they will return to see it. There are a couple of exceptions - times where's it's unnecessary to direct address someone - but in this case, it is necessary. :)
@Catija Haha, right, forgot. Used to Facebook where it tells you about every little thing :p
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.172312 | 2017-03-30T18:51:10 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79519",
"authors": [
"Alaska Man",
"Catija",
"GdD",
"Kate Gregory",
"Nat Bowman",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Zelbinian",
"dlb",
"eckes",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41940",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9039",
"wogsland"
],
"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
} |
41638 | How can I make NON-fluffy pancakes?
Every recipe I can find is for "fluffy" pancakes. I prefer thinner, slightly crispy, (very) slightly chewy, non-fluffy pancakes. Basically, the less "cake-like" the better.
Apparently I'm the only one, and these are all non-desirable qualities in a pancake, so it is hard to find recipes.
How can I make non-fluffy pancakes? I will be using a cast-iron pan.
Have you tried making crepes? Those seem like they would be what you're looking for.
I have, and I love crepes - but here I'm really looking for pancakes (that aren't quite as thin as crepes). Thinking about 1/4" thick, as opposed to the 1/2" to 3/4" that I typically see (in recipe photos and at restaurants).
I kept wondering why you couldn't just add a little more liquid to make the batter runnier. That would make thinner pancakes. I found this - http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36405/how-can-i-get-thinner-pancakes?rq=1. Also, don't cook them in oil (use butter instead) and that'll help keep them from puffing up so much. My husband and I will make pancakes and when I make them I use butter, he uses oil. His are noticeably thicker/fluffier.
@Brooke a thinner pancake will still be a fluffy pancake, not a chewy one. I think the OP objects to the texture, not to the actual height.
I agree with Brooke, increasing the fluid levels, and reduce the rising agents. So less bicarb and/or baking powder, more milk, less buttermilk, to generate a batter that is closer to the consistency of pouring cream. Correct me if I am wrong rumtscho, if the amount of flour and water/milk is increased, and the ration of that against the eggs and rising agents is changed, we will get both consistency and height. Would more eggs also result in more chewy(ness)?
You might want to try pancake varieties from other countries. See https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/72915/67
I had problems with my pancakes which are the regular 'crepe' variety - you might like to check out the final recipe which works perfectly: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/91802/58098
here's a recipe for a thin style (but not as thin as crepes) recipe that you could try: https://www.kingarthurbaking.com/recipes/pittsburghs-finest-diner-pancakes-recipe
Have you tried making Swedish Pancakes? They are between a "regular" fluffy pancake and a crepe. To make a proper crepe, you need either a crepe pan or a crepe griddle. With Swedish Pancakes, you can use a regular pan. You will find that Swedish Pancakes have a higher amount of eggs and milk. For example:
4 eggs
2 cups milk
1/2 cup flour
1 tbsp sugar
1 pinch salt
2 tbsp melted butter
and sugar is optional, imho...
IMHO... Too many eggs; Sugar, salt and butter not required. The butter does add a nice crispness if added to the mix just before frying. Do this in a separate jug, not the main jug as a large number of pancakes would take too long and the butter might separate.
You're not the only. And now I'm not either )))
Here are the things I do to have thin and a little chewy pancakes:
Don't put any baking soda or baking powder at all.
Use regular low-fat milk or water instead of buttermilk.
Adjust the quantity of flour added. The more flour you add, the thicker pancakes you'll have.
Preheat the pan, cook on low heat. Since the dough is more dense, it will take a little longer to cook, so on low heat it will cook properly and won't burn.
Cook with minimal oil. Adding more oil will increase crispiness, so you could adjust that to your taste.
My grandma made them like regular pancakes, but without the baking powder/baking soda. It works perfectly for me, too. I hate fluffy pancakes -- they don't have the same flavour.
Also, a recommendation, a bit of vanilla extract added onto the batter makes a lovely scent for the pancakes.
Just add liquid. You could even make funnel cakes! (That "happened" one morning when I accidentally glugged too much oil into my skillet. The little girl I was cooking for was beyond delighted!) Same batter + a little more milk or water (prob don't use buttermilk as it activates the baking powder), just more oil in the pan, a nd drizzled through a funnel over the opening of which you hold your finger til ready to drizzle. Serve with powdered sugar & syrup. Make sure your oil is pretty hot but not smoking, or you might burn them. Now pretend you're at the county fair, and enjoy!
Also, never stir with too much abandon after adding liquid to dry ingredients when making pancakes, muffins, quickbreads, as this develops gluten strands and toughens the product.
You can make great thinner pancakes that have supreme taste as opposed to just volume to carry the syrup.
The simplest thing you can do is use less baking powder and don't use double-acting baking powder (sometimes called Magic).
Beyond that, the more you beat the eggs, the chewier they get (careful or you get rubber). I would back off on the milk a bit and use whole milk (milk makes the pancake burn/darken too quickly) and add a bit of fat (butter).
This way you end up with proper golden and brown pancakes with a bit of a resistance on the texture and a very distinct yumminess that disables your eating brakes.
Not a complete answer, but a few ideas thrown in.
In baking, if you add dense, hygroscopic, sticky liquids, they can make your cake heavy and dense. Try doing it with your pancakes. Instead of using a milk-based liquid, try a fruit puree, preferably one with sufficient pectin (e.g. apple mousse). If you are using baking soda and buttermilk, you will probably have to switch to baking powder because you will be missing acidity. I don't know how much you need, it might turn out that you don't need leavening at all for your intended thickness.
Another thing to change would be the flour. Try using bread flour or whole flours to get less rise and fluffiness and some chewiness.
Increasing the sugar will probably help with both density and crispiness on the outside. You probably can't go up to chewy cookie amounts though.
Stay away from recipes which involve creaming a solid fat. Creaming plays a big part in leavening. Use recipes with either oils or melted solid fats.
You can also try increasing the ratio of eggs in the recipe. Eggs are the best glue in your kitchen. Also don't foam them in any way. You want to stir them a bit until they are liquid and the egg whites have broken up, but not to beat air into them. There is a reason why in Ruhlman's Ratio, the crepe recipe has 2/5 parts egg and the pancake recipe has 1/11 part egg, or four times less.
I haven't tested any of those, it might turn out that they don't work.
You just need a basic crêpe recipe:
300ml milk
150g all purpose flour
1 egg
1 egg yolk
Pinch salt
Whisk or blitz together with a stick blender until smooth. Allow to rest at room temperature for an hour (refrigerate if you need it to sit for longer).
To cook, generously butter a pan over medium-high heat until the butter stop sizzling. Lower the heat to medium and put in enough batter to thinly coat the pan. Leave undisturbed for about 90 seconds then flip with a spatula. Cook for a further 60 seconds. Shake the crêpe out onto a plate. Repeat until done. After every third pancake, the pan will probably be too hot to cook the crêpes well. Drop a tablespoon of cold water in to lower the pan's temperature and allow the water to boil away. Continue as before.
These can be kept warm in a low-temp oven separated by greaseproof paper until the whole batch is done. Alternatively, separate them with greaseproof paper, plastic wrap when cool and refrigerate them for up to 48 hours. Reheat wrapped in foil in a medium-hot oven for 20 minutes.
you posted a crepe recipe after the OP indicated in a comment that he doesn't want crepes but pancakes, only thinner
Actually, he posted that whilst I was writing and posting my answer. My answer and his comment crossed in the ether.
OK, but also note that our site is not for swapping recipes. Questions which directly ask for a recipe are closed outright. For an answer, it is sufficient to tell the people to make crepes instead of pancakes, instead of listing a complete recipe.
My wife's family makes "cinnamon omelettes" that are probably exactly like what you want. The recipe is 1/2 cup flour, 1/2 cup milk, and one egg. Spritz some spray-oil on a frying pan and pour in the batter. Cook over medium heat until the edges are firm, and flip the whole thing over. Let the other side cook for a couple minutes, slide it onto a plate and sprinkle with cinnamon-sugar.
Its easy just replace 2/3 of the water with buttermilk. Blend until smooth. when pouring batter into the pan pick up the pan and tilt it from side to side thinning batter to desired thickness.
It's the only way I will eat them!
Here in Argentina, we usually eat our pancakes thin, so we can spread dulce de leche on them and roll them like a burrito.
I sometimes do them like that, or do the classic thick, disc-like pancakes that everyone does when I feel like it.
The only difference between the two is: if you want thinner pancakes, lose the baking powder and let the mix rest for about 10 minutes (or more) after you're done mixing. The mix should be a bit runnier than a normal pancake mix, so it's easier to spread it in the pan.
It may be possible that the OP just wants less fluffy pancakes.
Follow these three steps to flatten almost any pancake recipe:
Replace flour with "cake flour" or "pastry flour." These have less gluten and will therefore take a longer beating without getting tough.
Add 10% more milk. This is usually no more than 1-2 tbsp for most recipes.
Beat the batter with a wire whisk until smooth. There should be little to no lumps in the batter.
Best to ignore the culinary techniques of most recipes, which are meant to increase the pancakes light and fluffy nature.
Add olive oil to the batter, or butter.
Add an additional egg yolk, and hold the extra white.
Use a bread flour and go for the formation of chewy gluten by mixing the heck out of your batter.
Reduce by half any baking soda, and just forget the baking powder.
Let the batter rest 20 minutes after mixing it, before use.
Use oil on the griddle, instead of butter.
Never flip early.
And never make them larger than 6 inches wide.
Each cake, when removed from the pan, gets treated with parified butter, as it sits on the serving plate, waiting for the next pancake to cover it.
I do these for my breakfast rolls. I make a pancake but it is somewhere between a pancake and a burrito. The key isn't the mix (although skip baking powder/soda and a little less flour and maybe a little more salt) but it is the cooking technique.
You will have to lower the heat. My pancakes cook around 220F and my pancake rolls go at about 180F. The second thing is you need a "crepe squeegee". As soon as your mix hits the griddle you need to spread it out.
From there it is up to you. If you want them really crispy then you can flip them a few times or add oil. Mine are done with no butter or oil - healthy bunch - so I have to flip them a couple times to get them a little crispy (you don't flip then they burn more than crisp).
I find it interesting that you added a picture of a crepe maker. Do you suggest making pancakes on a crepe maker? If yes, does it make them less fluffy, or is this just general advice for all pancakes? If this is a secret trick for making better pancakes, I should probably post a separate question.
@rumtscho - other than taking out much of the leavening agents in the mix the two main things you need for super thin pancakes are a really really flat surface - which a (good) crepe maker is perfect and you need a crepe spreader (squeegee). I personally find that my crepe maker has more controlled heat than I get from my electric griddle (which seems to have zones). But I would be making "regular" pancakes for hours on my crepe makers. When I do thin pancakes by the time I spread the batter it is time to flip and each takes 45 seconds. Very labor intensive but quick.
Your reply contains some interesting info on thin pancakes beyond your crepe maker story, it will be nice if you can incorporate it into the actual answer.
These are my pancakes I've always loved them super thin I don't like the recipe for crepes I like pancakes and all this is is just some krusteaz light and fluffy buttermilk complete pancake mix. It calls for one cup of mix and 2/3 of a cup of water I add 1 and 1/8 cups of water and a quarter cup of melted butter and then I cook in butter/olive oil spread. very thin. Very delicious very terrible for you. Please limit yourself to no more than a couple times a year, they are that rich
Dilute, and raise less. I rather like a "bread pancake" which is simply frying up some of my yeast bread starter/sponge - flour, water, yeast - adjust liquid to get the thickness you like. No eggs, but you could use eggs while diluting more if that makes what you are after. The sourdough ones can be especially different from a normal pancake.
For crispyness, adding rice flour helps.
Und keine Eier!
The "German bit" ("Und keine Eier!") i had left german intentionally ;)
maybe if you'd linked to the song so people can share in the inside joke it might not have gotten translated.
@rackandboneman Ah, sorry. I didn't got the reference :( Maybe I'm too young for this song o.o
Whatever recipe you used before, use a little more liquid, which will make for thinner pancakes. You probably won't need baking soda/powder, yeast, or any other leavening. Add more fat to the pan--basically, you're almost frying them. I personally think butter tastes best; it makes for crispy edges and they'll cook fairly fast since they're thin. If you don't get nice brown crispy edges, you probably need more fat and more heat.
Similar to @Kevin Nowaczyk's "cinnamon omelettes," my family has a recipe that we call "Bumples" (I have no idea where the name comes from - I've Googled it with no success). It's simply 1.5 cups flour, 1.5 cups milk, and two eggs, all mixed together, then cooked in your choice of oil (I've used both vegetable/canola oil and coconut oil). We typically cook it all as a single cake, then cut it into smaller pieces in the pan when almost done cooking - but you could certainly cook it as smaller pancake-sized cakes. When done cooking, we roll it in sugar to sweeten. It's a very versatile recipe; we've made it with whole wheat flour, with half almond and half whole wheat, with cinnamon sugar instead of plain sugar, with a little cocoa powder mixed into the batter, etc. It's a little denser than a regular pancake because of the lack of leavening.
I like thin pancakes as well, not talking about crepes even though those are amazing.
All I use for thin pancakes is:
1 cup flour
1 cup milk
1 egg
Optional:
dash of salt
tbl spoon sugar
dash or two of cinnamon
So, you simply omit the leavening?
Here in the UK, there's a popular variety of pancake which is called a crumpet. It's leavened with yeast, not baking powder/soda.
The finished product is thick and quite chewy, with quite large holes. It's not dense, fluffy or cake-like either; something in-between. They're usually toasted before serving to reheat them which makes them crispy, then smothered with butter and other toppings which melt and run into the holes.
There are recipes available online if you google "crumpet recipe". Some on youtube as well.
Also if the traditional English style is too thick for you, it's also possible to make these into a thinner style pancake (same recipe), as we do in Scotland. A Scottish crumpet is much thinner by comparison.
The OP was asking for a thin, slightly crispy pancake. That does not describe crumpets.
@Sneftel Thanks I fixed my suggestions by adding an alternative style of traditional Scottish crumpet, which is both thin and slightly crispy when served toasted. The point of my answer here is to offer something not leavened using baking powder/soda, which is what makes pancakes fluffy/cake-like. Using yeast as the leavening fixes that problem. I think a Scottish crumpet in particular fulfils the OPs original requirements quite well.
Snackery pancake mix...chewy, but I am looking for their recipe.
I would say this qualifies as an answer. The quality is low, but if this brand of mix creates the pancakes the OP wants, it is technically a solution.
I make a standard pancake recipe, but make the batter somewhat thicker. As bubbles rise to the surface, I carefully flip the thick pancake over and give it another minute until just before it's done. Quickly and carefully, transfer the slightly raw pancake to your plate and submerge in syrup. Man, it just don't get any heavier than that. I usually wait until my wife and kids are out of the house so I don't get the :...yer gonna git the salmonella!"
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.172963 | 2014-01-31T19:15:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41638",
"authors": [
"4nana",
"Adrian Hum",
"Andy Piwonski",
"Antonine Cadet",
"Barry Simmons",
"Billy Kerr",
"Brooke",
"Ching Chong",
"Jer",
"Joanna Gerson",
"Joe",
"Mamta Ladkar",
"Matt W",
"Melvin Dixon",
"Mmagoja Moela",
"Mr Shane",
"NadjaCS",
"Nicky Mclaughlin",
"Per Alexandersson",
"Rachel Griffiths",
"Riley",
"Scott",
"Sean",
"Sharon L Walton",
"Sneftel",
"Spammer",
"Thom Smith",
"Twuugle",
"blankip",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139137",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150338",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150366",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60862",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9612",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96932",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97097",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97099",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97108",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97688",
"master slot88 spam",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho",
"user12031119",
"user22927",
"user97099"
],
"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
} |
41422 | sauce pan vs. dutch oven vs. stock pot - any difference besides size?
I have to admit, I've been pretty ignorant about cookware terminology for my whole life - I've had a set of pots and pans of various sizes, and I've used them. Now I'm in the market for a nicer, new set, and am pretty confused. My question here is if there's really any difference (aside from size) between sauce pans, dutch ovens, and stock pots.
I'm looking at a few sets:
T-fal C798SC64
Cuisinart MCP-12N
KitchenAid Stainless Steel 10-Piece
The T-fal set has a "5.5 Quart covered Dutch oven." The other two sets have 8 quart stockpots. They all have sauce pots of various sizes (1 to 3 quarts).
Are these all just pots that happen to be different sizes, or is there something fundamentally different? What advantage does the dutch oven have over the stock pot? In other words, is there something else I need to consider other than just buying the sizes that make the most sense for me?
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/18774/67
While all of these are large pots (or may at least come in large sizes) they have different purposes, which lead to differences in typical construction.
Saucepans are intended for general purpose cookery, and usually have solid construction, and permit searing in the pot, reducing, and a variety of other tasks.
They are the most difficult to characterize as there is tremendous variation in quality levels and design among the products available.
Stock pots are purpose built to make large quantities of stock. Since they are not used for searing typically, and liquids circulate via convection making hot spots not a priority, they are typically constructed from thinner metals (steal or aluminum) and don't have good general purpose cooking qualities.
The main virtues in a stock part are low cost, size, and light weight.
Dutch ovens (at least real Dutch ovens) are a legacy from the time when cooking was done in hearth or campfire. They are designed to be nestled into the coals or embers, with more coals or embers placed on top of the lid, creating a hot oven like interior--thus the name.
True quality Dutch ovens will be fairly thick, usually cast iron, possibly enameled, and may have little legs to help nestle it into the fire above the coals; similarly, a the lid may actually fit into the pot, allowing coals to easily be piled on top.
Dutch overs are actually fairly versatile cooking implements, and can serve for searing, roasting, braising, stewing, biscuit making, soup making, and even some bread applications even in the modern kitchen. Many are large enough to make stock in for home purposes, although they are not absolutely ideal for the task.
You will have to ask yourself, given your own cooking patterns, would the general versatility of a dutch oven, or the size of a stock pot serve you better. None of the sets you linked to has a true dutch oven, however; the one that purports to be a dutch oven has a glass lid! It might be an okay pot, it is not one I would ever choose.
For stainless steel products (without the specialized legs and concave lid to nest coals in), there is very little difference between a dutch oven and a very large sauce pan.
Stock pots also tend to be narrower than other pots of a similar volume, as this reduces the amount of loss through evaporation. Also, what you mention about the legs are dutch ovens -- the lid doesn't got into the pot of a camp oven; it has a significant lip, so that when you remove the lid, you don't drop ashes into what you're cooking. (they also tend to have little nubs across the inside of the lid, to more evenly distribute water condensing) You'd also never see a camp oven that's enameled.
Oh ... saucepans and stock pots are intended for stovetop use, and may not have oven-safe handles. There have been some dutch ovens that had problems w/ really high oven temps, but it's much less likely.
@Joe I cannot agree with that; quality saucepans should be oven safe. Stock pots won't fit so it is moot but i have never seen one that didn't have metal loop handles.
Good point on most stock pots not fitting ... although Calphalon makes some 6qt ones that would fit fine.. And I've seen a few stockpots that have bakelite or similar over metal handles. Of course, Le Creuset uses bakelite for the knob on their dutch ovens, so you'll damage them as you get over about 350F or so.
@Joe Agreed on the bakelite; one of my standard for sautee and sauce pans is all metal construction.
A sauce pan is a small cylindrical cooking pot, specifically made to make finishing sauces to dishes. They will typically take about 500 ml of liquid. You make sauces specific for a dish with them, they generally are too small for batch cooking.
A stock pot is a rather large pot that takes anywhere between 5 - 50 liters of liquid. They are designed to cook stock with as you can imagine, but they have other uses too, I brew my beer in them. A restaurant could very easily use hundreds upon hundreds of liters of stock in a month, you can imagine you would not want to make stock one liter at a time.
A dutch-oven is something different depending on where in the world you are. They are typically associated with outdoor cooking in the new world. In north-america a dutch-oven is a cast iron caserole with a stainless steel handle. In south -africa were I'm from the word dutch-oven is an archaic term for what is more commonly known as a potjie.
The African dutch oven is different in so far as it is a free standing cauldron, also made of cast-iron, and also aimed at outside cooking.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.174416 | 2014-01-24T17:39:18 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41422",
"authors": [
"Christopher McIntosh",
"Joe",
"Matt Andruff",
"Michael Graham",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"harsh atal",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96547",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96548",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96550"
],
"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
} |
29709 | How to pan sear a thin steak?
I'm doing something really simple right now, sprinkling pepper over one side of a half-inch thick steak and throwing it in a pan of butter.
But by the time it's cooked through (I want medium rare), the outside is just a sickly grey.
How can I get the steak to look good?
Edit:
They're actually even thinner, maybe less than half an inch. And they keep cooking through to well done and grey on the inside almost immediately!
Use a hotter pan?
Found old answers to a similar question How do you properly cook a steak?
how thick are these items, actually? Do you perhaps have cutlets instead of steaks? If not, do you know what actual cut the steaks are?
VERY thin. They vary between a quarter inch and half an inch. spiceyokokoo's tips worked reasonably well, although the steaks are still largely grey when they're done.
We (in the UK) would call the 1/4 inch ones Minute Steaks, because they only take minutes to cook - http://www.jamieshomecookingskills.com/recipe.php?title=minute-steak But they're still coming out grey? What kind of pan and oil are you using?
I would actually recommend the opposite of what was said above. Since the meat is so thin you may have much better results pan searing it in an extremely hot pan from slightly frozen. This way the outermost layer will start to undergo the maillard reaction long before the inside of the steak reaches a medium-rare temp and will give you a better chance of preventing it from overcooking.
This link provides an overview of the process for a much larger piece of meat then your using but the searing process is what your concerned most with since your steaks are so thin. You will likely have to play with the timing a little bit with regards to how frozen the steak needs to start out but I figure erring on the side of too frozen is best since you can then heat them in the oven to the internal temp your looking for.
http://www.thekitchn.com/for-the-perfect-steak-first-freeze-it-solid-then-cook-for-an-hour-165793
That should work if you are prepared to freeze the steak, but how do I get the steak flat enough to be heated, I need to press it when freezing? Think you need a blow torch to make it work?
@Stefan A 650°F (~350°C) cast iron pan will do fine. Sear will be done in well under a minute per side (I'd check after 15s or so). No need for a torch. (And you'll probably have to put the butter on afterwards, it'll burn...)
A torch would work but isn't the most efficient option. I reccomend freezing the steak between two sheet pans with a sturdy weight on top to create a nice flat surface.
I wish I had that much space in my freezer :-)
I would add flipping it over quite often. You won't be able to flip it that much, because of the short time overall, but it will distribute the heat a little more evenly.
@Hanno Fietz, Here the flipping technique works against this technique. You use flipping every 15-30 sec to get the inside to heat more evenly and reduce the total cooking time, with this technique, you want to maximize the outside heating so it is probably better to not flip.
Let the pan be as hot as possible, add meat just before the oil starts to smoke.
Make sure the meat is NOT wet, dry it, water will steam before you get the steak to look nice, making that steam will reduce the temperature in the pan and not enough heat is left to make the steak look nice.
Do not put to much stuff in the pan, do only one or two steak at a time, do not fill the whole pan.
Use a pan with lots of 'thermal capacity' i.e. a heavy/thick iron pan, not a thin pan. This means that you have lots of heat stored in the pan and it will not get cold so fast.
How to get the steak to look good?
Two tips –
1 Don't use butter.
2 Flash-fry it.
Flash frying is cooking very quickly in very hot oil. Given the thickness of your steaks and that you want them medium-rare the whole process happens very quickly.
On a high heat sear/seal one side, turnover and seal the other side, turn the temperature down and cook till medium-rare, the whole process really should only take minutes.
Don't use butter to fry them in. At the temperature you require to flash-fry butter will burn. Use a higher temperature oil such as vegetable, corn or nut.
If you want the absolute hottest temperature, I suggest using a charcoal grill if you have one.
Unfortunately not at this particular juncture in my life.
The pan might be simply conducting too much heat into the thin steak to brown the outside before the inside is finished. Charcoal is a slower application of heat, and works by radiative heat instead of conductive. While such a grill can be a luxury, the broiler in your oven may have the same effect. Put the steak in a cool pan, toss under the broiler, and flip when its brown.
I cooked my thin rib eye steaks on a porcelain pan. I added butter and I cooked the steaks for 1 minute and 15 seconds per side over a medium flame. Adding salt and pepper were my only spices. My steaks tasted fantastic!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.175139 | 2013-01-04T02:23:39 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29709",
"authors": [
"Brendan",
"ElizB",
"Hanno Fietz",
"Jess",
"Kimberly Delos Santos Porras",
"Logan Cummins",
"Miriam Nance",
"Neha Bapat",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sharon Owen",
"Stefan",
"TFD",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2911",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69150",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69190",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9655",
"spiceyokooko",
"temporary_user_name",
"thomasrive",
"user69146"
],
"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
} |
30766 | Should I peel garlic before pressing it?
I've never been sure about this. It doesn't impact the taste or texture, as far as I can tell.
I'm talking about those little crushing tools that you put a clove of garlic in, and squeeze it like pliers, and it presses the garlic through little holes.
Should you peel the clove before you do this? Why or why not?
I don't use one, but when I've seen people use them, they tend to collect the papery bit inside ... if yours doesn't, then you're going to want to peel ... if it does, I have no idea if it's better or not.
...and if you hate peeling garlic, put it in microwave for 8-10 seconds on full power before peeling - peeling becomes a breeze.
An easy way to peel garlic is to put a wide knife flat on top of it, and, being careful of the sharp edge, bang it with the heel of your hand. That separates the peel from the garlic, and the peel just pulls away.
You don't have to peel garlic before using a garlic press, but doing so lets you press more garlic before you have to clean out the skins and so forth. If you only need to press a clove or two, there is not a lot of reason to peel first, since you will just have to clean the press out once.
Not only that, but a little bit of the pressed garlic will get caught in the crumpled-up skin and end up being thrown away. It won't be a huge amount each time, but it adds up: if you press ten cloves you might end up wasting the equivalent of one small clove or so.
It depends on the press being used. Some garlic presses, are designed with more room to allow space for the peel.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.175629 | 2013-02-08T00:35:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30766",
"authors": [
"Aadhin Sajan",
"Jayden",
"Joe",
"Kim Nguyen",
"MT_Head",
"Pete Becker",
"SF.",
"Tejas Kale",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71971",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72026",
"seguso"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
25576 | Roasted potatoes: should they be dry?
I'm in the middle of roasting some sirloin in foil packets. It's surrounded by carrots and quartered red potatoes, and I'm roasting it for an hour at 400F, turned down to 350F after the first 30min.
When I took it out to check on it at the 30 minute mark, the potatoes seemed very dry to me. I feel like roasted potatoes I've had made by others are usually at least a tiny bit moist.
Am I insane? Should potatoes be bone dry when oven-roasted?
Yes, No. I guess that's why they oil them before baking. Peanut oil is the best because it has the highest breakdown temperature.
Baking them for that long will evaporate a lot of water. This is a good thing. If they were in enough liquid to not dry out at all then they wouldn't brown and you would miss out on a lot of delicious flavor. That would be braising.
These may have been dryer than potatoes in the past if the potatoes were cut into smaller pieces (more surface area) or if the cook time was longer.
If you want your veggies to be more moist then you can cook them for a shorter length of time or toss them with some fat which will give the illusion of moisture as well as prevent some internal moisture from escaping.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.175804 | 2012-08-09T19:27:16 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25576",
"authors": [
"Cynthia",
"Florida chef",
"Paul",
"TigerSpace",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58583",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58584",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58585",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58586",
"user58585"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
22757 | Uneven brownie baking?
I used to make the best brownies, all the time. They came out perfectly without any effort. Duncan Hines, Hershey's, Betty Crocker-- all out of the box, all simple, all delicious.
But lately (without me making any perceptible change to my strategy) things have taken a turn for the worse.
I bake them for 40+ minutes, they're not done. 8x8 glass tray as always, but the middle is still doughy and moist. Not in the good way, more in the play-doh way. I bake them for 90+ minutes, they're still not done. But the outer edges bake normally, so they end up too crispy to be good, although somehow miraculously not burned. Just the middle is completely underbaked.
Can anyone take a guess at what might cause this?
Your oven temp may be off - check your oven temp. Get an oven thermometer and check your temp.
Oven thermostats are notoriously defective. If (when) you find that the current temp isn't what you think it is remember that it may never have have been what you were setting it for.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.176045 | 2012-04-03T18:55:44 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22757",
"authors": [
"Cos Callis",
"Dheeraj Bhaskar",
"Donna Shaner",
"FRANK",
"Momina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51307",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
14092 | Flavour matching with espresso in baking
I am trying to create a few new recipes and I am stuck on what other ingredients (flavours) would go well with espresso in a baked item.
Diane,
You may want to consider flavors that are existing compliments to coffee. Think of the many syrups that are available at your local coffeehouse. Things that easily come to mind are chopped hazelnuts or almonds, caramel frosting/icing, cinnamon and nutmeg as spices, chocolate chips or cherries.
Here is an answer to a similar question that covers some of the basics leading to the details below.
Here is a flavor wheel that has been used in particular by Whole Latte Love, created by Ted Lingle of the SCAA (and sold by them) for the purpose of cupping:
Coffee Profiling at Whole Latte Love
Coffee Tasting at Whole Latte Love
thats an interesting graphic. Where is it used?
@Ray it was developed by the SCAA, I found it in use at Wholelattelove; I have added more links and graphics
Sweeeet! Or actually, piquant, with a slight leguminous nose.
One that comes to mind is a trace of aniseed flavor ... caraway seeds?
According to FoodPairing, the flavor of coffee combines best with the following flavors:
cereals and sugars: toast, rye, black rice
nuts and seeds: roasted peanuts, popcorn, and roasted hazelnuts
condiments and sauces: soy sauce, kecap manis (a thick, sweet Indonesian soy sauce), and balsamic vinegar
In terms of baking, one could easily use rye flour, black rice flour, peanuts, or hazelnuts. Looking a bit further out on the food pairing tree, some other flavors that might work specifically for baking include mango, strawberries, cranberry, cardamom, cinnamon, vanilla, buttermilk, cheddar, honey, tomato, olive oil, American bourbon whiskey, and Sauternes.
it is debatable whether salty is a flavor, I would say it isn't, but there is a practice of adding salt to coffee. There is a whole article about what happens to the taste of coffee when salt is added at the wonderful khymos.org blog, complete with user tests http://blog.khymos.org/2010/03/21/a-pinch-of-salt-for-your-coffee-sir/
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.176181 | 2011-04-16T20:33:05 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14092",
"authors": [
"Amber",
"Ginger",
"Karen",
"Leo",
"Lucas Alanis",
"Ray Mitchell",
"RodrigoFranco",
"Tish",
"chipbuster",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29583",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29592",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29648",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29654",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29719",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29720",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29774",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5431",
"mfg",
"user29592"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
17085 | Freeze meat before or after cooking?
If I am not going to immediately eat meat, should I freeze it before or after cooking it? How is taste and freshness affected by your choice of when to freeze it? I've done both options, but I've never compared the final preparation side by side.
For whole cuts of meat such as a steak or a chicken breast, I find it's better to freeze without cooking. These cuts aren't as moist after thawing them and re-heating.
For ground meat, it doesn't seem to matter. If I have the time I will cook and then freeze to save myself the effort durring the week.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.176408 | 2011-08-24T03:52:53 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17085",
"authors": [
"Amanda Fitz",
"Bob Murray",
"Neil",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36661",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36665"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
14392 | What's the difference when smoking in a spherical grill and in a smoker?
When smoking in a spherical grill like the Weber One-Touch, will the result be different then when a real smoker is used? What is the difference?
No, it won't be different. It is, however, a bit harder.
The issues are mainly:
It's harder to get the heat away from the food. So you end up cooking with some direct heat. This can be avoided by using a small amount of well soaked, large wood chunks and get them smoking with some normal charcoal. You should also use indirect heat by stacking the chunks on one side of the grill. If you use wood chips, this won't work. They burn too fast and need too much of an ignition source.
Heat insulation isn't very good. The walls are thin and you have to remove the whole lid to tend your food. The heat dissipation can be a real issue for long low and slow recipes. Smokers either tend to be well insulated (brick or ceramic) or have small doors so you can access your food from the side.
Adding fuel can be a pain. It's made easier if you have a grill surface that is hinged. If you don't, I'd suggest getting one if you are seriously considering smoking. It makes adding fuel much easier. Of course, adding fuel causes the above heat dissipation issues, so add fuel as infrequently as possible.
That said, I smoked for years on a Webber grill, and it worked just fine. I did, however, upgrade to a Big Green Egg at the first available opportunity. The results are more consistent and the process is much easier. But you'll be fine getting started with the webber.
Assuming you are using wood chips in both cases to generate smoke, the main difference is the distance from the heat source. In a smoker, the smoke from the coals has time to cool before reaching the meat, which cooks the meat indirectly, and at a lower temperature. You can get similar results with the normal grill by using indirect heat (placing the coals on one side and the meat on the other), and further separating the the meat from the direct heat by placing some foil between the meat and the coals.
Here is an interesting article on turning your normal kettle grill into a smoker:
http://simplyrecipes.com/recipes/how_to_turn_your_kettle_grill_into_a_smoker/
The results aren't really any different between a Weber kettle and a smoker. What does differ is the process. You will have a more difficult time controlling temperatures in a kettle. While you can effectively maintain low temperatures with the grill, bear in mind that it was not designed for that purpose, so you will have to monitor it pretty carefully. Also, your food will be closer to your fuel -- there is no escaping that -- so you will have to rotate the food to ensure even cooking.
However, the results come out largely the same. I use a Weber Smokey Mountain for most of my barbecue, but if I don't need to go as long, I'm doing less quantity, or I want to go with much higher heat, I'll still set up the kettle.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.176493 | 2011-04-28T13:32:58 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14392",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
24859 | How to measure a cup of "solid" ingredient?
I was reading a recipe in which it was mentioned among the ingredients "8 cups of broccoli florets". Measuring by "cups" is for liquids, right? For solid ingredients, are we measuring the "weight" of the ingredient?
How to convert "8 cups of broccoli florets" into kilograms/grams?
Good question although I suspect there is no single answer given the number of different ways you might choose to trim the broccoli (long stem, large florets or short stem, small florets).
While you can fill a cup with broccoli, it does seem a strange tactic given all the spaces there will be between the pieces, the result will vary wildly depending on the type and trim, as Chris says. It's questions like this that make me wonder why some people use cups at all...
@Steve: Simple: Americans do not own scales.
It's asking for exactly what it says: 8 cups of broccoli. Measuring by volume is certainly best-defined for liquids, but it works fine for solids too. It works best if you have a large measuring bowl - or just a bowl that you happen to know is around 8 cups (two quarts, about two liters). Or you can just guess by eye, knowing how much volume that is. A recipe with broccoli isn't going to fail if you're off by a bit.
(If you really prefer weight, this nutrition data says a cup chopped is 91 grams, so 8 cups might be a bit over 700 grams.)
http://www.onlineconversion.com/weight_volume_cooking.htm works great too.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.176731 | 2012-07-05T01:52:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24859",
"authors": [
"Chris Steinbach",
"Kevin",
"Pat Sommer",
"Steve",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7407"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
14440 | Substitute instant coffee for brewed black coffee
If I need to substitute 2tbsp of instant coffee for brewed black coffee, how much should I put in/ how much of the other liquids should I take out to compensate?
I suspect that you have a recipe which calls for instant, and you want to use real coffee instead, and that's why you refer to taking out other liquids. Correct?
Why not just prepare it based on the instructions on the package (add water, mix), and then use it exactly like you would the normal coffee?
EDIT:
You mention in the comments that you actually need it the other way around (replace instant coffee with brewed). I was at the store recently so I took a look at instant coffee and all of them recommended between 1 and 2 teaspoons of instant coffee powder to 6 oz. of water (3/4 cup). So for 2 tbsp of instant coffee you'd need 4 1/2 to 9 cups of coffee to replace it (depending on how strong you want the coffee flavor to be).
If there's not that much water in the recipe already, it's probably why it uses the powdered version and I'm not sure there's anything you can do.
Given the fact that the OP asked about "taking out other liquids to compensate", I think they phrased their question backwards - they're asking how to substitute brewed coffee for instant. So the actual answer is to look at a package and see how much water it takes to use 2 Tbsp of instant, and then remove that much liquid from the recipe before using real coffee instead - but given that the OP doesn't have instant coffee to use, they probably don't have a package to look at. Do you happen to?
Oh I guess I got this backwards. I don't have any instant coffee :(
Exactly, I have no instant coffee, so I need to use regular brewed.
I wish I could give you more than one +1 for remembering to look at the coffee at the grocery store! And I was afraid it might be too much water, but yikes, that's a lot. This is why instant coffee is such a handy thing for baking sometimes. That said, you might be able to get around that by making coffee syrup instead of coffee, or maybe reducing further after brewing.
Or if you just object to buying crappy instant coffee just for a recipe, there's quite a few GOOD instant coffees (yeah, I know, right?) that are worth having around. I'm a fan of Douwe Egberts, and King Arthur Flour sells an espresso powder specifically for baking purposes (it's a fine powder and comes in quantities useful for baking rather than for a daily caffeine binge).
It is 2 tsp instant coffe for every 8 oz of water. To brew correctly you should use 1 tbs of ground coffee for every cup of water. All you need to do is brew the coffee directly into the liquid in the recipe( way easy with a French press, or put a funnel into a container, line funnel with coffee filter and pour hot liquid over) and use above numbers to figure out how much coffee you need to use.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.176876 | 2011-04-30T20:53:16 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14440",
"authors": [
"Brendan Long",
"Cascabel",
"CodeKid1001",
"Florian Eisele",
"fluffy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5940",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71145"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
14548 | How can I keep my freshly baked loaf fresh until the next morning if I bake it at night?
I wwould like my bread to be fresh the next day when I bake it at night but I know you shouldn't cover your freshly baked bread as it will soften it. Can I leave it on the counter uncovered overnight? Will it still be fresh?
Depends how you define "fresh". I don't have access to my books right now, but IIRC, the first type of starch retrogradation occurs after one hour, the second starts after a day. So there is probably no way at all to have the "just-baked" softness after more than an hour. Generations of bakers working night shifts to sell fresh loaves at 6:00 AM are another argument for that, if there was a way, they'd have found it by now. As for best keeping, try leaving it in a woven cotton bag on the counter, a non-breathing cover will fog and dampen it.
@rumtscho- I'm not putting an answer because it would have been what you just said. This should be an answer not a comment.
I am sensing a "Michael Scott Morning Bacon" situation here.
So-called "artisan" breads and sourdough can be left out for days without significant loss of moisture, even after cutting, but I presume you are talking about a standard white bread.
It may be a matter of how you are defining 'Fresh', but my experience has been that 'fresh' isn't that hard to maintain, as long as I'm making a loaf with a significant crust; just don't cut it. I tend to leave the bread on the rack in my oven overnight to cool down, with no loss of freshness, as long as it hasn't been cut into. Once it's cut into, things change, but the crust itself isn't terribly vulnerable to getting stale quickly, and protects the rest of the bread.
When I lived in South America we would put our bread on a paper bag and that would maintain it fresh. :)
Roll it in a damp cloth, it might help you to keep it fresh.
Might? Have you tried this?
It strikes me as this would be likely to turn it soggy and/or grow mold, but I haven't tried it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.177121 | 2011-05-06T19:29:18 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14548",
"authors": [
"HankCa",
"Katey HW",
"Lenore",
"Rob",
"Sobachatina",
"TFD",
"Tanny",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7082",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
24378 | To achieve maximum flavour is it better to cut or tear basil leaves?
When I add basil to a dish should I tear or cut basil leaves?
Does it matter?
Tearing is for artistic effect
Some people will claim tearing does not damage the cell of the plant as much as cutting, a simple look under a basic microscope will show you otherwise. Not sure how this would affect basil in particular. What dish are you preparing?
If you want more basil flavour and smell, cut it more finely, or bruise it (back of knife or rolling pin) to release more oils just before serving
If you choose to cut basil with a knife, gently rub olive oil all over it before you cut it, this will prevent the leaves from darkening , particularly if you are using it in a salad.
Great tip, you must really know your basil
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.177321 | 2012-06-12T05:26:37 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24378",
"authors": [
"JamesG",
"Patricia Gaywood",
"Raknos13",
"VGR",
"dibs",
"findusl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55500",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55503",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55561"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
14928 | alternative leavening agents other than baking powder, and their ratios of substitution
Please provide a list of alternative ingredients to baking powder, and how much of the substitute to use in place of baking powder.
Please be more specific. There are many, many kinds of leaveners; we need to know why you're substituting and in what kind of recipe.
possible duplicate of How do I make a "baking powder" substitute in a pinch
I think this is a bit broader than the proposed duplicate, though clearly all the answer to the earlier one are valid for this one as well.
@dmckee- It doesn't seem broader to me. The only difference is that instead of asking for a substitute they are asking for all the possible substitutions- which isn't an answerable question.
@Aaronut: There aren't that many different leaveners. I think it's a good question, and not a trivially specific one like the suggested dupe. Probably more of an interest question vs. practical, but there's a place for that sort too. I'm very tempted to pull out On Food and Cooking and write up a list and some history.
Ok Guys, Here I'm being specific: I need a leavening agent that will work well for use in muffins, and that doesn't have such high phosphorus levels.
I must confess, I can't give you straight substitution amounts -- all of these leavening agents behave somewhat differently, so in most cases a straight substitution for baking soda isn't appropriate.
Ye Olde List of Leavening Agents:
Biological Cultures (Wikipedia, plus kefir whey I've seen recipes for)
Yeast - norm is 1 tsp/pound flour for 1-2 hour rise time
Sourdough - uses 1/2 to 1/4 of final flour mass, rise time varies
Kefir whey - similar to sourdough, unknown rise time or measurement
Buttermilk - no clue what substitution ratio, but wikipedia lists it. Probably acts similar to kefir whey and sourdough.
Yogurt -- wikipedia lists this as a leavening agent too, but I'm skeptical.
Beer (unpasteurized, with live yeasts)
Ginger beer (same deal)
All of these share the common ability to ferment flour, when handled properly.
Chemical Leaveners (Pulled straight from On Food and Cooking)
Pearlash and potash (mostly potassium carbonate). Purely historical leaveners, these were derived from wood ashes, and were the predecessors to baking soda.
Hartshorn AKA baker's ammonia (mix of ammonium carbamate and ammonium carbonate). Not used much anymore. It was once made from deer antlers, ergo the name. When heated, this produces both ammonia and carbon dioxide. Because of the ammonia, this cannot be used as a straight substitute for baking powder, due to the changes in flavor and smell it causes.
Sodium bicarbonate (baking soda), basic component of baking powder, reacts immediately with acid
Cream of tartar (tartaric acid) -- Acidic component, reacts with bases immediately
Monocalcium phosphate -- Acidic component, common in baking soda, reacts immediately
Sodium acid pyrophosphate -- Acidic component, reacts slowly with base after mixing
Sodium aluminum sulfate -- Acidic component, provides the "double" in most double-acting baking powders. Reacts slowly under heat.
Sodium aluminum phosphate -- Acidic component of double-acting baking powder, acts during early cooking at 100-104F/38-40C
Dimagnesium phosphate -- Acidic component of double-acting baking powder, reacts early in baking @ 104-111F/40-44C
Dicalcium phosphate dihydrate -- Acidic component of double-acting baking powder, reacts late in baking @ 135-140F/57-60C
So, basically you need an acid + baking soda, or one of the heat-activated compounds (hartshorn, or one of the last four salts). In many cases a dough can provide its own lactic acid.
This is awesome information. I have a bunch of kefir whey that I have been looking for a home for. I will have to experiment a bit with that.
Not a bad idea... it'll probably work faster and more efficiently if you grow it into a true starter before using it to leaven bread, by giving it a few feedings on flour/water first
Awesome. Found this while in the supermarket looking for a substitute for baker's ammonia. +1 we live in the future :)
Will I ever understand why people write "ye" instead of "þe" when they clearly mean the latter? ;-) ... answer: nope :o) ... still +1
Potash is what is left in your Weber after the barbeque. Usually I throw that on the compost heap. Never thought you could make bread from it
You can make a straight substitute 1:1 for baking powder by making your own, combine 2 parts cream of tartar and 1 part baking soda. This is essentially the same thing as baking powder, which consists of baking soda + acid.
Baking powder is used in recipes where there is insufficient acidity in the rest of the ingredients to activate the baking soda.
This type of leavening is completely different from biological leavening, and there is no reasonable substitution to be made (i.e. yeast).
Worth noting: The homemade baking powder you describe is not a 1:1 substitution for double-acting baking powder, which is sometimes called for in recipes, and in addition to adding the acid needed also gives some more rise later in the baking process.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.177434 | 2011-05-19T22:48:33 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14928",
"authors": [
"0xC0000022L",
"Aaronut",
"Agos",
"Barbara Tahir",
"BobMcGee",
"George",
"Neil Meyer",
"Sdj",
"Sobachatina",
"Web_Designer",
"bikeboy389",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31473",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345"
],
"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
} |
22255 | Is it ok to use frozen okra in gumbo?
I would like to make some gumbo, but I can not find fresh okra locally. Is it ok to use frozen okra sourced from a Indian supermarket instead?
Frozen should do for now, but I believe you might enjoy ordering some okra seeds and growing your own locally. The climate in Melbourne should be be conducive to growing good fresh okra.
Yep, that'll be fine. For other purposes, it might not be your favorite - sometimes it can get a little more of the "slimy" coating that people don't like - but since you're cooking it in gumbo, it's all just going to get taken up into the stew (where it'll provide some thickening, as intended), so no worries.
A little more, if you're curious: okra contains mucilage, which is thick and slimy or gluey. If it's cooked quickly, it doesn't have time to release much. But when it's cooked long and slow, like in gumbo, plenty is released and dissolved in the soup, where it acts as a thickener. Frozen okra sometimes releases the mucilage more readily, presumably because the structure of the plant has been disrupted by the ice crystals formed during freezing. This might make it unappealing when eaten on its own, but if you're making stewed okra or gumbo, where it would all have come out anyway, it doesn't make any difference. (I suspect that good quality frozen okra, which has been flash-frozen, might fare better, but I don't have the experience to say for sure, and it won't make any difference to you!)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.177811 | 2012-03-14T05:09:08 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22255",
"authors": [
"CSRenA",
"Cos Callis",
"Jennifer Heikkila",
"Jo Harned",
"Paulo Soares",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49883",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49886",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49998",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"tina"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
73117 | Techniques to Remove Water from Vegetables?
While listening to a radio cooking program, one of the guests claimed that vegetables can often be made to taste better by removing water from them. His reasoning being the ratio of tasty elements is increased relative to water content. He gave cooking celeriac in salt as an example. The conversation then moved on to other topics. Having recently started eating more vegetarian meals, I'm looking for ways to add flavor back into my meals.
What methods exist to remove water from vegetables?
Cooking in salt also adds salt, which makes most things taste better. But there are certain vegetables that benefit from a heavy salting, and then leaving to sit so they'll release liquid. Eggplant comes to mind, but also older zucchini.
Ordinary drying/dehydration can certainly change the taste and texture of foods, but the primary point of dehydration is often preserving food rather than improving taste. Sometimes additional seasonings are added during the drying process (as in beef jerky, although I know you were asking about vegetables).
Application of heat often releases liquid from vegetables. For example, wilting spinach or other leafy greens on the stove top, or roasting root vegetables in the oven. Especially with high heat, as in roasting, other chemical processes are creating flavor besides simply removing water.
Osmosis is a another process for removing water. For example, in making namasu, it is common to sprinkle salt over thinly sliced cucumber and let it sit for 10 minutes to several hours, sometimes with a weight on top
to help press out liquid. Then the salt is rinsed off, leaving little salt taste but a large change in the texture and flavor of the cucumber. Add vinegar to this process takes you into the realm of pickling, where some of the change to the vegetable is from removing water but some is from infusing other flavors.
Frying (sauteing, shallow frying, oil blanching/deep frying), baking/roasting, marinating them with salt/sugar (and then not putting the drawn out liquid in the dish at the same time with the vegetables) will all have such an effect.
As someone who eats vegetables every day (and quite a bit of them), I am not sure the statement is completely true, I think that what you get from removing water is a more concentrated taste, which sometimes (for example with sundried tomatoes) taste good, but it is not useful for every occasion.
In some other cases such spinach, I tend to remove the water the same way I remove it from pasta.
Not clear what you mean about removing water from spinach & pasta? (drain spinach like pasta? - wouldn't that remove a lot of the spinachey flavor along with the water?)
How do you remove water from spinach and pasta?
me? - I drain water from pasta that I have just boiled by draining it through a colander. The water from cooking spinach, on the other hand, is much less, and has all come out of the spinach leaves (You wouldn't boil spinach in a couple quarts of water would you?), and I just cook the excess water away using a shallow pan with the lid off.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.177967 | 2016-08-14T05:38:59 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73117",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Lorel C.",
"Shannon Matthews",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9490"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
59504 | What are safe temperature ranges for fermenting miso paste?
I'd like to make some miso paste. The recipes I've seen recommend keeping the miso in a cool, dark place. Unfortunately my house gets hot in summertime and there is no cool place like a cellar or air-conditioned room to store the miso during the summer months.
Does anyone know what are the safe temperature ranges for fermenting miso? How hot is too hot? What happens if miso gets too hot?
Recipe #1 http://permaculturenews.org/2012/02/04/making-miso/
Recipe #2 http://japanese-cooking-class-tokyo-mari.com/recipe/2013/11/01/how-to-make-miso-paste-home-made-miso-recipe/
According to http://www.soya.be/make-miso.php
"If temperature is too high the koji culture could become inactive."
"The container should be place in a clean room with moderate temperatures (15°C – 25°C)."
Like yeast I think the only danger is that if temperatures get too hot it will stop working or living. Your best bet at keeping it cool is likely putting it in a dark cupboard or somewhere dark with some kind of insulation ideally to stop large temperature fluctuations and stop it getting too hot. You get foil insulated picnic bags for example. Or newspaper or foam would also help insulate.
Fermentation is an exothermic process, it generates its own heat. I don't know how much that is a factor in miso fermentation, but I'd be careful not trap the heat in the container by insulating it too much.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.178335 | 2015-08-01T09:09:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59504",
"authors": [
"Cammie Raia",
"Kelley Ballew",
"Mangia Pratoline",
"Ross Ridge",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142175",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142176",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"marianne brady"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
14740 | Measuring egg whites
I recently made macaroons for the first time and followed the instructions to the T and they were perfect! The recipe called for exactly 90 grams of egg whites..
I then made them again but the egg whites i used added up to slightly over 90 grams (about 3 grams over) - i tried to remove the extra 3 grams with a spoon but nothing has ever been so difficult! They are just a mass of goo which is so hard to separate.. whenever i got any on the spoon it just slipped off again! so in the end i just gave up and obviously the macaroons were ruined!!
So my question is - is there a method of getting precise measurements of egg whites? something i could add to make them less gloopy so i can remove the excess with a spoon? How do people normally do this?
Baking recipes can be pretty sensitive to measurements, but I honestly don't think that 3 grams would make that kind of a difference. If the recipe flopped with 93 g instead of 90 g then it was probably more likely due to the age of the eggs or other factors.
i think probably it was the amount of food colouring i put in (loads) because i wanted them to be bright pink - but it was liquid so i think thats probably what messed them up!
I recently had to half an egg white and I had the same problem with the gloopiness. So I tried being creative, went to my medicine cabinet and used a syringe. It went a lot easier than I expected! (I removed the needle.)
Put a pinch of salt in the egg whites and whisk them, and you should find it easier to remove a small quantity. The salt breaks up the 'gel' of the egg white and makes it more liquid.
@daniel: or above!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.178485 | 2011-05-12T20:52:33 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14740",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Cascabel",
"Chef",
"Paul Warren Snell PhD",
"alice",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31052",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31055",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6108",
"tlingf",
"wsev"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
14771 | using a square tin in a small oven
I have a family size convection microwave oven instead of a full size oven. I make fruit cakes and have to change the tin for next year's competition. I've always used a round tin and now I have to use a square tin. How do I stop it from burning at the corners before the middle is cooked? I set it at 130 dgeress Centigrade and bake for 3-4 hours
3-4 hours? Or 3/4 hour?
First off, I personally love the hard edges of the brownie.
But to your question:
There are a few things that you can try to keep the edges from burning.
Use a lighter ( both color and heaviness ) pan, as this does affect the heating rate as well as the distribution of the heat throughout the pan.
Try keeping your ingredients at a relative room temperature so there isn't a large transition from cold to hot in this oven ( the same reason you thaw some things before cooking ).
Try changing the temperature and cooking time. The recipes I usually stick with for brownies are cooking for about 30m at about 350 degrees F (175 c).
One last thing that might work that I have had to do with pie is wrapping foil around the edges until the last 10-15minutes of cooking.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.178646 | 2011-05-13T23:20:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14771",
"authors": [
"Mien",
"Shari",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31111",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"user42"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
28822 | Can I use mulled wine for deglazing a beef stew?
In the middle of preparing a beef stew when I realised I have no red wine (I may or may not have drunk it all, you can't pin anything on me!). I have copious amounts of mulled wine though. Will this do for deglazing or will the sweetness/spices mess up the flavour of my stew?
Of course you can use it. You can use any edible liquid: water, wine, chicken stock, pineapple juice, whatever.
The real question is whether the flavors the wine was mulled with are compatible, and you enjoy them. If they will compliment your dish, go for it. I cannot speak to your taste in stew but the sweet spices often used in mulled wine may give it a Mediteranian or middle-eastern feel--or they may be too faint to detect.
Contrariwise, you probably will do just as well with plain water, or if you are so inspired, vodka.
One reason (among many) that deglazing or cooking with wine or spirits is popular is that some flavorful compounds are not soluble in water or fat, but are soluble in alcohol (which, contrary to myth, does not all "cook off")--and so the residual alcohol from the wine can synergistically make the dish seem more flavorful. This is the science behind the vodka sauce fad, for example.
Its stew--its not haute cuisine :-) I say go for it, either way, and enjoy.
Haha, yeah I got that it was usable in theory, but I wanted to know if the mulled-ness would taste weird in a stew.
If you are worried, use water. If you are adventurous go for it. As I hinted, sweet spices are very common in some cuisines, and if that is a flavor combination you like, why not try it?
I think mulling wine would go well with a lot of stews, especially in the amounts used for deglazing. In the same way that people sometimes make infused alcohols for cooking, one could mull their own wine just for stews (e.g. black pepper, tarragon, chipotle powder might be good) and it would almost certainly be awesome, but the off-the-shelf mulled wines one can find (i.e. Glühwein, Vin Chaud, Glögg) are all pretty close to ideal as-is. The cloves, cinnamon, mace and nutmeg (with citrus) combination is a pretty solid one for any darkish stew.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.178784 | 2012-12-02T19:50:11 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28822",
"authors": [
"Bobby D",
"Delina",
"Guy",
"Maarten de Haan",
"OmniaFaciat",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66741",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66743",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66744",
"victoriah"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
14960 | How can I create a varied (or at least tasty) menu for a 12 day hike whilst using as few ingredients as possible?
I'm going on a 12 day hike with my boyfriend in a couple of months. We'll be at a mountain station that has limited supplies (e.g. meat) for sale every couple of days, but ideally I want to carry as much food as possible (buying food in the wilderness is expensive!). We'll be walking 15-20 kilometres a day. We'll be cooking food on a small gas burner (can only cook one thing at a time).
I've never hiked for more than 3 days before and I'm at a loss on how to plan to feed the both of us for that length of time. Whatever I bring needs to be low on weight/space taken up, and yet be high in energy and nutritional content. And preferably so that I can use the same ingredients for different meals. I don't want to bring something that I'm only going to use once.
I hope this is on topic here, because I would really need advice on what to eat, how to plan a menu/eating plan, how to make the food taste good with limited resources/time.
I think tasty is the easy part - especially when backpacking, anything substantial is going to taste pretty darn good, and if you carry a couple packets of spices with you to dump into meals, they'll probably be like manna from heaven. Variety, though, that's tougher.
While this is a very interesting question, it is not a good fit for Seasoned Advice. If there were a stackexchange site for camping/hiking it would be better suited there. We are not equipped to address a 12 day meal plan, nor do we offer advice on what to eat.
Although I'd agree that if there were a hiking/camping site, it would be more appropriate, there isn't one, and this relates just as much to cooking as questions like meat dishes for college students , cooking for one, cooking for large groups or once a month cooking
I've voted to re-open this, as I think it still relates to cooking, but even if it does get re-opened, you might get more authoritative information from the various backpacking sites; You might try something like Trail Forums, which is for long-distance hikers (eg, people trying to hike the whole Appalachian Trail in one go). I'm guessing that there are other sites out there. (I haven't done anything other than stationary camping in some time, and that's typically only 3-4 days at a stretch)
and you might want to see the discussion at http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1124
We take home-dehydrated cooked meat (beef, chicken, ground beef) along with spices, tomato leather to make tomato sauce, pasta, rice, dehyrated potato-and-sauce (eg scalloped potatoes) from the grocery store, home-dehydrated vegtables, and dried fruit. From that you can make stew, pasta-with-meat-sauce, curry-on-rice, and so on. You might also be interested in making your own english muffins since bread products squish and don't keep well: http://www.gregcons.com/canoe/muffins.htm.
Backpacking is tougher than canoeing but as long as you can be sure of plenty of water, you should be fine with dried products. We usually bring a little frozen meat for the first night, and frozen bacon for the first morning, well wrapped in newspaper, but those might be too heavy when hiking.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.178984 | 2011-05-21T14:20:01 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14960",
"authors": [
"Carl Witthoft",
"Cascabel",
"Joe",
"Malper",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"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
} |
43037 | Should I freeze gyoza before or after cooking?
I'm about to make a big batch of gyoza and I don't want to eat them all now. I was thinking about freezing them and I want to know which is best from a food-safety and a quality perspective.
If I freeze them after cooking, is the crispy side going to become soggy after cooking? If I freeze them before cooking, are they going to get soggy whilst the meat inside defrosts? Is it safe to defrost them with raw meat inside?
Either would be safe.
You will get better quality by freezing them uncooked. They should not get soggy due to the freezing, as neither the meat filling, nor the wrappers, are particularly subject to ice crystal damage.
Gyoza are very small, so you should not need to thaw them: just begin the steaming phase right out of the freezer, and they will thaw while cooking. If you do wish to thaw them, do it in the refrigerator and they will be perfectly safe, despite the raw filling.
You are correct that if you freeze them after cooking, you will loose the crispy bottoms--this would be true if you save them as left overs in the refrigerator as well.
This is exactly what I do with mine.
I just started making these fresh but so far have prepped from frozen and they are pretty tasty. Coat the bottom of a skillet with oil (I use cast iron, I don't like tephlon, nonstick pans). heat to med high, add the gyoza, cover with 2/3 cups of water. Add a lid, let the water simmer to steam the gyoza for about 8 minutes, remove the lid, once all the water is evaportated, I cook for 4-5 more minutes to brown and crisp them occasionally adding additional oil and usually choose a sacrificial dumpling in case it's not ready to check in case it comes apart.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.179242 | 2014-03-26T12:42:44 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43037",
"authors": [
"Avi",
"Matt Van rooyen",
"NeoPolitanGames",
"Pamela",
"Peter Russo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100678",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100687",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130548",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22662",
"starsplusplus"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
16208 | How do I wrap a spring-form pan in foil so it doesn't leak when I bake in a water bath?
I have never found a spring-form pan that does not leak.
I have never been able to wrap a spring-form pan so that some of the water doesn't get into the pan.
I can wrap it so that a lot of the water doesn't come into the pan.
But it seems to me that there must be a method that works to keep the water out entirely. I just haven't figured it out.
How can I wrap a spring-form pan in foil so that water from the bath doesn't leak into it?
Where is the water coming in? Through the false bottom or around the latch?
I think it's seeping in through the bottom, but I never actually considered that it might be the latch. I'm happy to report that this last go-around had the least seepage I've managed to get yet. But it seems like there should be a zero-seepage method.
Until someone makes a springform pan with some silicone or similar to make a good seal, you'll likely never find one that doesn't leak.
I am curious: What do you bake in it? I have never made something which required both a water bath and a springform pan.
@rumtscho: Baking in a water bath is a pretty standard way to make cheesecake. If you can access Cook's Illustrated, here is an example: http://www.cooksillustrated.com/recipes/detail.asp?docid=6303
@derobert No, I can't access the magazine. Is this some egg-based cheesecake? Because I bake mine without water, and have never had trouble. But my recipes don't include temperature-sensitive ingredients like custard.
@rumtscho: Yes, its a custard. Filling is 1⅓ c. sugar, 1 can pumpkin w/ water removed, 1½lb cream cheese, 1 cup heavy cream, 5 large eggs, etc.
@rumtscho: what kind of a cheesecake doesn't contain eggs?
@Marti lighter cheesecakes set with gelatin, for example this one: http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/recipes/strawberrycheesecake_74455 - personally I prefer a more rustic New York style cheesecake, rougher, heavier, set with eggs.
Also related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55419/cheesecake-in-or-next-to-waterbath?lq=1
If you have 18 inch wide heavy duty foil, pull a square that is 18X18, place your pan in the center of the foil and lift the edges of the foil up around the outside of the pan, effectively making a pan within a pan (spring form inside the aluminum foil pan.
If you only have 12 inch foil, pull two pieces of foil about 18 inches long and put them on top of each other. Along one if the long edges, fold both pieces over about 1/2 inch a few times, crimping each time. Open up the sheets which will create one large piece with a seam down the middle. Put the spring form pan in the middle like above. If your seam is tight it should work as well as the single piece of 18 inch foil.
It also helps to be really paranoid. I probably triple up when I bake cheese cake.
Cook's Illustrated recently discovered that placing the springform pan inside a slightly larger cake pan works. The slight air gap doesn't negate the water bath's benefits. And of course a cake pan is a solid piece of aluminum, thus completely water tight.
(Haven't personally tested this yet.)
My recommended solutions, in order of preference:
Simply don't use a springform pan at all with a water bath. It's just not worth the trouble. Use a regular round cake pan for your cheesecake instead. Put parchment into the cake pan for easy removal. You'll just need to become comfortable with inverting the finished cheesecake to get it out, remove the parchment, flip back onto serving platter, and you're done. But it's the best method I've found.
Find a round cake pan that is slightly larger than your springform pan. Place the springform pan inside the round cake pan, then put the cake pan in the water bath. (This solution is recommended by Cooks Illustrated and mentioned in an answer to a previous -- very similar -- question.)
Place a baking pan/sheet with water on the rack immediately below the cheesecake while baking, rather than placing the cheesecake directly into the water. A lot of the benefit of the water bath comes from the moderating effect of the humidity around the cheesecake, which you'll still get this way. Unless your oven is very uneven, your cheesecake should still bake smoothly with no cracking.
Use a double layer of solid heavy-duty aluminum foil. No seams (as Stephie says). Double layer. The problem is even with no seams, you can still get moisture evaporating and then condensing between the foil and the pan. (I've tried this, and I know it can happen. People are always mystified by water "leaking" through the foil -- but sometimes it gets there other ways too. The cooler cheesecake mixture will cause condensation in a high-humidity environment.) And if your pan leaks, even this small amount of moisture may infiltrate and make the crust a bit soggy. That's why I'd recommend option (2) instead, since the humidity won't have a chance to pool and get trapped in the foil where it will get into the crust.
Personally, I've never found a springform pan that doesn't leak. Alton Brown claims they don't exist, so I gave up looking and stopped putting springform pans in water baths.
agreed; springforms always leak; i go with lots and lots! of grease and a normal high side pan instead; waterbath as normal.
put your springform pan in a slow cooker liner or a Reynold's turkey bag. Both are made to withstand heat and work well.
One hint: No seams!
You can do as many layers as you like, but if there is some kind of seam or overlap it is very hard to get a tight seal.
If you can get your hands at some extra-wide foil, just put the pan in the middle and pull up at the sides: no seam.
If you absolutely must connect sheets, try what roofers do: Lay two sheets atop each other, fold one long side over a few times, press to seal tightly. Unfold the remainder. The result should be similar to (b) in this picture:
(source)
Repeat with a second or third layer, if necessary.
And finally: There are springform pans on the market that are watertight, no need for extra aluminum foil.
They have a wonderful new invention that I use. I bake 3 - 4 cheesecakes a week for my business and the best thing I have found is the crockpot liners. They can withstand the high temperatures of oven baking. I wrap one around the spring form pan and then wrap it with heavy duty foil. I have not had a soggy cheesecake since.
Caryl Johnson said that a year ago in the answer just above yours although she called it a "slow cooker liner" It's a good idea though, I will do it next time I make a cheesecake.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.179424 | 2011-07-17T02:22:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16208",
"authors": [
"Bobb Jackson",
"Cascabel",
"Donna Hurt",
"Doug Partington",
"Frecklefoot",
"HIRAJUAN Shahi",
"Jacob",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Leah Bylander",
"Mabel Uyeda",
"Marti",
"Megasaur",
"Ray",
"Rosemary Baker",
"Saman Kazi",
"Trott",
"Tuffy",
"Yaboku Last",
"derobert",
"dreamstate",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34503",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6658",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96315",
"rumtscho",
"slim",
"zerobane"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
30623 | What type of rum to use when making vanilla extract?
My mom just bought me some vanilla beans from Tahiti and said that the person she bought them from suggested using rum to make an extract. What type of rum should be used, white or dark rum, and is there a certain alcohol content that is needed to keep the extract stable and safe at room temperature?
I have absolutely no expertise in this area so that's why i'm not making this an answer but I would actually lean towards a high proof, very neutral vodka but that's my choice. If your sold on rum I would stick with white so you avoid muddying the vanilla flavor with the molasses notes of dark rum.
You can use any type of booze you like, as long as it is at least 80 proof (well, you probably don't want to use slivovitz or smoky Scotch). If it's at least 80 proof it won't go bad, and as long as it's not the cheapest rotgut, it should be fine. I don't use sugar at all. I have liked the result of using both vodka and rum, but the resulting flavors are somewhat different.
I use vodka so no flavors are added to the vanilla.
I've been making rum-based vanilla extract successfully at home for years. Here are my recommendations. Your basic ingredients are 80 proof rum, sugar and vanilla beans. At the recommended proportions, the rum and sugar are plenty effective preservatives.
You can use either light or dark rum, but it should be a good "call" 80 proof rum and not a bargain bottom shelf rum. I most often use Ron Rico. If you use a golden rum, your extract will have a warmer taste suitable for spicy treats such as pumpkin pie or spice cookies. If you use a silver rum, your vanilla will have a purer taste suitable for whipped cream or custard sauces. I get rum that is bottled in glass, because I think plastic imparts an off flavor.
Your basic recipe will use a fifth less about a 1/2 cup of rum, four vanilla beans and 1/2 cup of organic sugar. We'll go through that first, and then talk about variations.
Place your vanilla beans on a clean, flat cutting surface. Using a small, sharp knife, cut them first in 1/2 crosswise at the middle. Then take each 1/2 bean and insert the knife tip just 1/2 to an inch below the uncut end and carefully slice lengthwise to the send. Repeat this process gently and carefully on each piece unti each piece has four lengthwise quarters attached at the uncut end. Some recipes will tell you to scrape some or all of the paste out of the beans, but this is not necessary. The simply split beans will infuse the rum just fine.
Pour out about a cup of rum from your fifth and set aside. Put your sliced vanilla beans into the rum. Use a funnel to add 1/2 cup of organic sugar. Use the reserved rum you set aside to top the bottle back up. Recap the bottle and give it about 20 shakes to encourage the sugar to dissolve. Set aside in a dark cabinet or pantry. Take it out and give it a few shakes every week or so. Your vanilla will be usable but not fully extracted in about two months. It will continue to strengthen in flavor out to about 6 months of age.
Once you are satisfied with your extract, you can decant some and bottle it up in smaller bottles. It's a very popular gift for bakers.
Once you have tried vanilla extract made this way, you will never want to go back to store-bought. The difference is indescribable.
You can vary the type of rum you use, silver or gold, and you can vary the sugar. I mostly stick with light organic sugar, because I think the taste is better. I like the combination of dark rum and brown organic sugar very well. You can also increase the sugar up to about 2/3 cup in a fifth bottle, but I wouldn't go above that. Sugar gives the extract more body and mellows the flavor.
Check out Wikipedia to learn more about the various kinds of vanilla beans available. I use the organic ones from my food coop, but different kinds can be ordered online or found at specialty food stores.
A number of cooking blogs have instructions on making extracts or tinctures of other spices. There is no reason not to create combination flavors.
Once you are please with your extract, you can remove the beans. Extracted beans still have enough flavor to be worth sticking in your dry sugar canister.
What is the purpose of adding the sugar? I don't want an infused liqueur as much as I want a vanilla extract.
@lemontwist Your basic extract would use vodka; I assume the sugar here is to mellow out the rum taste a little, make it more general-purpose.
@Yamikuronue, why couldn't a high proof rum be used in an extract instead of vodka? Why does the alcohol have to be mostly flavorless?
@lemontwist It clearly does not, as evidenced by this answer. The basic recipe uses flavorless alcohol to provide solely vanilla flavor, so my suspicion is that the rum flavor may be too overbearing, and my experience is that adding sugar or sugary drinks to rum mellows the flavor, which probably lets the vanilla come through stronger.
@Yamikuronue If the issue is that the rum is too flavorful, one needn't use only rum. Using some proportion of rum and vodka (I'd probably start at half and half) would lessen the impact of the rum flavor. I've never used a vanilla extract that had sugar in it, and it seems like any extract that did have sugar in it would be more difficult to use well in a recipe. That said, most recipes using vanilla extract also include added sugar, which would likely handle the "rum flavor" problem itself, if sugar is the answer. If the rum flavor is still too pronounced, I'd just reduce the amount of rum.
Made 7 liters of extract with Smirnov Vodka..another liter with Barbados white rum...the rum extract is a much better product. Going to order another 2 pounds of extract grade vanilla beans from "vanilla products" on Ebay and make another 16 liters, 8 with dark Barbados rum and another 8 with white Barbados rum....the rum imparts a sweetness to the extract with no need to add any extra sugar. I sell mine in 8 ounce bottles for $24.00 per bottle and can't keep enough on hand. Only two ingredients, vanilla beans and either Vodka, white rum or dark rum...no propylene glycol, no sugar no water..this stuff pretty much sells itself. Thinking of tweaking the prices upwards on the rum extract as it is a much better product than the Vodka. I don't use sugar in the Vodka either.
I lived in Tahiti (Moorea) for 15 years and baked as a profession. Needless to say I made vanilla extract all the time. I used 16 oz of dark rum, NO SUGAR, put in maybe 8 whole vanilla beans, the more vanilla beans the more I stuffed into my rum. wait a few months and voila vanilla extract. I would some times take a whole bean out of the jar, cut it open and put the bean in the coffee pot before I made coffee, not where you put the water but in the coffee pot. Yum. I am not a vanilla fan at all. but do like fresh rum soaked vanilla bean in a pot of coffee.
I made a batch of vanilla using Jamaican Rum and Madagascar beans (purely because I hate vodka in general) NO SUGAR whatsoever and it was beyond amazing; rich, creamy, perfectly sweet. After a couple months of soaking I ended up scraping the beans out into the bottle to use within recipes since I make Creme Brûlée a lot and having the beans in it tastes so much better. I am actually waiting on more beans to make another batch to give away at Christmas time
We make vanilla extract all the time at home and gift it to our friends and family for the holidays. Personal we like rum and even brandy, but the classic vodka works just fine. We have tried a variety of beans Madagascar, Uganda and Tahitian but currently we really favor the bold cherry and smokey tones of an Indonesian Tahitian bean sold from a company online at www.slofoodgroup.com I am sure you can probably get great beans anywhere but we liked there variety as we have been making vanilla extract for years.
I adequate a batch today with a 5th of Smirnoff vanilla infused vodka and 3 Tbls of Meyers rum and 6 vanilla beans (I scrappedal the seeds into the bottle before adding the bean pods) as it gives better results for custards and cakes later. I added a little simple syrup for body. Now the wait of approx 4 months till I can use and gift it.
Sorry for typos from auto speller
You can fix the typos by clicking on the word "edit" just below your post.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.179971 | 2013-02-02T02:19:35 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30623",
"authors": [
"Brendan",
"Georgeinnome",
"Greeshma Kondra",
"Marian",
"Miz Tipples",
"Norma",
"OmniaFaciat",
"Paul Majett",
"Ross Ridge",
"Spammer",
"Yamikuronue",
"bitter lily",
"blacksmith37",
"guessed",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103754",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71597",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71598",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71629",
"lemontwist",
"user5561"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
18425 | What is the best way to store chopped vegetables?
To speed up our cooking during the week, I would like to chop up all the vegetables I will need for the week on a Sunday and then just use them throughout the week.
What would be the best way to store these vegetables?
Will this work with all vegetables or are there some vegetables that just can't be chopped until you are about to use them?
I'm a fan of prepping some vegetables for the week on a day off. I'm much more likely to eat salad if I have the fixings ready in my fridge. I'm no expert, this is just what I've found works best for me.
Certainly some vegetables are more suited to cutting and storing than others. I find controlling humidity and condensation in storage to be the most important factor. I store almost everything in covered pyrex, unless it needs to breath (and those go in the humid compartment). Veggies with less water can be kept humid with a lightly moist paper towel on top. Wetter veggies can cause condensation and lead to sliminess. A dry paper towel and/or an open container can help with that. A veggie should either be submerged in water, or not in water at all. Sitting in condensation is that biggest problem in storage.
Cut carrots keep in water for a week with no change in quality. Out of water, they can dry out a bit. I don't find the dryness to be a problem.
Sliced bell peppers keep pretty well with a moist paper towel in the container.
I find onions to be pretty indestructible, though the flavor gets a bit milder over time.
Broccoli and cauliflower are also pretty hardy. A dry paper towel or two will deal with water from washing them, which is the biggest problem I've had.
Mushrooms and leafy greens need to breath.
Cucumbers and tomatoes don't store as well as others.
If you know you gonna use all your veggies in the week
don't use the fridge but a freezer at -4°C
chop the veggies, store in boxes, done.
to defrost for a salad, stir a bit with the sauce you want
always fresh and tasty
I would try to refrain from doing this as much as possible, but if time saving is needed then when I am short of time during a certain day, the night before when I'm making a cuppa or supper in the kitcehn, while waiting for the kettle or the toaster I quickly chop them up then. If you do it 24hours earlier they don't lose too much taste or moisture. Potatoes are my hated one, so i peel and chop and leave in a pan of water. You can refrigerate but we have a small fridge and leaving then out for a day brings no harm, just make sure to rinse again before cooking. I find uncovered for veg is always best, so they can breathe. I don't like preping tomatoes and cucumber early as they lose their firmness, become mushy and lose taste. The best I find for preping early is brocili, cabbage, cauliflower, and carrots, turnip and butternut squash kept in water. Onions and mushrooms are usually fine left uncovered but things like celery and peppers I prefer to chop fresh.
Do you really want to do this? The vegetable will loose water, it will loose juice and part of its sabor. Especially in the fridge, where the air is more dry. You could use special compartments in some fridges which solve this problem and tend to keep moisture (some expensive fridges have it) so that the food is not dried. I wouldn't recommend freezing at all.
Anyway, the surface of vegetable pieces will tighten and become dry. Even if there is still water inside the pieces, the tightened surface will not allow to release its taste during cooking as with freshly chopped vegetable.
I suppose this is what I am trying to find out. Would it be possible to store the vegetables in water? Would that cause other problems?
@Mongus, I don't know, I wouldn't risk it. I value the freshness so I always chop it fresh. These 10 minutes daily won't kill me. I do it in the meantime while I wait for other parts of the food to be cooked.
With our lives as hectic as they are right now every minute I can shave off cooking time tips the balance in favour of a home cooked meal over a takeaway or oven meal. It all counts!
@Mongus, then I would look for fridge compartments with keeping air moisture. And I wouldn't keep it for more than 2-3 days.
Don't store them submerged in water. They will soak it up, becoming mushy. Also, their flavorful juice will leak into the water.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.180693 | 2011-10-18T09:51:54 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18425",
"authors": [
"Dan F.",
"Mongus Pong",
"Slamdew",
"Thomas Russell",
"Tomas",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39869",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7348",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
47756 | Is it best to slice roast meat if eating the next day?
So I have just roasted a chicken, a lump of beef (not sure which cut) and some pork shoulder.
We will be eating the meat over the next few days.
Would it be best to slice the meat now (after resting), or leave it uncut until just before eating?
Cut meat only before consuming. Cutting => increasing surface area => shortening its shelf file, making it dry out fast
Leave it uncut, if you slice it now your slices will dry out more.
Makes sense, but what about if I sliced it and left the slices to sit in it's juices? There was quite a lot of juice from roasting three lots of meat. I have experimentally sliced up the pork and covered it in the juices. Could the increased surface area allow the pork to now absorb more juice and thus be more moist?
Sitting in its own juices should keep it from drying out, but it won't make it more moist through absorption.
The meat will slice better if chilled first. Just put it in the fridge and slice when you want. I often find myself looking for a better way as I always like it better when fresh cooked and still warm, but that has always been an obstacle as you only eat a certain amount. Then the rest is left. Ticket is that meat will always slice easier when cold.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.181312 | 2014-10-07T22:27:36 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47756",
"authors": [
"Adam Hájek",
"Frances Robinson",
"GdD",
"Julie Ross",
"Mischa Arefiev",
"Mongus Pong",
"Richard Dilley",
"Tina Lewis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115311",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115315",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115329",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6725",
"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
} |
85292 | "Tempura" setting on induction cooktops
I was reading this comment while once again wondering if I should get a deep fryer for the few occasions I would use it and I stumbled across "tempura" or "deep fry" modes on some induction cooktops. At the time ~2012 one of the commenters indicated that these weren't available in the US.
Is this still true? A quick internet search didn't turn any burners up that had these features but I'm not giving up the search.
Most anything that can heat a pot or wok to 180-220°C CAN be used to deep fry, with the appropriate caution.
With all stovetop deep frying, use a thermometer, avoid straight-sided vessels like stockpots - boil-over events are a far greater and more dangerous mess if there is oil involved, do not leave things unattended, be prepared to deal with a fire, be VERY prepared to handle a boil-over, be careful adding water-rich things ESPECIALLY at low temperature.
The question is what such modes really do. They could enforce an upper limit to temperature - which I would consider unreliable unless there is a sensor IN the oil. The temperature range useful for deep frying is ~140-210°C, whereas upwards of 230°C things start to get dangerous.
Alternatively, they could just DISABLE a temperature limiter that would usually not even allow the pot to get as hot as it will get in deep frying (significantly above 100°C usually indicates the cooking vessel has boiled dry).
In either case, it is doubtful whether there is a safety benefit vs any other non-flame stovetop deep frying technique.
Oh I know it's possible. From what I could deduce, however, the tempura setting allowed it to be used as a PID controller to regulate the temperature of the oil a bit better.
Out of curiosity, why avoid straight sides - does it make it more prone to roiling?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.181458 | 2017-10-28T18:31:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85292",
"authors": [
"Brian",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6757"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
20674 | What bones for beef stock
I finally may have found a somewhat local source for veal bones and want to start making stock in earnest. I've done chicken and turkey stocks before but for those I use entire carcasses. I've browsed around a bit and haven't really found any concrete info on what bones I should be using.
Before I make the trip to the butcher (he's about 30-40 minutes away) I'd like to know what to ask for. I've seen a couple references to avoid marrow bones a bit, and some references to neck bones, but I'd love to read/learn more about exactly what I want.
My goal is a rich nicely thickened (gelatin) stock that I can use for a delicious soup, or as a base for my sauces.
Thanks!
Also see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18366/ratio-of-marrow-bones-to-regular-bones-to-marbled-meat
To get that gelatin you're looking, you need joint bones and lots of them. The back, neck, tail are great for that. If you've ever made Ox tail soup you'll know what I'm talking about as you'll get a really thick coating on your tongue from the gelatin that is disolved from the tail's connective tissues.
The reason for avoiding marrow bones is because it can make for a cloudy stock if the marrow gets broken up and the fact that marrow bones don't generally have the highest amount of connective tissues. Cloudy stocks also are caused by boiling of the stock instead of simmering.
Typically when making stock bases, you want them to be as clear as possible so you can use them for just about anything. A cloudy stock doesn't make a consomme look very nice. However, if you are just going to use the stock in items which don't demand a high amount of clarity then don't worry too much.
When you go to your butcher ask for knuckle bones(joint bones) and chine bones(back bones) as your first choice.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.181635 | 2012-01-22T03:34:47 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20674",
"authors": [
"Addison Crump",
"Martha F.",
"PeterF",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45435",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45437"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
29656 | What are the pros/cons of serving the salad dish before/after the main dish?
I have noticed that most people in the US serve the salad course before the main dinner course. However, my Italian relatives and my boyfriend's Italian relatives serve the salad course after the main dinner course. (I am assuming it is an Italian or European difference.)
What are the benefits to serving the salad dish either before or after the main course. Does it aid in digestion? Palate cleansing?
Do you have some reason to believe the variation is anything more than cultural preference and history without any fundmantal reason other than accident of history?
I have no idea, which is why I'm asking.
Phrasing of "pros/cons" implies the expectation of a difference based on some objective metric, rather than just "this is way we do things". Kind of like driving on the left or the right side of the road. They are equally effective (as long as everyone in the region agrees), and the world-wide variations are a contingent accident of history.
For a fairly typical thread on this, see: http://www.thekitchn.com/cultural-differences-salad-bef-65008
The so-called reasons I see listed here are consistent with what I found in several different internet discussions of the issue, none of which are scientificially or academically credible:
Restaurants serve salad first because it is easiest to get out on the table
At home, eat the entrees first while they are hot
Eat salad last so that the roughage helps digestion
Eat salad last so that the stomach acids are not diluted for the entree
Note that the last two are kind of non-sensical. They sound great as folk science, but in the course of a single meal, it will all end up together in the stomach, as the digestive process is not so fast that the courses end up moving through the system in sequence like cars in a railroad train in sequence over the track.
Then again, some like to serve it with the main part of the meal.
I am sure this is just a matter of cultural expectation.
As a counter to the first claim -- it holds up in general, but when you have more composed salads they're going to be slower to get out than most 'slow food' dishes that would've been prepared in advance (stews, chili, osso buco, etc.) I've been to a lot of restaurants where the salads get bogged down as they only have one person assembling salads with multiple others for hot appetizers & main courses.
It's interesting that the two main choices you've asked about are before or after the main entrée course. In my experience in England and in continental Europe (Spain, Italy, France etc.) the salad is served as a side dish alongside the main or entrée course and is intended to be eaten alongside this course sometimes in place of some form of vegetable dish.
The only time I've come across a salad being served before the main course is when it's intended as a starter to the main course, in which case you probably wouldn't then have a salad as a side dish.
I've never come across a salad being served after the main course, except as a fruit salad!
Perhaps it's a cultural difference between North America and Europe but if I was ever served a salad after the main or entrée course I'd be asking whoever served it to me, why and I would find it most unusual.
Many consider salad a secondary food in the hierarchy. You can eat more meat if you skip the salad, or eat it last.
If you eat salad first (without 100% fat drizzled salad dressing) you fill your stomach with fewer calories by volume. Your total caloric intake could possibly be reduced by eating salad first.
Living in Spain I've always seen serving salad first, and then the main(s) course(s). And I don't remember having seen it been done other way in Italy nor by Italians.
The reason might be simple: try to eat a whole dish of salad. Can you eat a steak after that?
Then do the opposite experiment: eat a whole dish with a large steak. Can you eat a bit of salad after that?
The only reason I can find to eat a main dish first is when timing of preparation or/and temperature of serving are crucial (maybe as with pasta al dente or fried eggs & French fries)
A serious con of serving it separately is that if the food is spicy, or hot, you can't use the salad to wash off the excess of heat - you must depend on drinks (...and if the drink is hot too?)
Other than that, you take the choice away from your guest: they may choose to eat the salad first or last, or mix it with the main course, or spread eating it evenly with the main course - if you serve it after only later after the main course, you took this option away.
OTOH, salad is often readily available at restaurants where food is prepared as you wait. In this case I find early arrival of the salad welcome if I'm hungry - simply, less waiting for any food.
So, summarizing:
early salad: only advantages; guest can delay eating it. Just don't take it away as you bring the main dish.
same time: okay, unless you make hungry guests wait and provide no snacks of any kind.
late salad: bad. Really no good reason to serve it that way. If the guest wants to eat the salad last, they can just leave it for later, it won't get cold. If they burned their mouth on hot main dish, they won't be too happy about "better late than never". If they like mixing tastes, you took that choice away.
I don't know if you're still watching this question, so I'll be brief.
A Salad course after the main meal tends to only be during full course meals - I.e. four or more courses. It is meant to be a light green salad after a large roast dinner (usually) to cleanse the palate before dessert, which may include both a sweet dessert (cake, torte, etc) and cheese (with fresh fruit and biscuits/crackers).
I'm not aware of any benefits to having a salad before or after a meal other than this - and I've not seen it outside of a formal dinner.
Also, you would not see it outside of Europe. I know it as a traditional a British thing.
Whenever I have dined at someones home in France we always had salad at the end of the meal. Their reasons were that salad went well with the cheese that was also served at the end of the meal.
If your salad has a standard vinaigrette then it makes sense to have it at the end of the meal because the vinegar acts as a digestif.
Similar to some of the debunked points in SAJ14SAJ's answer, the idea of a digestive aid needing to be eaten at the end of a meal for maximum potency is scientifically suspect; in those cases where order actually matters, the digestive aid is invariably taken at the beginning of the meal (think Lactaid, or Beano). The cheese pairing is a much more credible explanation!
Actually, I had the same question and I found on https://swirled.com/why-eat-salad-last/ what I was expecting.
It aids in digestion.
These cultures believe that when you’re consuming a large meal over a period of several hours, it’s best to eat salad near the end of the dining experience to give your digestive system an added kick of fiber at the ideal time. The roughage supply of vegetables helps, ahem, keep things moving along as they should. So if big meals tend to leave you all sorts of constipated and uncomfortable, switching up that salad timing could give you some much-needed relief.
I have yet to determine if it is true but it makes sense to me.
In eastern Europe, we would have salad first because my father will have his aperitif (alcohol) before he starts eating his meal and as a "mezze" he will snack on a salad. It is customary to "open" your appetite with alcohol starter and salad, then you continue with your meal. Or if alcohol is not consumed then you eat your salad along with your main course.
Born and raised in Montreal. We always had our salad last with a plate of cheese and fresh berries, grapes to choose from. Whether is was a formal dinner or just our average daily dinner.
Today, I place the salad on the table at the start of the meal, which allows you to do what suites you. With so many cultural differences today, there is no proper answer. I still eat my salad at the end of the meal.
Welcome! On Stack Exchange sites, we're pretty strictly focused on the question and answer format, rather than on general discussion. The question is specifically asking for advantages and disadvantages of serving the salad at different points in the meal, and not asking for opinion about when the best time is. Although I agree with your statement that there is no single "correct" time and people should do whatever they want, that doesn't actually answer the question, which is asking for information, rather than opinions (including the opinion that all opinions are as good as each other).
It all depends on you!! I know that if I eat salad after my meal i tend to get bloated and gassy, however if i eat it before a meal i feel more energetic and satiafied afterwards
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.181822 | 2013-01-02T11:38:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29656",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Dan Horgan",
"David Richerby",
"Gamerboy and GamerGirl",
"Howie",
"Joe",
"Kcris",
"Mike Valentino",
"Nora McDougall-Collins",
"Oxtoe",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sagie",
"Thea Wu",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160362",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68986",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68987",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68996",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69002",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89889",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89895",
"lemontwist",
"user69002"
],
"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
} |
27279 | Does soaking almonds have the same effect as blanching and removing the skins when making almond milk?
I love almond milk, and it's relatively easy to make, however the recipes I've used all call for removing the skins by blanching before blending with water and straining. However I find the skinning process to be tedious to the point where I no longer make almond milk.
I have seen other recipes call for soaking almonds overnight before blending / straining. Does this serve the same purpose as removing the skins via. blanching -- removing the bitterness associated with the almond skin?
I think that both will do the purpose you are looking for. The soaking is more to bring the nutrients out of the almond before preparing the dish you need them for or in this case the milk. I would try just the soaking once and if you want it more sweet then bitter add the sugar into the water you are soaking it in, this might neutralize the bitterness in the milk when it is ready to drink. Also to neutralize the bitterness try adding vanilla extract or even cinnamon if you would like that.
Thanks! I'm definitely going to give this a try once I'm settled into my new apartment.
Soaking overnight has a very different effect than just blanching.
Blanching is only surface level and allows you to peel the skin.
Overnight soaking allows the almonds to absorb water, soften up, become more digestible as well as seep & remove harder/ negative 'enzymes' & bitterness into the water, which can easily be eliminated. And eliminating skins are simply a finger squeeze away.
Similar fundamentals abound for beans, especially heavier ones such as Kidney Beans, Garbanzos/ Chic peas. Rice & lighter lentils also benefit from soaking.
Soya is even harder to remove those enzymes.
There's no need to comment to tell the OP that you've answered their question. They get notified of the answer.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.182537 | 2012-09-19T21:16:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27279",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Dave",
"Derek Lee",
"Maria Vani",
"Martin",
"Olive Mendiola",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156224",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61852",
"lemontwist"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
62638 | What causes stringy winter squash?
I know that spaghetti squash is supposed to be stringy; this question is not about that.
When I cook winter squash, I cut the squash in half, remove the centre (seeds/strings), rub the flesh with olive oil (sometimes stuff the cavity with stuffing), and bake in the oven for 30-40 min at 350oF until tender.
However, I notice that pretty much all of the acorn and butternut squash I bake comes out stringy and tasting awful. It's gotten to the point where I don't buy them anymore, because I wind up throwing it out. I'm not sure if it's because I'm purchasing unripe squash or if it's because I'm cooking them wrong (although I have cooked many an acorn and butternut squash this way for years without problems up until about a year ago).
I don't seem to have this problem with buttercup squash (which, in my opinion, is much tastier, but harder to find in my area). Somehow I doubt that all of the acorn and butternut squash in the Chicagoland area is somehow just bad, although I have tried purchasing these types of squash at many different grocery stores and even farmers markets to try to see if it was an issue with a particular store.
Are the squashes I'm cooking with underripe? Overripe? Is it a cooking problem? How can I ensure that I'm buying a good acorn or butternut squash when I'm at the grocery store?
Well it's possible they are over ripe. Acorn squash should be dark green or mostly so when it's ready to eat. It turns orange when it's ripe, but just like many circubits and cucirbits (squashes and melons(including cucumber)) you don't want to eat them when they are ripe, you eat them before they start to ripen.
How you store them makes a difference in the long term but not so much in the short term. Last year we had a batch of acorn squash that was thin and stringy and not tasty just like you described. I think they didn't get enough water at the farm that grew the Walmart acorn squashes.
On the other hand, I have held on to acorn squashes for 2 years in the cool, and dark and they were still quite tasty.
Just try again, but try a different source for them for now.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.182722 | 2015-10-18T23:02:32 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62638",
"authors": [
"John",
"Rhonda Handly",
"Su Ann Shupp",
"Susan Kemp",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148926",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148996"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
66270 | How long will reconstituted beans last in the refrigerator?
Dried beans. Soaked overnight. Drained. How long can I keep them in the refrigerator before use?
Duplicate of How long can I store soaked beans before cooking?
@AlanMunn Actually, the question you refer to asks about length of soaking and storing in water. I've indicated that the beans were re-hydrated, then drained and refrigerated. I believe the questions are different. Also, I am not sure that I buy the info in the comment that suggests draining "gets one an extra day or so." My question seeks a more definitive answer.
Well like most "how long can I keep X" questions, the answers are rarely definitive. The answer in the linked question covers the issue fairly well. I've kept soaked beans in the fridge for a couple of days without a problem, as I'm sure many here have. So at best you may get a range of times, probably most well under 5 days.
In this case it's not so much about safe. As indicated under 5 days is probably safe for uncooked veg protein. That's what we use in the restaurant world as general safety rules of thumb. 2 days for meat, three days for starches, 5 days for beans.
However, you may decide that the beans have significantly softened and may no longer be suitable for your application. It depends on what you are doing. Beans in a chili (I know chili doesn't have beans in it) you want to have some firmness, beans in a burrito medium firmness and beans for a bean dip or refried, well you want pretty mushy.
So safety wise you are probably just fine, but make sure your application warrants how soft the beans may become.
I would try to use them up within a couple day, just to be on the safe side. Make sure that you're storing them in an air tight container, that usually helps keep it fresher.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.183021 | 2016-02-07T00:58:38 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66270",
"authors": [
"Alan Munn",
"David Pletsch",
"James Robinson",
"Kelli Woodruff",
"Shane Brucker",
"cheryl duvall",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158661",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158700",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42797",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
18949 | Is it possible to make onion Bhajis without a deep fryer?
I love these things. Is it possible to cook them in e.g. a frying pan if I keep turning them around? Or maybe by just filling up my crockpot a little way with oil (enough to cover the Bhajis but not so much it will spill over or spit everywhere)? Is that safe?
Yes, you can cook them in about 1" of oil in a steep sided frying pan or wok. Just turn them reasonably frequently to ensure even cooking.
If you're dubious about using a lot of hot oil, you can use less by making your bhajis a flat, patty shape and shallow frying.
would you be able to bake them?
Not really, you wouldn't get the same 'caramelisation'. You can reheat fried bhaajis in the oven though.
@dassouki You could but the mix would probably go dry before the outside crisped up. Still tasty but not perfect - a bit like baking scotch eggs instead of frying them.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.183195 | 2011-11-14T16:27:16 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18949",
"authors": [
"Alexander Matelot",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Gary",
"Soumya",
"dassouki",
"developer01",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41099",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
19899 | Is there a point in stuffing a chicken if I'm not planning on eating the stuffing part?
I'm planning to cook a regular chicken on Sunday and I thought that I should probably try to season it somehow. I've never tried to cook a chicken before (first Christmas dinner as an adult obv!). I thought about stuffing it, but scooping out the stuffing after to eat seems a bit gross to me. Will the stuffing itself impart flavour to the chicken meat?
I don't suppose you should eat the can from a beer-can chicken...
You can put things in the cavity to help flavor the chicken as well. A bundle of fresh herbs, garlic, an onion, fresh fruit, etc. Stuffing from a cavity is divine though, don't knock it until you've tried it!
I agree, stuffing is delicious. If you don't want to eat it then yeah, stuffing with herbs and other items. Fruit suggestions would be apple, orange or lemon. Typically I do lemon and onion with Thyme.. or you could do apple and onion with sage etc...
If you're using a citrus fruit, just make sure you slice it in half or poke holes in it first. Exploding chicken cavities do not make for a fun night.
I like to soak a videlia onion in a strong flavored tequila, wiskey, or wine for 8 or so hours then put the onion in the chicken to cook. Both the chicken and the onion taste great.
Ditto garlic. CostCo sells big jars of peeled garlic cloves; just pour a bunch of 'em inside the chicken cavity. Once they've cooked, they're good on bread.
IMO you should only use herbs some onion and fresh fruit as others have stated. Anything that is bread based must heat to 160 to be safe to eat after the fact which means by that time your chicken will be likely 170 and dry. If you insist on a proper stuffing then pull your chicken at 160 then remove the stuffing and put it back in the oven till it's 160
The stuffing doesn't add much flavor to the chicken, so no.
If I even bother making stuffing, I like to cook the it in a separate pan. I usually have better luck getting the stuffing to a safe temperature without overcooking the meat, and it doesn't get as greasy. It also lets me get plenty of crispy brown bits on the top of the stuffing, which you really don't get if you cook it in a bird. I often use fat drained off of drippings from a previous roast chicken to cook the veg for the stuffing, and I use homemade, concentrated chicken stock (made from the carcasses of previous roast chickens), which I think gives the stuffing just as much chicken-y flavor as cooking it inside the chicken.
You can put other things into the bird to improve flavor if you're worried about it being bland. I like to season with salt and pepper inside and out. That's all you need if you have a really good chicken, but sometimes I'll cram half a lemon, half an onion, a couple cloves of garlic that I've bashed with the side of a knife to crack them open a bit, and some fresh herbs inside to play with the flavors.
This is an odd kind of answer to the question that you're not exactly asking;
If you're interested in stuffing the bird, and consuming the stuffing, but not interested in the yuck of unstuffing the thing, you could fill an improvised food-grade net (i.e. cheesecloth, muslin wort/hop bag, grain sock, etc) that would be permeable AND allow for you to remove the stuffing more easily.
In this way, you get all the benefits of the stuffing flavoring the bird, you get a side dish, and both the act of stuffing and unstuffing will leave your hands reasonably clean.
Make sure its a natural fabric (e.g., cotton), not plastic or other synthetic. The plastics & synthetics might melt and/or leach chemicals best-not-eaten into the chicken.
I'd cook the stuffing separately; much easier to get both to the ideal temperature that way. You do not want to serve overcooked chicken, and you must not serve undercooked chicken or undercooked stuffing exposed to raw chicken.
I'd suggest brining your chicken (in a brine containing herbs, garlic, onion). Keep in mind that most of the herb flavor will stay in the brine, only a small amount will migrate into the bird; that is, if you taste the brine (before adding the chicken, obviously), it should taste of way too much salt, and also way too much of whichever herbs you used.
If you're going to roast the chicken with high heat, you'll want to have little if any sugar in the brine. 5% or so salt (by weight vs. the water), maybe 1% sugar. Look up some chicken brine recipes to find some good flavor combinations.
Cool the brine before adding the chicken (easy way: make it double-strength, and dilute 50% by weight using ice). Brine for around 12 hours (in the fridge); rinse and dry the chicken as well as you can with paper towels; return to the fridge, uncovered, for an hour or so (to continue drying); then roast.
And, most importantly, do not overcook the chicken. The brining gives you some leeway here, the goal is 165°F for the breast and 175°F for the legs.
If you make gravy or pan sauce, the drippings from a brined bird will be fairly salty; don't add additional salt without tasting, use unsalted butter in the roux (and have some low-sodium chicken stock on hand should you need to dilute to reduce saltyness).
poke a lemon with a skewer a few dozen times, stick it in the microwave for a minute, then stick it in the chicken's cavity just as you pop it in the oven
this accomplishes 2 things
the hot lemon cooks the chicken from the inside, which speeds up the cooking process
it imparts delicious lemon flavors to the chicken meat
Note that the stuffing goes into the neck end, filling the flap of skin there, not the body cavity.
If you were to put stuffing into the body cavity, you would end up with a greasy, sloppy mess, and it would indeed be gross.
Stuff the neck end, and you're likely to find it more appetising than you're expecting.
The stuffing does impart some flavour to the meat, but it doesn't penetrate very far from where the stuffing is.
Stuffing does mean there's more mass to heat up, and impedes the transfer of heat into part of the chicken, so you need to take that into account when deciding how long to cook for.
I don't know what company you'll have, or how much emphasis your culture puts upon Christmas dinner -- but I think it's pretty bold to try anything for the first time on Christmas day. On that basis, I'd suggest making things as simple as possible, and that means not stuffing the chicken; try that another weekend.
Some form of stuffing is a Christmas dinner essential though. Use packet mix and cook it in a separate tray.
And thanks for the advice. That's interesting. Maybe I'll just cook a plain chicken? Mostly I'm just worried about it being bland. But maybe I'll just season it under the skin with a bit of sage or something and not try to go the whole hog. But my whole life I had assumed the stuffing went inside the body cavity :D
If you don't buy the cheapest battery-raised bird in the shop, no chicken should end up bland. Stuffing is partly a strategy to keep it moist.
Another thing you might do @victoriah, is lay some nice fatty bacon rashers over the bird, which will add flavour and baste the meat as it cooks, helping it to stay moist. You can also rub between the skin and breast meat with butter.
If you do decide to stuff the chicken, it helps to have stuffing that is already hot before you add it to the chicken.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.183318 | 2011-12-22T16:08:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19899",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Chad",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Jimshad Abdulla",
"Karl",
"Liz",
"Manako",
"Michael Hoffman",
"arjun",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43410",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43423",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8433",
"mfg",
"offby1",
"sam",
"slim",
"victoriah",
"yulzone"
],
"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
} |
15249 | Why should I use olive oil?
So many recipes list olive oil in the ingredients, as the oil to fry things in. What are the benefits or reasons that I should use olive oil over regular generic "cooking oil" and should I always use olive oil over other oils?
This question includes an answer for you: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/701/what-oil-or-fat-to-use-for-different-purposes
According to Harold McGee, using olive oil to fry is basically a waste of money. "After I’d heated them, none of the olive oils had much olive flavor left. In fact, they didn’t taste much different from the seed oils."
According to a Spanish study I have access to, you could use high oleic sunflower oil for frying as it degrades better.
I agree with him, there really is not much point in frying with olive oil. The flavour gets whittled down to nothing by the end, and the low smoke point makes the supposed health benefits a pretty tough sell.
I agree as well UNLESS we're talking about refined olive oil labelled as "pure olive oil" and not extra virgin. That has a much higher smoke point, and presumably the health benefits of monounsaturated fats would carry through to products fried in it. But generally using olive oil as a frying oil is just another piece of nonsense people latch onto for "health reasons."
Compared to refined olive oil, Canola (rapeseed) oil is far cheaper and a fat profile at least as good.
First at all I apologize for my English.
Basically remarks made before are not really true.
Smoke point took alone does not mean anything. There are other consideration that must be done to analize oil transformation.
What is friying?
Let's go in order considering two aspects: oxidation parameters and healthy parameters:
Frying is an accelerated process of oxidizing (air oxigene attacks lipidic substratum).
The transformation is more accelerated as higher is the oil unsaturation (presence of double connection that is a point of weakness).
So the stability of fatty acids is related to double connections in its structure and decreases in the order of those categories:
-saturated: 0 unsaturation
-monounsaturated: 1 unsaturation
-poliunsaturated: 2-3 unsaturations
So it means 0 unsaturation are definitely more stable oils during frying.
But there's an healthy parameters to be considered: saturated fatty acid are hamful for cardiovascular illnesses.
satured: lard, palm;
monounsaturated: olive, sunflower (high oleic acid);
poliunsaturated: maize, soy, sunflower (high linoleic acid);
So until now the better choice are monosaturated oils!
The thorny subject of smoke point:
Often associated to formation of acrolein, is closely related to the physic state of oil and not to its fatty acid composition.
The presence of humidity and acidity (free fatty acid), decreases the smoke point.
So for the same acidic composition smoke point descrease for oil with more acidity.
So which is the better oil to fry?
Although smoke point is lowest you have to consider the oxidation stability as well.
Even if you can see an oil smoking it does not always mean that the oil decomposes.
That's because they wrongly talk about smoke point as the central point instead of a more complex process called pyrolysis that is:
Pyrolysis is a thermochemical decomposition of organic material at elevated temperatures in the absence of oxidizing agent (normally oxigen).
So here we came! Even if extra virgen oil has a less smoke point is the more oxidation stable oil thanks to its liposoluble antioxidant (Vitamin E) and idro-soluble (biofenoli).
I hope to have explained in better way why the smoke point is not the right (or better the only one) property of oil that has to be considered.
About the taste:
Of course the extra virgen oil has a strong taste and it's used for food without own taste as said potatoes, fries.
To not alter some taste food (fish) can be used for example peanut oil that does not have a strong taste (for its good combination of oxidation parameters and smoke point).
Other staffs should be considered.
Not use the same oil to fry? it's true, but there is something called polar compound formed during frying that is the health indication of frying oil. That means that should not exceed a limit value (defined by healty department; some place the value is 25g/100g, but that means pretty more than 8 home frying; it is to control restaurant industry).
heat the oil before but not cross 180ºC / 356ºF
do not bathe cold food even if the box says yes
try to keep the temperature constant
do not salt/sweeten during frying but after it
fry little portion of food to shorten the fry time
I hope I've been helpful!
Kind regards!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Editing to answer to comments:
@Aaronut I completaly agree with you. I always advice to not believe surfer doctor improvisation. This is just a place for opinions! I agree that you need reliable source!
I'm gonna give you some!
But first of all I want to say. Don't trust on everything because market business let say many deceitful things! Market business is misleading! It's able to corrupt everything.
I'm just pretty surprise of your doubt: "saturated fatty acid are hamful for cardiovascular illnesses"
Satured fatty acid are responsible for cholesterol. Cholesterol is responsible of coronary disease. Do you agree with me about it? Anyway if you think this is my opinion...
here you some reliable sources! (All are Government Institutes! No privates or indipendents!)
CNR: The Italian National Research Council (last pages in english)
INRAN, Istituto Nazionale di Ricerca per gli Alimenti e la Nutrizione.
Italian Department of Health law.
Federico II University Ph.D. (page 6)
I'm sorry but I don't have time to find more!
By the way I want to show all theory :) There is an opposite one. But in my opinion a single researcher can be corrupted very easy. He's Ronald Krauss and I don't really have time to find his study.
@rumtscho I definitely prefear Extra Virgen Olive oil. For some frying (very few) I use Peanut oil to not alter some food taste.
I will answer to other comments as soon as I can.
Kind regards to everyone!
I find your information on the difference between smoke point and pyrolysis very interesting. Still, I have two issues with this answer. 1) I don't clearly understand if you are for or against frying with olive oil (I think you support it, but it isn't entirely clear) 2) The other answers mentioned not only smoke point, but the obvious loss of taste when non-refined olive oil is heated at frying temperatures. Even if the fatty acids don't pyrolise, the aromatic compounds probably do. So why use the expensive EVOO for frying when the cheap sunflower oil (monounsaturated, has Vit E) will do?
I very much appreciate a lot of the technical details here, but I have a problem with this statement: "saturated fatty acid are hamful for cardiovascular illnesses" - can you back this up with some reliable source? I know that this is true for trans fats but I do not believe this statement to be the scientific consensus for saturated fats.
Also, my understanding is that oil smoking does in fact indicate oxidation, and that the antioxidants in olive oil (or any oil) are a component of the smoke point. Now that could very well be wrong, but as above, I'd really like to hear that from a reliable source.
@Aaronut WHO, and most western government health organisation recommend low saturated fat diets to avoid CVD, diabetes and other complications. In some cultures/countries the evidence is outstanding (e.g. Pacific peoples). You can't quote USDA food safety and then ignore their CVD warnings
@TFD: First of all, yes I can; food safety and general health are two very different subjects as we've made plainly clear in the past. More importantly, vague allusions are not citations; I'd like to know specifically where this was stated and in what context. I've seen certain limited evidence to suggest that increasing the intake of monounsaturated fatty acids (relative to other kinds) can reduce the risk of heart disease, but that's a very far cry from cutting out saturated fat entirely and/or claiming that it causes heart disease.
As I understand it Pyrolysis of olive oil is around 500°C (930°F) and oxidation of olive oil it over 180°C (350°F). Oxidation happens very slowly as only the oxygen exposed surface reacts, and this forms a "plastic" film which prevents further oxidation. Vegetable oils tend to catch fire long before any large amount of oxidation has occured
@Aaronut there are years of studies published, and many show direct correlation (google search, wikipedia etc). Sure some don't but that happens with every research process. You have to average them out. The insignificant results could be due to saturated fats being replaced with other stuff that is just as bad. This issue is currently being researched
@Aaronut other than that just visit a pacific island where mammal based saturated fats have been introduced in the last few hundred years and see what happened (sugar and wheat came much later)
@Aaronut also with pacific peoples high saturated fat diets are strongly linked to diabetes even though they may not yet have progressed to CVD and/or obesity. Our local studies are quite clear on this. Local doctors even get pay bonuses for encouraging this diet change
@Aaronut some background to above http://www.phac.health.govt.nz/moh.nsf/pagesmh/5505/$File/DiabetesPreventionALindsay.pdf
@TFD: I still don't see a single credible reference. I repeat, a vague allusion is not a citation. This is exactly why we generally disallow discussion of health topics here; aside from it being an immature field even among scientists, laypeople seem to form very strong beliefs based on flimsy and often anecdotal evidence. Maybe you're right, maybe you're not, but I would appreciate it if you and everyone else could refrain from making unsubstantiated claims about subjects that are only tangentially on topic.
@TFD: OK, from your link: "The three recognised modifiable risk factors for diabetes are obesity, diets high in saturated fats, sugars and low fibre, and physical inactivity". This is credible - people who do all of those things are at a higher risk of diabetes. However, diabetes is not heart disease and the diabetes risk is only applicable to an already-at-risk group (most people are not genetically predisposed to diabetes).
@Aaronut The risk factors are part of most westerners normal lives. How many geek use a stand up desk even? Diabetes is now considered an indicator to CVD etc. Diabetes risk is not always a genetic thing
I've edited to answer to your comments because it exceeded character limit. KR
Here's a study (found via wikipedia). http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1000252 In the US, the saturated fat -> CVD link seems to have been born in the 70s out of a series of political events. It was enshrined as national policy and continues to drive federal health guidelines. The tide is turning against it only slowly as more studies seem to counter this notion
@Aaronut, current research seems to lean towards: polyunsaturated fat instead of saturated fat is good for the heart; overall reduction of saturated fat is controversial. See following metastudies: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20711693, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18937892, as well as Ray's link. I didn't find data specifically about monounsaturated fat. Of course, such studies are not immune to biases, but that seems to be the best data currently available.
@Ray, I don't understand your comment. First, you say that the policy against saturated fat had political reasons, but don't give a source for this. Second, you link something which I assume you count as "[countering] this notion", but the study's conclusion is "These findings provide evidence that consuming PUFA in place of SFA reduces CHD events in RCTs" (PUFA=Polyunsaturated fatty acids, SFA=Saturated fatty acids, CHD=Coronary heart disease, RCT=Randomized controlled trial), which means that replacing sat. fat leads to fewer CVD.
@rumtscho--yes, I ought to have made that more clear. Aaronut was looking for a source for saturated fat linked to CVD, so I was providing that. I don't have a source for the political background; I wasn't trying to post an answer with that info, just wanted to provide some perspective as someone who has grown up in a country where we are indoctrinated about this from childhood, and hear it in schools, see it on food packaging, read it from CDC, FDA, AHA, etc. It's so ingrained in American minds, anyone questioning it is treated as someone wanting people to die from heart attacks.
@rumtscho: Thanks for the correction, you are right; as confirmed by Ray's link, it is poly and not mono substitution that was tested. Unfortunately, poly is also the most prone to pyrolysis, so cooking with too much of it could lead to other problems associated with rancidity/free radicals. Unfortunately, a lot of these nuances seem to get lost in translation when studies are reported in news and repeated by laypeople; "substituting a certain amount of poly for sat reduces CVD risk" is not at all the same thing as "saturated fat causes CVD". It's a dangerous oversimplification.
sone: The first link seems pretty sensationalist to me; the last one looks promising although unfortunately I can't read Italian. I do appreciate you taking the time just to find those links, but I don't suppose you could try to translate one or more relevant parts from one of the more... formal sources you listed?
Unfortunately/fortunately I don't get english or american humor ;) *"one of the more... formal sources" *.
Anyway I thought the effort that foreign people do contributing in international forum writing and thinking in english is something should be appreciate!!
You wanted some reliable sources and I gave to you! Those are all Italian governament institution and a law as well. It would be too much for me to facilitate in english.
Your effort could be copying into a google translator and try to get the sense.
By the way I will translate for you when I'll have time because I'm quite serious. KR
@soneangel I for one appreciate the effort you are putting in your contribution. English is my third language, and I know how hard it is to produce good arguments in a foreign language. The problem is, you can't convince anybody if they don't understand the arguments you make. If you don't find the time to translate, I will vouch for you: the sources you linked indeed state that the eating of saturated fat causes elevated cholesterol levels, which are linked to heart disease. But I don't think that @Aaronut doubted that a similar statement is contained there; more likely he wanted to judge
their credibility, for which the whole text is needed. I for one don't accept these documents as convincing. I agree with @Aaronut on the first. The second and third documents are indeed government policy. Sadly, governments are not always correct - not in Italy and not elsewhere. This is why a scientific, and not legal source is better. The fourth source is from the "background" chapter of a PhD thesis in nutritional science. It says "many studies have shown that" without citing a single study. I wouldn't accept work in this quality from my bachelor students, let alone in a PhD.
This does not mean that we think that your statements are wrong. We don't know if they are, that's why we ask for sources. Sadly, the sources are not good enough to convince me personally that they are right. So at the moment, I am not sure if olive oil is indeed better for the heart than butter or not. You can trust a government or any other source, and anybody who agrees with you is likely to upvote your answer. I think Aaronut's first comment was intended to show that there isn't universal agreement, rather than start a long discussion on a topic even top scientists don't agree on.
I really appreciate everyone remaining civil throughout this discussion. However, comments are not really built for such lengthy discussions. Please feel free to continue this in [chat] though!
Olive oil is preferred for the flavor it imparts, and by many because it is healthier than other oils. As far as frying goes, it is actually not that great since it has a relatively low smoke point, meaning it will start smoking on you at a lower temperature.
Additional information: the smoke point of extra virgin olive oil is around 320F/160C, Virgin Olive oil is 420F/216C (hot enough for almost all uses), and extra light olive oil is 468F/242C. "Pure" (refined, not extra virgin) olive oil should smoke from 420-450F.
I think the best thing to do is use olive oil for cases when you are drizzling it on or cooking for a short time. Otherwise, use vegetable/canola/etc.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.183963 | 2011-06-05T16:08:53 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15249",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"BobMcGee",
"Ray",
"TFD",
"derobert",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6389",
"michael",
"rumtscho",
"soneangel"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
27805 | How do I know if my cast iron dutch oven is preseasoned?
So I bought a cast iron dutch oven. It doesn't say anything on the box about it being preseasoned or not. So I looked up some guides online to see if there was anything special I needed to do before using it, and I found this page which says:
If not pre-seasoned, the first thing you’ll notice is your new Dutch oven will be coated with a thick layer of wax.
This is weird because I don't notice any kind of wax on my Dutch oven. It's a dark black and is slightly shiny. I expected that if it was already seasoned it would probably say so on the box, or am I wrong?
What is the wax supposed to look like? How do I know if mine is seasoned or not?
Is your new pan from the manufacturer "Lodge"? The Lodge pans I have bought in the past 5 years or so have all been pre-seasoned.
My dutch oven is always "preseasoned", if you know what I mean...
You would know if the dutch oven was covered in wax. Cast iron prior to seasoning is a light grey color. It will rust very quickly just from atmospheric moisture, so they cover it in paraffin wax to preserve it. The process of seasoning the utensil forms a tough, yet smooth, black coating of polymerized oil. If your dutch oven is a slightly shiny dark black, it is safe to say that it has already been seasoned. With the proper care your dutch oven will last you many lifetimes-- enjoy it!
You should check the manufacturer's instructions on what you need to do with the pan.
Odds are that if it didn't say 'preseasoned', it isn't ... and so the manufacturer should make some recommendations on how to strip whatever their protective coating is, and set up your initial seasoning.
For the stripping, some will tell you to scrub in hot water; others involve potatoes or a salt scrub. If this is a new purchase, and there weren't instructions with the dutch oven, that you check the manufacturer's website ... if they don't have something there, contact them.
If you bought it new anytime after about 1930 then you can be sure it's pre-seasoned. Every "modern" manufacturer pre-seasons their cast iron cookery.
Though wax was most often used as a protective coating for unseasoned cast iron in the era when purchasing an unseasoned cast iron pan was an option, it is still often used to this day by manufacturers who pre-season their product, just to protect it from filth accumulation during shipment and storage. For that reason, a wax coating can't reliably suggest seasoning or not.
The real test will be considering its color. Unseasoned ("raw") cast iron looks exactly like you might think untreated iron SHOULD look: a shiney silver grey. More accurately, it would remain shiney silver gray for about 2 hours before being almost completely covered by a thin film of red rust it would begin to accumulate almost immediately after being exposed to the air (I've stripped down many pieces of cast iron cookery and it's been my experience that visible rusting develops on raw cast iron within minutes of exposure to air. This is, in fact, precisely what the seasoning is intended to retard). Probably every piece of cast iron cookery you've ever seen is dark black (forgetting the common exception of ceramic coatings, which are often colored blue, red, yellow, white, etc.) That dark black IS the seasoning which covers and protects the raw shiney silver iron underneath.
Short answer: If it's black, it's seasoned.
Even shorter answer: Everything is pre-seasoned.
This is not necessarily true. This item, for example, does not come pre-seasoned. While the vast majority of utensils these days are pre-seasoned it is a gross over statement to say that everything is.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.185140 | 2012-10-14T17:43:10 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27805",
"authors": [
"AfterShock360",
"CodynNichole Sheren",
"Coomie",
"Kim Adomaitis",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Miki",
"Mr. Squig",
"StuiterSlurf",
"adozendonuts",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63842",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7695",
"user1857492"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
32599 | Other uses for Korean salted shrimp
I purchased a jar of tiny Korean salted shrimp to make kimchi. Since I only use a teaspoon or so at a time for the kimchi, I wondered if there were other (Korean or otherwise) creative uses for these salted shrimp.
Is Korean salted shrimp the same as dried+salted shrimp and powdered shrimp found in Hong Kong, Taiwan or Southeast-Asia? I know people sprinkle it onto their noodle soup or stir-fry, or even into their a'la BLT sandwich. Is it also popular in Japan? I have seen it with pink speckles - is that pepper-jacked shrimp bits or just the colour of the shrimp?
Kimchi is probably the biggest use I can think of, but there's also steamed egg: http://www.maangchi.com/recipe/egg-side-dishes
Otherwise, 새우젓 is frequently used as a dipping sauce for foods like marinated pigs' feet (족발) and blood sausage (순대). Also added wherever appropriate for a little umami punch.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.185556 | 2013-03-11T17:11:08 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32599",
"authors": [
"Cynthia",
"Frank Valenziano",
"Michaelyus",
"Sophie Tan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75250",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75297",
"user75249"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
40209 | How can I convert a muffin recipe to make crumpets?
If I have a recipe that I like for muffins (in the original English sense of the word, i.e. a fat disc of bread that's made from cooking a yeasted batter on a griddle in crumpet rings), what do I have to do to convert it to make crumpets instead? Looks like I need more hydration (maybe 120% instead of 100%) and to use plain flour instead of bread flour, but is there anything else?
(The muffin recipe in question is from Peter Reinhart's Artisan Bread Everyday. Except that he calls them English muffins, because he's American.)
May I ask why you don't just find a crumpet recipe?
I have a couple of crumpet recipes, but I really like the muffins from the muffin recipe, so I'd like to try the conversion.
But by changing the muffin recipe, you may very well be changing the aspects of it you like. In any case, I'd suggest you compare the muffin recipe to the crumpet, alter matching ingredients accordingly, and add where necessary (I'm thinking baking powder).
Feel free to head over to chat if you want to discuss - http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/16/the-frying-pan
English muffins and crumpets are very similar, the only difference being that crumpets are wetter to allow the bubbles to rise out of the side off the heat. Without seeing a specific recipe, it's hard to know exactly what adjustments to make, as some muffin recipes are also quite wet.
If you think your muffin dough is wet enough, you could just try cooking it as crumpets. If it doesn't bubble correctly on top, try making it a little bit wetter until it works.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.185669 | 2013-12-13T11:11:09 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40209",
"authors": [
"BeccaCooks",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Mike Dimmick",
"Mike Scott",
"anxiousPI",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93440",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9607",
"tom"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
65799 | Making toad in the hole with duck eggs
I've been keeping ducks for a couple of years, and therefore I cook with duck eggs, since they're effectively free. They're Indian runner ducks, which aren't very large, and the eggs are pretty much the same size as a large hen's egg, so I just switch them one-for-one, although the duck eggs have a bit more yolk and less white than a hen's egg. And they're better than hen's eggs for most purposes, with the exception of toad in the hole.
I use the Delia Smith recipe with double quantities of batter, and it always comes out big and fluffy with hen's eggs, but flat and stodgy with duck eggs, and takes 50% longer to brown properly. What's going wrong, and is there any way to fix this other than switching to hen's eggs, which I would have to buy specially? Use three whites and one yolk? Use different quantities of the other ingredients?
After further experimentation, I’ve made it work. I used a different recipe, and for each 100g of eggs I used one whole egg and made up the rest of the weight with egg whites (which took a bit less than two more eggs). Leaving the batter in the fridge for twelve hours or more also helped a bit.
In case of link rot, the new recipe uses 200g eggs, 150g flour, 25g water and 175g milk. For the same amount of flour, the Delia Smith recipe that didn’t work so well used two eggs (about 100g), 150g of milk and 110g of water. So the total amount of liquid is quite similar, but there’s more egg and less milk/water.
Toad in the hole batter, which is the same as yorkshire pudding batter, uses eggs for lift and partly as the binding agent. Lift comes from expansion of gases, including water vapor. Egg white is 90% water, yolk is somewhere around 40% water.
A large egg is usually somewhere around 60g out of the shell. With a hen's egg 2/3rd of that is white, so call it 44g of water in total (36 from the white, 8 from the yolk). A duck egg is usually about 1/3 white, so about 34g water in total (18 from the white and 16 from the yolk). So using duck's eggs you get 20g less water overall in a doubled delia recipe. Given that there's 260ml of water and milk already this isn't much of a difference, maybe about 6-7% total water content. This doesn't sound like much but it can make a big difference.
Fat-wise there's about 10g more fat in 2 duck eggs than hen's eggs. A hen egg yolk has roughly 5g of fat in it, and a duck egg double that.
Protein-wise white has a higher percentage of protein (7%) than yolk (5%), but that's not much so not likely to be causing issues.
It's probably the combination of less water and more fat which is causing your problem. Less water and more fat means less expansion, less expansion will mean it takes longer to cook and has a flat texture as you describe.
As for the remedy I think you should definitely try 3 whites and one yolk, that should bring the balance back just right.
One trick recommended by a few chefs is to wait until your toad in the hold or yorkshire batter is fully expanded, then open the oven for a few seconds to let the water-saturated air out. This will help the batter to crisp up.
I have ducks and have been experimenting with making Yorkshire Puddings using their eggs.
I always used to use 4 hen eggs, 140g plain flour, 200ml milk + seasoning, and that always worked well.
When I substituted the hen eggs with duck eggs they never raised very well.
After a little experimenting I found the following works well...
Pre-heat oven to 180deg
Put a little olive oil (not extra Virgin) into a Yorkshire pud tray - 12 Yorkshire’s
Mix together..
2 large duck eggs
90g plain flour
110ml whole milk
50ml water
Salt & pepper
Bake for 10 minutes, then open oven door for 2 seconds to release moist air & close again.
Then bake for a further 6 minutes.
Done
Hope this works for you.
I use an electric fan oven for this.
Duck eggs are high in fat and for a cake to rise it needs to be low in fat or no fat. Try halving one of the duck yolks and see if this makes any difference.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.185837 | 2016-01-24T20:19:56 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65799",
"authors": [
"Eric Batule",
"John Stromboli",
"Julia Watola",
"Melissa Hollabaugh",
"Nancy Scott",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157331",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157333",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157425"
],
"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
} |
24338 | Is salt needed for a souffle to rise?
I made a crab pudding/souffle (lots of egg whites) last night and it didn't rise at all. I've made it before successfully, but this time I didn't put any salt in because I felt the result had been too salty before. Could the lack of salt be the culprit? Or do I just need to perfect my whipping & folding techniques??? Thanks!
No, salt actually destabilizes egg white foams. The small amount added to a souffle won't ruin the souffle, but the meringue will actually hold a bit better without it.
There are many reasons for a souffle to not rise (overbeaten whites, bad folding, wrong base consistency, wrong oven temperature, etc.) but salt is not one of them.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.186186 | 2012-06-10T15:38:35 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24338",
"authors": [
"ColdFlo",
"Gina DS",
"Kim",
"Paulette L Costa",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55391"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
16820 | Should chili peppers be seared?
I've seen some recipes call for chili peppers to be roasted until the skin is charred but not burnt, and then peeled.
How does this change their flavour? (Do they become hotter?) Should the skins be discarded, or do they contain some flavour on their own?
Whatever method you use, take great care! Even small amounts of smoke from burning chilli can be very disturbing to the lungs and to the general nerve system
I am not sure if you are confusing roasting with charring but both are the same basically, though roasting the pepper by charring the skin would be a more accurate nomenclature.
Roasting brings smokiness to the pepper and softens its bite. It allows you to remove skin more easily. When you char the outside of dried peppers in a dry skillet with spices, then soak, it allows you to remove the pith more constructively than tearing it open and it adds depth to the flavor.
For fresh peppers they become somewhat less spicy, for dried peppers it allows them a more expressive flavor (think of roasted sesame or pumpkin seeds or coffee beans for a comparison). Roasted peppers add a different dynamic than their raw counterpart and you should definitely look into the difference (if you enjoy chipotles end adobo you already have a taste for them without knowing it).
I've always understood that the purpose of charring them is the ability to take the skin off easily... And if you've ever not perfectly charred a pepper, you'll find that part of the skin sticks... I believe that charring a pepper takes some of that raw acrid taste off of it, but the purpose of charring it is to remove the skin easily.
To your last question, if you char the skin, you'll find it kind of turns to black mush... It's not appetizing :)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.186281 | 2011-08-12T01:18:05 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16820",
"authors": [
"Greg Olsen",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35914"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
19093 | What is the proper amount of time to thaw + brine a turkey simultaneously?
I recently saw a tip that you can thaw a frozen turkey in your brine, and I'd like to try that this year. I was planning to thaw my turkey for 3 days in a cooler of water.
I've actually never brined before, so I'm a little worried about over-brining and turning my turkey into mush. The bird we got this year is just under 15 pounds, and the package says to thaw for "3-4 days".
Everything I've found so far says to brine for 1-2 days. Should I plan to start using brine about half way through the thaw process (maybe even leave the wrapper on for that first half, too?), instead of the whole time, or will the bird being frozen initially prevent the brine from doing its magic early on, thus preventing mush?
Related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9509/what-are-the-options-for-thawing-a-frozen-turkey
Possible duplicate of Can you brine frozen meat?
Possible duplicate of How can I effectively time a short thawing and brining of a a turkey?
A few things aren't quite right here.
1- a cooler full of water for 3 days.
A turkey will take 3-4 days to thaw in the fridge- between 35-40F. Quicker methods call for submerging in running water for some hours. Submerging the turkey in stagnant water- even if it started as ice water- will allow the turkey to rise well above 40F over the course of 3 days. You would have to add ice or have the turkey somewhere colder than 40F for this to be safe.
2- brining too long turning a turkey to mush.
The salt in a brine denatures some proteins and supercharges the bird with water. These will make the meat more tender and seem more tender respectively. That said- the risk isn't that the meat will get mushy. Unless you are adding some other ingredient to the brine that is actually a proteinase like papain the risk is not mushiness but being too salty.
3- 1-2 days of brining.
I have never seen a recipe that called for brining this long. The brine recipes I have seen are on the order of 4-10 hours. If your brine recipe calls for this length of time then it is probably more dilute than the ones I use. In such a case it would probably be fine to thaw it in the brine if you address the safety concern.
The turkey being frozen will prevent the brine from penetrating but as the bird thaws from the outside in the outside of the bird will have more alone time with the brine than the deeper meat. I can't say whether this would be a problem- especially as Harold McGee says that the salt from brining isn't able to penetrate very far into the meat anyway.
Unless it is cold enough outside (or you have enough fridge space) that you could brine the turkey at <40F for 2 days while it thawed I would recommend at least mostly thawing it before introducing it to your brine.
Thanks for the advice. RE #1- I was planning to keep the cooler in the garage (we live in PA and the high over the next 4 days is 55, so that's a start) and I would check + ice it at least once or twice a day to get the rest of the way. #2- I did not know that. :) #3- Sounds reasonable. I'll bump my recipe up a little to compensate.
Alton Brown was on NPR's "All Things Considered" this week.
http://www.npr.org/2012/11/13/165039668/turkey-tips-from-alton-brown-dont-baste-or-stuff
He said he likes to thaw the bird in the cooler for up to a week in ice brine. As the ice melts it dilutes the brine. I am trying this myself this year, but only for 3 days. Alton claims he has not seen the water get above 38 - 40 degrees when doing this, however; I would put some common sense to this and assume it would all depend on where you keep the cooler. I live in Fla. so I will keep it inside in the A/C and just add ice and drain a little brine, if needed, as the thermometer drops.
I have used Alton's turkey cooking method of high heat (500) for first 30 Mins and then 350 till 161 degrees, and it was the best turkey ever. My 72 year old Uncle-in-law, said it was hands down the moistest he has ever had. Good luck!!!
You could also consider equilibrium brining. Since you sound like you want to leave it to thaw for several days, this may be a safer way to avoid over salting the meat. The basis of the idea is you want to weigh your bird, decide how much salt you would want in the final product (i.e. maybe 1% salinity) calculate that weight in salt (bird weight X salinity %) and make your brine that way. This way the % of salt in the brine is at the level you want in the bird and therefore the amount of time you leave it in the brine is irrelevant.
This is a method that was invented by the team behind Modernist Cuisine. There is some info out there if you google it but to really understand it your going to have to spring for the book which is about the cost of 5 thanksgivings ($516 at the moment)
http://amzn.com/0982761007
This was the second year I brined a turkey and I accomplished the task in a bucket with brine and ice + water, just as I had the year before. I did this for two days this year because of a last minute issue that arose on the day I had planned to roast, pushing my roasting day back by 24 hours. I was really worried my bird was ruined, but not having a choice in the matter, I went ahead an opted to roast it and see how it turned out. I was not disappointed in the least and it was as wonderful as I remembered from the year before. My bucket sat out in my breezeway this year for two days (I live in PA)and still had plenty of ice in it when I went to retrieve it. This is hands down the most wonderfully moist turkey I have ever had, made, or had compared to anyone else's! Even my boyfriend told his mom in front of me that mine turned out better than the one she made two days earlier ( I wanted to crawl under the table! ). Try it.... You will never prepare a turkey any other way. (Maybe change the brine recipe, but) you won't use any other prep method again.
You cannot thaw a turkey in a brine. The cell walls are frozen solid and no saline solution can penetrate those type of cells.
You can thaw a turkey much quicker by placing the bird in some sort of plastic bag and immersing it in lukewarm water but this is not entirely what you are proposing.
See this related answer. Can you brine frozen meat?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.186469 | 2011-11-23T17:10:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19093",
"authors": [
"Adam Tuttle",
"ChadM",
"D.G.Thomas",
"Margipoo",
"Neil Meyer",
"Per Lundberg",
"Stephie",
"chrisjlee",
"fifaltra",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67057",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67127",
"user3688804"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
18985 | Can I sprout grains/legumes/seeds I buy in bulk from whole foods?
I bought some lentils, groats, sunflower seeds, etc from whole foods (organic raw). Are they safe to sprout?
I'm hard-pressed to think of a reason that seeds wouldn't be safe to sprout.
Just some stuff I read online made me think that it was possible that not cooking them could increase the risk of food poisoning. They say pregnant women aren't supposed to eat sprouts because of this. The sproutpeople.org site mentioned that their seeds are tested to ensure they are pathogen free (and that perhaps seeds from places like whole foods are not and are therefor possibly carrying pathogens that could make you sick...)
Sure! sprouting is fun :-) You can sprout almost any kind of grain or cereal, including but not limited to the kinds you mentioned.
Just soak them in water overnight, put them into a colander for the excess water to drain, then put the colander in some dark, dry place (I use a cupboard) for them to start sprouting.
It might take a day or two (or more), depending on the breed of course.
The process of sprouting will turn the seed into a vegetable, and will increase the amount of nutrients in it — that's more vitamins, minerals and anti-oxidants for you!
Anyway, it's a safe process, regardless of the seeds being organic or not. Just to be on the safe side you may want to use latex gloves, protective eye goggles and perhaps a bullet proof vest :-)
Cheers! i was merely being practical... :-) I just had some humous i made from sprouted chickpeas, and i can tell you this: sprouted humous has a lesser effect on your digestion system!
Yes organic raw seeds are safe to sprout.
Awesome, thanks! Do you have any citations or anything to help expand on the answer?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.187023 | 2011-11-17T01:26:09 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18985",
"authors": [
"Carmi",
"Russell",
"Talbatz",
"cmcculloh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41182",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6325",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8007",
"leroy",
"markshancock",
"olliepower"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
15655 | Fix a bad vegetable soup
I threw a whole bunch of vegetables in the crock-pot with water and realized I had forgot to buy meat for it. I cooked it anyways and it is extremely bland. Any ideas on what I can do to fix it now? I don't want all this to go to waste...
I basically just threw a bunch of random vegetables that I picked up from the farmers market in there: 3 squash, 2 zucchini, an onion, kale, a handful of green beans, 4 servings pearl barley (I had half a bag laying around I needed to use up), 2 handfuls black beans, half a head of cabbage. I put some salt & pepper, about 6 teaspoons of chicken bouillon, garlic powder. It's a big crock-pot and I filled it to the brim with water (besides all the veggies).
Any suggestions would be great...
How long have you been cooking this? Is it a pot of mush, or is there still some texture to the veggies?
I cooked it on high for... 3 hours maybe? Theres tons of texture left. But, I cooked it on Sunday night and it is now Tuesday morning... My plan had been to eat a bit each day for lunch.
With such a random collection of ingredients, I'm hesitant to suggest anything lest it conflict with one of the flavors. With that in mind, add extra ingredients a little at a time to make sure it doesn't go overboard or taste jarring with something already in there.
Suggestions to improve the flavor:
Celery salt or celery seed (preferably ground). Fresh celery is normally part of the mirepoix in veg soup, but it's probably not a good idea to add to a cooked soup, so we're adding the next best thing. It is amazing the difference celery can make.
White wine vinegar (for acidity and a richer flavor, and pairing with the cabbage and onions)
Dry vermouth or white wine. Some flavor compounds are more soluble in alcohol than water, so this can help bring to the front additional flavors that are already present but undetectable.
A jigger of sherry or cooking sherry (the latter has salt, so add it before salting the soup). This is a common suggestion when serving canned soups to guests, to make the soup taste fancier.
Rosemary, thyme, and parsley flakes/stems (adds aromatic and herbal flavors)
Worcestershire sauce (use carefully, it's potent stuff) -- this adds umami and spiciness
Paprika and a pinch or two of cayenne -- adds warmth and back heat, and smokiness
Dijon mustard (use sparingly). Adds front heat and a little richness to the soup
A little more salt and pepper
Parmesan or parmesan rind (for the rind, plan on simmering for a long time to extract flavor). Self-explanatory here.
Balsamic vinegar -- adds sweetness, acid, body, and umami. Use caution, it may conflict with the cabbage here.
This is the one I ended up doing. The soup wasn't necissarily "good" but it's "good enough". One day I tried adding horseradish mustard, and it was actually good...
Lemon juice is often a good alternative to vinegar for getting the pH down to a tastier range.
I just want to say the mustard and balsamic vinaigrette was a great suggestion. I too made the mistake of a bland soup and I didn't know how to fix it. This answer saved the soup. It went from being bland and probably destined to sit in the fridge for a week until I throw it out to a soup that I finished in one sitting and am excited to make again.
Remove most of the water (you can keep it aside and use it to make vegetable stock).
Put the rest in a blender, add grated Parmigiano and a little bit of butter (or a tad of fresh cream). Season with freshly ground pepper and/or some chili (very good to balance the sweetness of the squash), and garnish with parsley.
Serve with croutons.
This is a really good idea. It's more aggressive than some of the other suggestions, but it could solve the problem in fast stroke.
Hrm... I think I'm going to try this with the last of the soup (enough for about 3 or 4 bowls). I wish I could mark this and the other as the answer...
@cmcculloh: cool, let us know how it turns out!
I cook a lot of vegan soups for my wife and I've come to some tips after too many watery soups.
Fry the onions. Heat up the soup pot and throw a bunch of onions in the bottom and fry them until they brown. This adds an umami flavor to the soup. For rescuing a soup like this, chop them very fine, fry and simmer them in the soup for a while.
Use a can of dark beer as your first cup of water. This also increases the umami flavor as it cooks down. With the chicken stock, I'd use a lager if you need to add more liquid to the soup, then simmer for a while to let the flavors blend.
Add a can of tomato paste or diced tomatoes as part of your broth. A long simmer with tomatoes adds the acidity, adds body to the broth and more of that crucial umami flavor. Tomato paste has a tendency to give a 'beefier' flavor, so omit for chicken. Consider instead diced tomatoes or a roux.
Oxo (or other) vegetable broth cubes. For a large pot of soup, add 3 or 4. This is a bit of a cheat around creating a mirepoix blend (homemade veg broth is better) but it could rescue your veg soup.
I've also had luck with thickening the soup with a roux, mix up your flour and water, pour it into the pan and stir while the flour browns. Stir it into your soup and use some spices, Rosemary, thyme, parsley, pepper, paprika, Worchestershire Worcestershire sauce, hot sauce (I'd suggest something with flavor like Tiger Sauce) to liven up the soup.
Because you've got the more delicate veggies like the kale and the zucchini already in the water, I'd focus on thickening the broth or increasing the flavor of the broth.
Ahem - Worcestershire, pronounced Wooster-sheer. /language Nazi :) +1 for good tips.
If it's a big pot, you probably just need more salt, and some more bouillon.
My key is about a tablespoon of bouillon for two litres (quarts) of soup. Depends on the brand and the soup, of course.
If the vegetables still have some texture left and you can still cook it for another half-hour or so, you can add some celery roots and stalks and some parsley to give flavour.
Don't underestimate the value of V-8 juice to add flavor. My last batch i used the spicy V8, with a touch of red pepper...it really added a welcome bite to the soup.
This is probably a little late, but assuming you still have some of this soup sitting around, let me tell you my suggestion.
I do this sort of thing on purpose. We will get a lot of produce out of our garden, and make a soup similar to what you are describing. We will intentionally leave it bland. The reasoning is that after several days of a particular kind of soup, we'll get tired of it. So we leave it bland, and dress it up when we dish it out. We will have some cooked ground beef, and add it right before we re-heat it. Or add some spiciness to it, or strain and puree it into a veggie dip.
This sort of bland soup is traditional in France (Soup du jour) - where they will have such a pot of soup sitting on the back burner, and add "random ingredient #5" to it as it comes available.
I made some vegetable beef soup that was bland, bland, bland. When I refrigerated it, I had to use 2 bowls as I didn't have one big enough, so I am reheating them in 2 pots right now. I added some fresh basil and rosemary to one of the pots and some beef stock to the other pot. I then added some parmesan, about 1/2 - 2/3 cup to each pot and they both taste delicious. I have a slight preference for the one with the herbs. Thanks for the advice!
I have just come up with something to enhance the flavour of a vegetable soup that I've made, as it came out a little bland: spicy tomato ketchup (specifically Levi Roots Reggae Reggae Tomato Ketchup).
The soup was made with a broth mix ( yellow & green split peas, marrow fat peas, split lentils, pearl barley) it also had sautéed onions, carrots, potatoes, celery, mushrooms, green pepper. After soaking the broth mix overnight for 12 hrs, then draining & sieving. I cooked to soften an onion, added all the other ingredients to soften (apart from the broth mix) then added about 3-4 litres vegetable stock, added the broth mix, seasoned lightly with salt but plenty of ground black pepper and cooked to a boil then simmered for about an hour. It tasted a little bland my first serving so I decided to go on the hunt for spices! My good wife came up with the AMAZING IDEA! of using LEVI ROOTS - REGGAE REGGAE TOMATO KETCHUP. What an inspired decision it was; it now tastes MAGNIFICENT!! Give it a try I'm sure you won't be disappointed. So here's a big thanks to both my Wife & Levi Roots.
You could also try adding some asian-style stock goodies to the soup:
Dashi-style stock (made from kombu and/or kezurikatsuo)
Shiitake dashi (dried mushrooms)
Fresh ginger and garlic
Soy sauce or hoisin (common in Vietnamese soups)
The juice of half a fresh lemon or full lime
Fresh, sliced hot peppers, fresh sliced green onion, bean sprouts
Hot sauce
And if the soup is complete mush, add a few of the above and blend it with a stick blender.
I know that this is an old post but of course, people will continue to find it on the Web and be interested in possible solutions, so I thought I'd add a couple that I have used:
Sesame oil (especially toasted version): This works great to doctor up a bowl of bland soup, just a little bit is needed. Actually any nut oil is good, but the sesame is strong and you only need a tiny bit. It's also healthy.
Garlic: I started keeping a jar of crushed garlic in my refrigerator for these kinds of uses. Again, you can add just a bit to your individual bowl this way. Otherwise, add a lot of garlic to the pot. You can roast or sautee it first. When I make soup stock I usually use at least two entire heads of garlic. As long as you don't smoosh the cloves together (which creates a chemical mash-up that produces the harshest flavor variant), it will produce a wonderful effect.
Roasted Bones: I wasn't sure if the person was attempting to stay vegetarian with the soup but it doesn't say so. In my experience with making broths, which is extensive, I have found that the absolutely best and most important ingredient is bones which have been cooked or roasted (i.e., from your roast chicken or whatever). Raw bones are commonly used but you are wasting the maximum flavor potential in them if you don't roast them first. And you ideally want rather a lot of them. So to doctor a soup, you could buy a pack of soup bones at the market, roast them, and throw them in there. Ham hocks etc. are well known solutions as well but I've found them so variable in flavor and saltiness etc. that they are a bit tricky to use, in my opinion. Note that you can mix bones too, such as from a chicken and beef ribs; just don't include fish bones with other bones.
My unfailing solution for bland soup is to add a tablespoon of Greek style natural yoghourt to each bowl just before serving. This lifts any soup to another dimension and is healthy. Top that with freshly chopped chives for presentation.
I like to add these combinations to my soups individually to the bowl to add some extra flavor:
Chili oil
Lime and Coriander with some fried/crunchy noodles
White vinegar and green chili paste
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.187260 | 2011-06-21T02:15:19 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15655",
"authors": [
"Barbara Flower",
"BobMcGee",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Lisa Montanaro",
"Mark",
"Melinda Dickey",
"Michael Terpin",
"Nancy",
"Nixon Bongers",
"Philomena Flood",
"Rubber Safety Flooring Ltd",
"Shaye",
"Shog9",
"SuperCDWalker",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Wayne",
"cmcculloh",
"floatingRight",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114718",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136689",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137584",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33187",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33195",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33196",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33202",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33333",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6325",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64030",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"jaredready",
"liz",
"nico",
"sabertooth1990",
"user33271"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
65217 | How can I bake crunchy chocolate chip cookies?
Since I'm British, I'm used to biscuits that are crisp, dry and crunchy all the way through, with no soft chewy centre. Most chocolate chip cookie recipes are trying to do the exact opposite. How can I bake chocolate chip cookies with a more British texture? Essentially, I want the exact opposite to the answers to this question.
The classic Toll House chocolate chip cookie recipe produces crunchy cookies (biscuits). I just use the recipe from the back of a pack of chocolate chips.
@RossRidge I can't get Toll House cookies in the UK, and even if I could the recipe would probably measure dry goods in cups instead of by weight, which we don't do over here, because it's hideously inaccurate. I don't own a set of measuring cups.
I don't know what you mean by "I can't get Toll House cookies", but it's not hard to convert the recipe or find an already converted recipe.
@RossRidge I think he meant that he can't get the package in order to get the recipe off the back (and maybe misunderstood package of chocolate chips vs package of chocolate chip cookies).
The best way to achieve what you are looking for is to lower the temp and lengthen the baking time. Lowering the temp will slow the edges from getting burned while the center is allowed to continue to cook.
Allow the top of the cookie to brown before removing from the oven. For soft cookies, the moment it starts to turn brown is the moment you are just a little too late for the cookies to stay soft after they've cooled. If you let the cookie brown just a touch, the cookie will harden on the cooling rack.
It shouldn't be too hard to find a crispy chocolate chip cookie recipe if you want one, but if you're interested in experimenting with an existing recipe, here are a few ideas for things to change:
Mix in melted butter instead of creamed soft butter. That will greatly reduce the amount of air trapped in the dough. The dough will not loft while baking; it will spread out, allowing for more evaporation. (Not chilling the dough is a related tip: the faster it melts in the oven, the more it will spread.)
Cool them entirely on the baking sheet instead of transferring them to a rack. This has a strong effect on the finished cookies' crispness.
Use white sugar instead of brown. Brown sugar is used in baked goods when you want them to be soft, because it is even more hygroscopic -- pulling water from the air and holding onto it -- than white sugar.
Change the egg ratio to decrease the amount of yolk. While the whites contain a lot of water, they also contain much more protein than fat. The fat in yolks will diminish gluten formation and increase tenderness and "fudginess".
If what you want is a classic crunchy cookie with some chocolate chips thrown in, use your favorite crunchy cookie recipe and throw a few chocolate chips in. As you said yourself, the American "chocolate chip cookie" is a totally different thing, characterized by a soft texture. It makes no sense to use a recipe for that type of cookie if you don't like it.
Melted butter (or browned butter better yet!) will make a crispy cookie. Obviously, omitting all leaveners will help as well, but you can get an even flatter cookie by adding extra leavener, which will over expand and then collapse the dough.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.188558 | 2016-01-09T17:59:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65217",
"authors": [
"Bret E Opdyke",
"Cascabel",
"Dylan Thress",
"Heather Bonnett",
"Jason Waltman",
"Jean Lewis",
"Mike Scott",
"Paul Green",
"Ross Ridge",
"Yvonne Hendrix",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155892",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155894",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155899",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155904",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9607"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
22504 | How can i keep ice cream without a freezer
I would like to keep ice cream overnight, but I only have a refrigerator. When I've tried to store it in the refrigerator it looks like soup the next morning. Is there a way to store ice cream using only a refrigerator. Possibly with ice?
This may seem obvious but you have to keep the ice cream below freezing. Obviously the fridge is too warm.
You could try packing it in ice and salt in a cooler. The ice cream will be soft but not soup. I don't know how much ice would be needed to last all night.
You could put it in a cooler with dry ice. This would be more expensive for the dry ice but would definitely work if you had enough of it.
If you had an ice cream churn you could let the ice cream thaw in the fridge and then re churn it in the morning.
I think the very best way to keep it frozen is to leave it in the freezer at the store and buy it the next day.
Rechurn in the morning would only work if he has a freezer to freeze the bowl. Unless he has an ice machine with a compressor, but this sounds improbable, if he doesn't even have a freezer.
@rumtscho- old fashioned-style ice cream churns have an outer basin full of ice and salt and the inner tub with the churn. They would have to acquire fresh ice the second day.
As Sobachatina said, an ice/salt mixture will keep things cold for you.
A mix of 1kg ice with 340g salt (NaCl) should cool to about -20°C. That's freezer temperature.
See: Cooling baths.
5kg of ice, plus salt ought to hold ice cream overnight in a fridge, especially if you make it in a nonmetallic (insulating) container. Be sure to put the ice cream in a water proof wrap before immersion, or you'll have a salty mess in the morning.
Ice alone simply won't keep it cold enough, it will be soupy at best. Dry ice in a cooler will keep it cold enough, but that's temporary, and as Sobachatina says, expensive.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.188874 | 2012-03-22T23:01:11 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22504",
"authors": [
"DirtStats",
"Kim",
"Sobachatina",
"boh",
"bracket",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50637",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50639",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50653",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80803",
"mama55",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
117167 | Regular Cake Pan to Tube Pan Cook Time Conversion?
I took a recipe that a called for 45 minutes at 350 in a 2" tall 9" pan, doubled the recipe and put it in a 4" x 9" tub pan.
Are their any rules of thumb to use when converting a recipe over to a tube pan for cooking time?
This Answer: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/42163/6440 explains general pan size conversions, but a bundt or tube pan is not the same thing.
This article in the Serious Eats is pretty comprehensive about conversions and guesstimating baking times, but there is no precise mathematical formula, you'll still need to keep a close eye on your cake to define the final time
General rule of thumb in the article states that cakes in tube or Bundt pans require roughly 1 minute per ounce of batter (slightly faster compared to a simple round cake pan which takes between 1.2-1.29 minutes per ounce, since tube / Bundt pans have a higher surface to volume ratio than simple round pans)
A 9" pan filled up to 2", according to a table in the article, has 28 ounces of batter. Doubling up, that means 56 ounces of batter. Therefore, you should expect your cake to cook for something between 56 to 67 minutes and DO NOT MESS WITH THE TEMPERATURE.
Best approach would be to leave the cake baking for about 50-55 minutes and then keep an eye on it every 5-10 minutes for visual and texture cues before attempting the toothpick check
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.189056 | 2021-09-12T19:55:08 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117167",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
83840 | Spice with no Flavor or Aroma?
I lost the label on a bag of some sort of spice, and trying to figure out what it is got me really curious of what it possibly could be and what use it could ever serve.
It is light brown, even slightly tan (reminiscent of natural sugar).
It has a very slight woody smell, with possibly an undertone of heat.
It has no real taste, possibly woody again, and is slightly gritty. It makes me think of ground up bark, if 99% of the flavor was removed.
What spice does not have any flavor or aroma? This seems like an contradiction.
A spice that's 10 years old? Seriously, how old is the spice - age may have removed most of the oil that would impart flavor in many
I'm with @Joe here: if it's a tasteless spice, it's not a spice any more, no matter what it once was. You might want to read about shelf life and proper storage conditions for spices to avoid finding more "mysteries" in the future. I give my spices a quick sniff every six months or so - whatever has gotten stale or lost its aroma needs to go.
(Tan, woody and hint of heat could be cinnamon or nutmeg or even ginger...)
Could you try toasting it for a few minutes? Blooming spices can help the flavor and smell come out. I would agree with @Stephie though, cinnamon or nutmeg are likely choices.
A photo might also help, though at this point it is probably improper for consumption anyway
On surface sounds like possible rough ground cinnamon as Stephie suggested, but really, if toasting of steeping does not cause it to bloom, what real purpose is there too most spices?
Can you exclude it being smoked salt or extremely stale smoked paprika?
If it were salt, it would definitely have a taste. That one doesn't go stale. (Which is why "fresh ground salt" is so surreal.)
This question popped up again in early 2021 and my first thought was that the OP might have a certain coronavirus whose symptoms include loss of taste and smell...
What spice does not have any flavor or aroma?
A stale, old one. The flavors in spices are volatile— they don't last forever.
The technical term for this is "trash".
I suspect the spice in question was a ground paprika, which has always been one of the weakest dried spices in my opinion.
I was searching for a spice that has no flavor and found this question. If a spice has no flavor, then it probably has no aroma either. Such a spice would be used for texture or color. I was specifically looking for a spice that only was used for its color. If I were to make a guess about what you have found was a cinnamon-sugar mix for cinnamon toast. It would explain the graininess from the sugar and the lightness in color. You mentioned an undertone of heat. This reminded me of cinnamon candy. They can mix cassia (Chinese cinnamon aka false cinnamon) with cinnamon and there is no regulation on quantity or percentages for store-bought cinnamon powder.
https://cooking.stackexchange.com/help/referencing.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.189210 | 2017-08-22T20:08:39 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83840",
"authors": [
"Duarte Farrajota Ramos",
"Joe M",
"Joshua Engel",
"Rob",
"Stephie",
"Wolfgang",
"dbmag9",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60668",
"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
} |
104516 | Baking Steel/Pizza Steel Design
I use pizza stones all the time, but recently have heard about pizza steel/baking steel which is claimed to produce better results.
I have the know-how and materials to make my own, but do now know the best dimensions, and I also wonder about any potential drawbacks? So I was wondering what your experience was with Baking Steel and similar products?
It there any reason not to fill the entire tray from edge to edge with baking steel If I have a use for that much cooking area, or does the oven need a certain amount of unblocked area to function properly?
Additionally Steel is affected by temperature far more than ceramics. The examples I have seen did not seem to include any bracing to prevent warpage. Does anyone have any experience with their baking stones warping? I am thinking of a lip around the edge to help prevent spillage and retain the shape and flatness.
Which leaves me only my most important question. Thickness and efficiency. I am hearing that these steel should pre-heated for 1 hour, and obviously the thicker the steel the longer you would pre-heat them for. How does this effect energy usage? Obviously the oven is running for longer, but does this greatly effect the energy usage? Has anyone measured this directly, or perhaps knows how inefficient the average oven is at keeping its heat?
TL;DR:
1) How thick should Baking Steel be?
2) How much if any area do I need to leave open around the sides for the oven to function?
3) How much energy am I wasting by running the oven for longer? How much If I do not have a chain of items to cook after the pizza that require less and less heat (bread, cookies, etc)?
1) How thick should Baking Steel be?
Opinions vary. Standard thicknesses for these seem to be in the 1/4 inch to 1/2 inch range.
Advantages for thicker:
Heat at faster rate for the initial burst of baking, if you're trying to reduce bake time as much as possible and approach Neapolitan style pizza (generally better ability to get some charring on the bottom, if that's your thing)
Significantly improved ability to bake multiple pizzas with little recovery time in between
Advantages for thinner:
Weighs less: this is a significant issue with larger steels -- my 1/2" steel weighs more than 30 pounds and is a bit awkward to move around, not to mention making thin oven racks sag a bit
Faster pre-heat time
To me, the improvements of the thicker steel are worth the weight. I can do 3 or 4 pizzas in quick succession before I start to see the steel cool enough that I want to give it substantial recovery time. But it might be difficult to move around if you are concerned about heavy things. And if you only tend to bake one or two pizzas at a time, the thickness may not give you a huge advantage.
I've never heard of noticeable warping with steel plates this thick. If you go thinner than 1/4", maybe it could happen, but then you'd begin to lose advantages of the steel over a decent stone in terms of heat retention and "burst."
The only advantage of a lip, in my view, would be for the rare occasion when I miscalculate and have sauce that significantly overflows the pie, or a pizza gets stuck to the peel and ends up partly right on the edge of the steel with stuff bubbling over. More likely, it would just be in the way most of the time. But I have heard of people using steels as griddles on flat-top stoves -- in that case, having a groove (not really a "lip") near the edge could be helpful to catch grease, depending on what you're cooking.
2) How much if any area do I need to leave open around the sides for the oven to function?
Depends a bit on the type of oven, but you need some room for air circulation. The standard recommendation is at least about an inch on all sides in your oven, but you might be able to get away with less on some sides if you have adequate circulation on others. (For example, most ovens are wider than they are deep, so you might be able to get something closer to a square steel that has less clearance in front and back, as long as air can easily move around the sides.) And again, type of oven matters a lot: for example, if you want to run convection, you want to ensure proper clearance for air circulation. And gas ovens often assume more air circulation for proper operation than electric.
But from a practical standpoint, you may want to consider size vs. weight. I wouldn't really want a 1/2" steel that went edge to edge on my oven racks, as it would be even more heavy and awkward. (Tip: if you really want a very thick steel and want it to cover most of your oven, and you're having it custom-made, just have it sliced in half to make two smaller pieces that are easier to handle.) But with a thinner steel, I'd probably go as large as would be practical (with the 1" clearance or so). That's what I have with my thick baking stone.
3) How much energy am I wasting by running the oven for longer? How much If I do not have a chain of items to cook after the pizza that require less and less heat (bread, cookies, etc)?
The general philosophy is that cooking energy use (including baking) is generally quite small compared to all the other uses for electric and/or gas in your home (like heating/cooling, other appliances, etc.). I've seen stats that electric ovens are generally less than 2% of electricity use in homes (on average). For those who cook regularly (probably not most folks), the percentage is likely higher. Even if you double your oven use by preheating your oven for longer periods, it's probably not going to make a huge difference in your utility bill. But of course your situation may vary -- if you're baking pizzas at super-high temperature every day, and you're doing it in the middle of the summer with the A/C fighting the oven, that might be significant.
Lastly, the question asks in general if there are potential drawbacks, and I can say that I haven't noticed any for pizza. For years before buying a steel, I was known among family and friends for excellent pizza, so I had my doubts about the improvement. But the noticeably greater oven spring, the improved texture throughout, the faster bakes, the speckled charring on the bottom, the possibility to easily cook a "well-done" crispy pizza for those with such tastes (while using a dough that generally produces soft, thin crust) -- the steel to me is a much more efficient and flexible cooking tool for pizza than a stone.
For other baked goods, the choice is more up to the specific application. Large bread loaves can more easily char on the bottom at higher temperatures with the steel. But with lean breads I've seen improved oven spring and crust in some recipes. The only other minor disadvantage I can think of over a stone is that rust may be possible if you don't use it frequently and don't store it properly. But it's not a huge issue, and compared to the greater fragility of stones, I'd say it's a toss-up in terms of maintenance/durability issues.
I use a 3/8 inch (about 9.5mm) thick, 16 inch (40.6 CM) in diameter pizza steel in my gas oven. It's a full size oven (accepts a full sheet pan), so there is plenty of room around the steel. I'm not sure how to quantify wasted energy, but I find it needs at least an hour to fully heat to the maximum temperature of my oven. That's a tad over 500F...maybe 525F (260 - 273C), which is low for pizza, but with the help of the steel, I can turn out fairly good Neapolitan pies. I also have a stone. I find that slightly better when baking bread. I've never had a steel or stone warp. If you add a lip, which I don't think you will need, it probably goes without saying that said lip should be below the cooking surface, as you want a smooth surface to be able to manipulate your pizza with the peel.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.189465 | 2020-01-03T18:27:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104516",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
114104 | Skillet cooking Medovik (Russian Honey Cake)?
Medovik traditionally calls for baking individual pancake shaped layers in the oven. Would frying in a skillet be a workable alternative?
Apparently, yes. What you'll end up with will be a somewhat different texture than traditional medovik, but I bet it'll still be delicious.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.190026 | 2021-02-04T21:52:33 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114104",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
96577 | How To Get the Popcorn effect on Pigskin Cooked on a Roast?
I have been researching cooking skin-on pork roasts (for example Porchetta).
And what I have noticed is that the main difference between them is the skin texture. It does not matter if it is high or lower temperatures, cooking for 10 hours or 3. Some recipes I am looking at come out looking just like darkened skin, while others come out like light flaky popcorn.
So how do you cook a skin-on pork roast to produce this pork rind/popcorn effect?
(If at all possible only using an oven.)
I was surprised that this is the first time this question is asked, and searched for duplicates, but didn't find any. Congrats on extending our site with such an important question. Do take a look at the related one for chicken: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83336/how-to-get-a-juicy-and-colored-crispy-roast-chicken-at-the-same-time.
It is certainly possible using the oven only.
For a good crackling you need to have several components - a good layer of fat under the skin, a nice dry skin surface before preparing, sufficient edges on the skin to help crisp the skin, and some salt and oil. There is a lot of debate around how to prepare the skin and the different methods for getting these things to work. Personally I prepare my roast by scoring into ~cm^2 grid, rub with plenty of salt and oil, then roast. This has worked well for me, but there are a number of other methods, including pouring boiling water over the skin before roasting that are advocated by top chefs from around the world.
The difference between the two types of crackling is down to how the roast has been prepared in the final stages. A darker roast crackling with little bubbling is due to roasting alone. This will cause the skin to harden and darken, creating a hard crisp skin with some bubbling, but not to the extent that a "popcorn" crackling shows. "Popcorn" crackling starts in the same manner and is finished by heating the crackling to a high temperature so that the fat under the skin boils and causes the skin to puff.
Basically all you have to do is prepare the skin as you would normally do for a roast of pork that you want to crackle. Roast the pork as you would normally so that the skin is crisp. From this point you have two options - either remove the roasted skin and "popcorn" it separately (works well for shoulder roasts, where it is difficult to spread the heat evenly) or "popcorn" in place. For both, turn off the bake function on the oven and turn on the grill/broiler. When the element is hot, place the roast/skin under the broiler/grill and let the heat do its work, rotating the skin/roast as necessary. This should only take a few minutes, and you need to be careful that it doesn't burn the bits which are close to the elements.
Thank you for this information. Could you possibly expand on when you switch to broil, specifically what the skin should look/feel like at that point? Am I looking to "popcorn" the skin when it is still malleable, or are we looking to get a hard crisp skin before starting the broiling phase?
The skin should be at the crisp phase, it should work when softer too, but (I think) will take longer as the skin needs to dry out for the fats underneath to reach fat-boiling temperatures, otherwise the skin will only reach water-boiling point, which is not hot enough for the fats to boil.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.190079 | 2019-02-26T14:42:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96577",
"authors": [
"Jonathon",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6440",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
15537 | deli ham left in warm car
I bought some ham from the deli the other day and forgot it in the car for about 5 hours. It was a 77 degree day. When I ran out to go get it the meat still felt cool so I threw it in the refrigerator right away. Is it still safe to eat?
possible duplicate of Why is it dangerous to eat meat which has been left out and then cooked?
This is really an issue of risk.
The USDA's recommendation is not to consume meat that has experienced more than four hours of cumulative time between 40° and 140° F. Essentially, that means that the level of risk of illness from food-borne pathogens is acceptable in that range. The government's position is that 5 hours beyond a level of risk that they are willing to expose the public to.
Also be aware that (sliced) deli meat is more prone to pathogens that a whole ham.
That said, it comes down to what level of risk you are comfortable with. Personally, I would probably eat it myself, but not serve it to others.
I'd probably eat it as well, but I'd throw it in a frying pan for a few minutes first to kill as much stuff as possible.
It's also worth noting that the meat was probably at room temperature for brief periods during packing and cutting... it's safe to assume it already had at least 30 minutes to an hour of time in the danger zone before purchase. When in doubt, the sniff test is fairly reliable as well -- if it smells even slightly off, toss it immediately.
If in doubt, throw it out.
I think the statistics is for every hour left out of the fridge the bacteria (or whatever) multiply by two. Five hours is a long time. Especially if it was intended for sandwiches (therefore, not cooked).
-1 for mis-information and not a very helpful answer. Deli-cut meat for sandwiches has always been cooked, and while doubling times of bacteria vary, the doubling time for E. Coli (the most likely problem in meat) is 20-30 minutes.
I've always heard listeria was the primary concern for deli meat. Its optimal generation range is 86°–98°F, where I understand it doubles in about 2.5 hours.
FYI, if E. Coli is doubling every 20 minutes, then after 5 hours, you'll have 32768 times as many bacteria as when you started.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.190479 | 2011-06-16T18:24:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15537",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Dai",
"Matthew Read",
"Ray",
"SaturnsEye",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32926",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
16038 | What kind of meat to use for Wiener Schnitzel?
I understand that the meat is thinned with a mallet before coating with breadcrumbs and frying.
What parts of veal or pork are suitable?
(Googling the subject seems to produce mostly sausage related hits for some reason)
That's odd; google works fairly well for me. I wonder if you have some odd personalization/localization going on.
google.fi might give different results, but mostly I just typoed it without space between Wiener and Schnitzel. Sri :P
In many parts of the world, Wiener Schnitzel is beef flank or sirlion pulled apart along the grain to make large thin steaks, it does not require pounding if done properly
The real, original Wiener Schnitzel is veal. Definitely. I can't link to a web source now, but I have some German cook books at home, including one solely about different kinds of schnitzel.
From the veal, you use parts 6, 7 and 11 for any kind of schnitzel, 7 being the best and highest-prized choice. I don't know the English names, maybe somebody can supply them. Also, try using leaner meat. I think that in the US, the fat marbled beef is considered higher quality. But in Europe, lean beef is preferred. A good beef schnitzel has maybe 3% fat.
This said, there are lots of places which cook pork schnitzels in the Wiener style and call them Wiener Schnitzel. It isn't traditional, but if you like the taste, there is nothing against doing it that way at home. They come from the same parts of the pig as the veal schnitzel: the ham and the lower back. Again, they should be very lean. And in both cases, unlike a steak, a schnitzel is always boneless.
6 looks to be LOIN. 7 looks to be TENDERLOIN. and 11 looks to be LEG or HAM. Everyone diagram that I tried to compare this to was slightly different. Hopefully that helps! =-)
When you see 'Wiener Schnitzel' on a german or austrian menu it is ALWAYS veal.
Schnitzel made with pork loin can not be offered as such in restaurants, but must be called instead
"Schnitzel Wiener Art"(Vienna Style).
Here is a tip for those schnitzel lovers out there:use japanese panko bread crumbs for your coating!
Do you know what part of the calf is used then? Or can it be any piece of veal?
I was taught that the "Wiener" referred to the original recipe origins in Vienna. This Schnitzel in the Vienna style was originally veal.
American German restaurants usually serve a variety of meats prepared into paillards (flattened with mallet) and breaded - generally only the Veal one is called "Wiener Schnitzel".
At home, I prefer to use Center Cut pork chops to prepare what I like to call "Swiner Schnitzel". I agree with the answer above that leaner is better. Schnitzel cooks extremely quickly and marbling is unnecessary.
German Food Guide says to use the pork loin.
Cooks.com says to use either a pork chop or a veal cutlet.
"Wiener Schnitzel" in Austria is pork. The term is only protected in Germany where your Wiener Schnitzel is made from veal. "Wiener Art" refers to pork Schnitzel.
I’ve not the points to comment on rumtscho‘s post, but this is an extension of what he said.
6) goes from loin to sirloin
7) tenderloin
11) Round; Ham when taking pork
With regards to pork:
Using the loin is a nice and quick way. Just slice (butterfly cuts are good) and prepare them. In my opinion the flavor is good but not great. It never puts my back in Mittelfranken, Oberbayern, or any part of Germany for that matter. With sirloin, the flavor was dead on, but the fat running through it, made for a pour consistency and wasn’t nice to work with. Pork Tenderloin lacks circumference and makes small schnitzels, but flavor and consistency are there.
I believe the top-round is the best cut for large, tasty, and consistent cuts, but alas I have not used it. At some point, I’ll pick up a raw ham and cut the top-round from it. I have no idea where, in America, you can buy the round already cut out. I’d likely use the bottom and eye of round for stew… or perhaps additional smaller schnitzels.
Tip: though oil of your choice works, using butterschmalz (Clarified butter) ads some really nice flavor. I found some clarified butter called Ghee at a store here, however you could make your own. Regardless, not needed, just a nice touch.
Note: Our cook book and German wiki says the Oberschale is used for schnitzel. Dict.cc lists the Oberschale as top-round. Part 11 on the image is the Oberschale.
Technically, schnitzel made with pork is schweinenschnitzel. Weiner Schnitzel is Veal, but even german restaurnats will often sell port and call it weiner Schnitzel
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.190700 | 2011-07-08T21:58:39 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16038",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Joe Mornin",
"Julie",
"KC.",
"Kevin Fischer",
"Martindp2",
"Mien",
"Paul",
"Rosalia",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34133",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34222",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80915",
"jkj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
15861 | How to make entrecôte steaks on a grill?
How should a piece of quite fatty entrecôte beef be prepared on a grill?
How thick should the steaks be?
Which spices should I use?
For how long and how hot? (Well the temperature is hard to control after burning a pile of wood)
Is there / what is the point in putting the steaks in tinfoil after grilling?
Thickness of the steak is really personal preference. There is no "right" answer. The thicker it is, the easier it is to get a nice rare to medium rare in the middle with a good crust on the outside. The thinner it is, the easier it is to get the center well done without turning the outside to charcoal. I personally like my steak between 1.5 and 2 inches.
Spices are in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I'd just put salt and pepper on it. Depending on the quality of the meat, I may put some Worcestershire Sauce on it. Or maybe Soy, if it's an asian dish. Stay simple though. The flavor of the meat should shine through, so don't overly spice it.
Ideally you want a two level fire to cook steak on a charcoal grill. One side should be as hot as you can get it. Sear for 2-3 minutes per side over the hottest portion of the fire. The second level of the fire should be medium hot. Move the steak over once it's seared to finish cooking. Keep the grill lid down for the second portion. If you have a gas grill, just set one burner as hot as it will go and one on medium. Cooking over a medium heat will allow you to finish the steak without over doing the outside. Time depends entirely on how thick the steak is, temp of your grill, and how you want it done. Learn to tell "done" by feel rather than time or get a thermometer.
When the steak is done, you need to let it rest for 5-10 minutes. Otherwise, when you cut in to them, you lose a lot of flavorful juice. Resting allows the meat to retain the juice. Wrapping in tinfoil while it's resting will help it retain some of it's heat and be a bit warmer when you serve it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.191083 | 2011-06-30T16:03:59 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15861",
"authors": [
"barbara",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33730",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33733",
"obeone"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
23588 | Why proof a baguette seam side up
Why do i need to proof the bread seam up if i pinch the fold? Most of the recipes say to do this on the couche and then roll over and slash . I don't see any difference in the finished bread. As long as it's floured before slashing the loaf comes out looking great.
I've never heard of this. I always proof baguettes and batards seam side down. I would have thought if you proof them seam up you run the risk of the rise opening it up.
Leaving the loaf seam side up makes it easier for armatures like me, to roll the dough onto a baking stone or floured peel and reduce the chance of deflating your loaf. Also, sometimes the dough can bulge/blow out during baking. Baking the loaf with the seam side down helps support the structure of the bread while slashing the top gives the loaf room to expand while cooking and provide help to control the possibility of bulging/blow out.
The first pic shows expansion where it was slashed, while the second pic shows a blow out due to not enough slashes, deep enough or other reasons. Imagine what it would look like if the seam side was up? The loaf would look like it threw up.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.191276 | 2012-05-04T18:57:57 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23588",
"authors": [
"China",
"Donna",
"ElendilTheTall",
"beachsprit2",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53424",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53425",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53597",
"the shovel",
"user47950"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
30620 | Can I cook two types of dried beans simultaneously?
My bean cooking method is to soak overnight, then cook in a crockpot on low all day. By dinner time the beans are ready. I have only ever done this with a single type of bean at a time. However, I would like to make chili and I have two types of beans (white beans and red kidneys) and am wondering if this method would work if I mix the two types of beans together. Would this be generalizable to other types of beans cooking together, or more than two types of beans at a time?
Given the nature of an all day cooking in the slow cooker, any bean is likely to be well into the "quite thoroughly cooked" zone. There is nothing in beans that I know of that would make them interact poorly. I don't see why it wouldn't work--the reason I am not typing this as an answer is because I haven't personally tried it.
I think that since your using the crockpot your going to be alright (maybe even overcooked?) but in more traditional cooking I've turned to putting individual beans in big canning jars with their own aromatics so I can remove them from the water individually when they are done.
Most beans can be soaked and cooked together with two exceptions.
The beans should obviously have similar cooking times. For example I wouldn't cook chickpeas with other, harder beans because the chickpeas would be mush. Most varieties do have similar cooking times so this isn't often a problem.
Second, black beans shouldn't be soaked with any other beans because they will stain the other beans a very unappealing gray color. Admittedly this is cosmetic but I soak my black beans separately
Are there any negative effects to soaking beans that don't require soaking (like lentils)?
No, there are no negative effects to soaking lentils, they cook faster like any other bean. Go for it. There are only positives to soaking lentils - less gas. ; ) I've also soaked black-eyed peas - same thing: cook faster, less of a party in the back.
A point to @mdegges comment: Sometimes, lentils are soaked, depending on what they will be used for. Indian cooking has a number of recipes in which the lentils are soaked prior to cooking, for example.
@PaulBeverage that's going into a different territory. "Soaking" lentils at 35 C frequently means a quick fermentation, especially if we are talking about lentils milled into powder for pancake-like preparations.
@rumtscho I am not referring to ground lentils; I have rarely used them in such a manner. I am thinking more of some dal-based curries, especially those that are going to use the dal as a base for the "gravy". Specifically, I am remembering two recipes I have cooked often, which use moong dal, or moong and masoor dal, as a staple part of the dish
My response was more to add some additional information to the aforementioned comment; this response to you provides much more context to my first comment.
@PaulBeverage OK, thank you for explaining. I only had the ground lentils in mind, so your comment reminded me of all the other tasty ways to have Indian style lentils.
I'd like to mention possible 'gotchas' if you're going to do this --
You want to use similar-sized beans. If you're mixing small & large beans, then they're likely not going to cook at the same time.
Avoid old beans. They take longer to soften, and you don't want to find that one bean refuses to soften while the other has turned to mush.
If you're cooking red beans or any kidney bean, you need to boil the beans for a few minutes at the beginning of cooking to inactivate the phytohaemagglutinin.
....
So, in this particular case -- you should not just soak & throw them into a slow cooker -- as you have red kidney beans, you'd need to boil them for 10 minutes before cooking. If you were doing this on the stovetop or in a pressure cooker, you'd be fine ... but not a slow cooker.
Actually, the original poster said they were pressure cooking the beans - they had a history of using a slow cooker. Pressure cooking beans makes removing the phytates really easy, no guess work and no pre-boiling beans.
@LauraP. : I see no mention of pressure cooking in the question posted. I see "soak overnight, then cook in a crockpot on low all day"
Sorry, I got an answer and the question confused! : )
Any kind of beans can be cooked together. It's all about preference and your imagination. Try white beans, kidney, lima and pinto beans. They cook well together and make an awesome baked bean dish.
I always mix beans for soups and chillies, only one type is too boring for me, never an issue.
Actually, you can find bags of "15-bean soup" kits in the bean section of grocery store - they also needs to be presoaked and manufacturers dont expect you to sort everything out and soak/cook each type of bean separately :-)
I have a huge jar of mixed beans left over from other bags just a Hodge podge.. and I cook them all together I presoak them fast soak when I forgot.. it's got everything I can think of in there (were bean eaters lol). From chickpeas, limas, pinto, black, red and green lentils, black eyes peas, white beans red beans.. I just throw in a whole peeled onion (it disolves and gives the beans a nice sweet flavor) seasonings some sort of pork (bacon, sausage, ham hocks, left over ham bone, whatever's on hand) usually and let simmer all day. Never an issue.
It is okay. I'd suggest boiling them first, separately, to cook out the undesirable colors.
Also, if you boil the beans, let them cool, drain and cover with fresh water, boil again, repeat this until they will not boil up anymore. This removes the coloring and gassiness, at which point I combine them in the slow-cooker.
also soaking before the boiling helps gas as well.
I cook lima and great northerns together. Beans do not have to be soaked first. Soaking takes the natural flavor out of them.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.191437 | 2013-02-02T01:46:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30620",
"authors": [
"BigHeadCreations",
"Brendan",
"Incorporeal Logic",
"Jason Wood",
"Joe",
"K_John",
"Laura P.",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18161",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54523",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71587",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71588",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71603",
"mdegges",
"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
} |
23172 | Will meat overcook in a boiling water pot?
I recently ate at a restaurant that had you cook your own food. They had a heating plate in the middle of the table and they would set a small pot onto it and add in spices/vegetables to the water, after which you would receive a platter of raw meats (chicken, steak, shrimp, etc) to cook yourself.
The waiter mentioned that when you cook the meat you should leave it in for 1.5 - 2 minutes depending on what it was (shrimp for less time than the chicken/steak). If you leave the meat in for an extended period (say 15 to 25 minutes) would the meat over-cook in the boiling water? The small cuts of steak would cook to a 'medium' or 'medium-well' consistency for 2 minutes depending on the size of the cut.
This was the first time I have ever seen small cuts of meat (especially in that variety) cooked in a boiling water pot.
Thanks!
We ate at the Melting Pot last week. Delicious, expensive, and I always leave in pain from eating too much.
@Sobachatina I believe that was the name of the place. I had to describe it because I did not remember the name of the restaurant. It was pretty good; the first time I've been to a place that had you pay that much to cook your own food, haha!
Yes.
Water boils at about 212F (100C) and meat is cooked from 140F to 160F. If you left the meat in there for a very long time it would eventually approach 212F and start to get tough.
The time that they give you is going to be the time it takes to ensure that the meat is safe to eat. Generally I like it to be closer to the rare side as it is more tender that way.
Pasteurization temperatures of beef starts at 130°F, so you can cook it that low and it'll be perfectly safe (if you hold it at 130°F long enough, approx. 2 hours). Of course, steaks are often cooked to an even lower internal temperature.
@derobert- Good point but that would be very difficult to pull off in a pot of boiling water. I wonder what they would say if you brought your own thermometer to the restaurant and tuned their burner to exactly 130F?
Well, just getting to 130°F isn't much harder than 140°F. Holding at either is of course impossible in boiling water. But if you used 130°F water, your vegetables wouldn't cook. I suspect the wait staff would look at you funny.
Thank you for the information! The waiter we had said that if we dumped all the meat in at once it would be fine, but I was not convinced that (the steak mainly...) wouldn't get chewy/tough. I don't know if I will ever cook meats this way at home, but it is good to know none-the-less!
Most places that do Hot pot cooking (meaning boiling in a pot at the table) the meat (Be it pork, beef, Chicken, or Seafood) is sliced thinly, less than 1/4 inch thick. So they reach "safe" temperature really quick. About 1 to 2 minutes in the pot. Hard vegetables take a bit longer to cook so they usually go in the pot first, for about 2 to 3 minutes, then add your meat of choice.
You can "flavor" the pot by adding a portion of the meat before every thing else, but most consider that an advanced "technique".
But any thing left in the boil more than five minutes becomes part of the "Soup".
As a comparison Vietnamese Pho the raw meats are laid across the dry noodles then covered with a boiling, or near boiling, "Stock" broth, and allowed to "Cook" in the bowl as it's delivered to the table.
For tenderness you can either cook it quick or cook it longer. There is no in between unless it is grounded up. Even then, cooking ground up meat longer can make it tenderer. But by longer I mean 45 mins to an hour and sometimes more.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.191981 | 2012-04-18T15:00:18 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23172",
"authors": [
"Henry WH Hack v3.0",
"Jon Friedman",
"Krishna",
"Rolanda",
"SirCobalt",
"Sobachatina",
"darpet",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52406",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52408",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53002",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9892"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
24275 | Identifying quality fruits/vegetables at a farmers market
I have recently started venturing out on Sunday to our local farmers market, where there are a large number of people selling various fruits and vegetables. I find that they have a better price than simply going out to a grocery store and purchasing the same items there for usually 3 - 5 times the cost. However, there are often so many vendors selling the same items that it can be difficult to choose which one to purchase from.
Is there an easy way to determine which vendors are selling better quality vegetables? While different fruits/vegetables will have different ways to check, I was wondering if there are some general tips on picking vegetables (or fruits) from a vendor at a farmers market.
I have tried going by the samples that they have for fruits, where the sample was delicious, but some times I would get home and the fruits from that same stand would taste sour. That could just be the luck of the draw though.
Some of the items I look at more often are: Cherries, Artichokes, Oranges, Mushrooms, Onions (Green and Red/White), Garlic, Broccoli, and Celery.
Any help is appreciated!
maybe break this question up in to multiple simple questions like 'how can i tell what are the best cherries to pick?'.
Sour doesn't necessarily mean bad quality.. As you've noted, different produce has different ways of identifying ripeness. But yes, your question seems a little broad. I'd suggest just talking to the vendors and finding more about their product (where it came from, whether they are farmers or just resellers, etc...)
Do they allow you to pick your own veggies (touch them, smell them etc.)?
@nico Yes, it's essentially a bunch of large tent covers set up and everyone has their produce on tables and crates. You can pick and choose what you want.
Some general rules for veggie hunting at your local farmers market.
Get there early and watch how they handle the produce, if they are rough unloading it chances are they where rough loading it.
Does it smell fresh and like the product you are buying. Beware some vendors use air fresheners and other products to hide the true smell.
If the deal seems to be too good to be true it probably is.
The firmness of a item is not always a good sign. Some fruits and veggies tend to get hard as they age.
Talk to the vendors ask them about where the item was grown. True farmers and craftsmen are usually proud of their items and will speak loving of it.
Don't be afraid to haggle, worse they can tell you is no.
Some produce can be very hazardous to your health if eaten rotten.
Check the items for wax or other preservatives
Some quick hints for the items you listed (please note this is in general and may not apply to the variety you are looking at)
Cherries - should be slightly firm and ooze juice if squeezed hard enough
Oranges - should smell fresh and be squeezable without being mushy or firm
Mushrooms - good coloring, should not be mushy, fresh murshrooms tend to be earthy smelling
Onions - firm, good onion smell, no eyes or growths (could always buy them to plant) look for dark spots if found unless they are small or you are going to eat it soon after walk on
Garlic - pretty much like a onion
Broccoli - look for firm very good coloring, check the nooks for bugs and worms
Celery - very firm, should have a good smell to them and should break with a crispy snap
This comes by experience, and sure each kind of vegetables and fruits has its specific standards.
For ex. when the vegetables (ex. cucumber or zucchini) are mushy it means that it is not fresh (it must be hard), however in fruits it is ripe and good.
In addition to the vegetebles and fruits standards, there are your own standards, what you like in the fruits and vegetables. (for example, some people just don't like fruits that are so ripe.)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.192352 | 2012-06-07T14:20:00 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24275",
"authors": [
"Aron",
"EF0",
"Echo says Reinstate Monica",
"Gary Gross",
"Ian Oxley",
"Joe Jobs",
"SirCobalt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55202",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9892",
"nico",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
17972 | Sugar in Indian curries?
I've seen that sugar is used to balance out other flavors in a dish. I was just wondering if I could add a little sugar to a spicy curry(chicken curry, for example). Would that take away the authentic flavor? If no, then how much can be safely added before it becomes too sweet?
There is nothing inauthentic about using sugar in an Indian dish, even a savory one. For example, Gujarati cooks often add raw sugar (jaggery) to daal and curries. Quoth Wikipedia:
"It is common to add a little sugar or jaggery to some of the sabzi/shaak and daal. The sweet flavour of these dishes is believed to neutralize the slightly salty taste of the water."
And here's an example Gujarati potato curry recipe, which includes a tablespoon of sugar.
As for how much to add, that's a matter of your taste and the level of acidity and/or saltiness in the dish. My Gujarati friends in Boston like stuff rather sweeter than I would personally prefer, so be cautious.
Also Bengali cuisine (West Bengal) uses sugar ... the people came from East Bengal (Now Bangladesh) when India was divided, normally don't use sugar in their curries.
Gujarati cuisine is known for being atypically sweet :) But besides that, a Sanjay Thumma quote (from one of his videos): "Whenever you add tamarind, you can also add jaggery."
I have a restaurant in Delhi.
Whether you add sugar to a curry really depends on the region you're cooking is from.
A Kashmiri dish will usually never have sugar in it, but may have raisins or dates added if sweetness is required.
In contrast & (as previously mentioned) most savory Bengali dishes will have a bit of sugar added (my Kashmiri husband hates this).
It is also interesting to note that the type of onion most commonly used in India is a small pink/red onion that has quite a bit of sugar. That is where the caramelized 'sweetness' in many Indian dishes comes from.
And yes, it is quite an 'art' to get those tonnes of onions perfectly caramelized!
yes, adding a little bit of sugar and lime juice always give it an extra flavor and freshness, specially if it is a heavily spiced curry.
It depends on your ingredients, as you allude to, sugar can help balance some flavors. For example half a teaspoon of sugar can help counteract the acidity of tinned (crushed) tomatoes if you're using them in a curry.
I always add a little sugar to my tinned-tomato-based curries.
Fresh tomatoes, depending on region and season, can be even less sweet than tinned.
I have a recipe book for cooking curries 'just like an Indian restaurant'. The most glaringly obvious point is that just about every curry (except cream-based ones like kormas) start off with tons of onions, sweated for hours.
This releases a lot of natural sugars from the onions, so most restaurant curry sauces do have an underlying sweetness. Obviously most home cooks don't have hours to spend sweating onions, so naturally their curries don't taste quite the same. Adding sugar recreates the sweetness somewhat. Their are other factors (like adding half a tin of ghee to every curry), but it does help and there's nothing wrong with it.
I find that sugar gets added to the curries from Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand etc sometimes.
They are usually sour and sweet, eg use tamarind and tart ingredients like lemongrass, or very salty smelly like blachan or fish sauce. these need leavening with sugar so follow the recipe for good results.
Adding sugar on the off chance I would be less certain of. A garnish of half a sliced onion, fried until brown, and added last, will typically work well, esp with lentil dhals as the caramel in the onions comes through
The only use of sugar in a curry is for its color. It gives a brown tint to the dish and is always used in least amount.
If you put it for balancing spices then put a balanced amount of spices in the first place rather than balancing it later with sugar.
Given that Masala based curries always get some sweetness from tomatoes (which could be anything from sour to rather sweet), and it is generally a good idea to balance tomato based sauces of all kinds with sweet (sugar, jaggery)/sour (yoghurt, vinegar) ingredients at the end, how could one find fault with this?
Adding sugar does not make large changes in taste of recipes, A small quantity of sugar can be added to make it tasteful.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.192799 | 2011-09-24T11:12:35 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17972",
"authors": [
"Angela Davies",
"Barbara McNerney",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Laurence Lynch",
"Michael Shaw",
"Tanmoy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91384",
"rackandboneman",
"user81149"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
19885 | At what stage should Dark Soy sauce be added while making noodles?
I'm new to soy sauce and have heard that it's essential in chinese cuisine. But it doesn't seem to add any flavor to my noodles. I'm adding the sauce before I put my cooked noddles in. And what's the optimal quantity to add without darkening the color of the dish?
What dish are you making? "I'm adding the sauce before I put my cooked noodles in", in what? The optimal quantity to add will depend on the quantity you're making.
The soy sauce can be used alone or added with other sauces like fish sauce, tomato sauce or squid sauce to enhance the flavor n color of the noodles. and remember there are two kinds of soy sauce one dark and the other light. you need to add the amount according to the dish you are planning, say for two serves two spoons will do good. And as u said its generally added to the veggies before adding the noodles to get even color. Doing the other way wont hurt thou' .
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.193140 | 2011-12-22T05:52:01 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19885",
"authors": [
"CthulhuKitten",
"Gregor Thomas",
"Rokas Lengvenis",
"Samuel Hart",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43371",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43372",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7893"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
22535 | How to find out if an egg has a cracked shell before boiling it?
The cracks are practically invisible to naked eye but while boiling, they spew out all the yolk into the water creating a lot of mess. I'm wondering if I could test an egg before boiling it, so I could use the cracked ones for making omelettes, for example.
See also: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15998/how-to-ensure-that-eggs-get-hard-boiled-on-a-gas-stove/16000#16000
If I think an egg is cracked before I boil it, I make sure to add it to boiling water rather than letting it warm up with the water as it's heating. I give it a quick roll in the water with a spoon to make sure it is heated all round. This cooks the outside of the egg rapidly, sealing the crack immediately. no leakage. When you add a cracked egg to cool water, it has plenty of time to seep out uncooked.
The main reason eggs crack while boiling isn't because they are already cracked, but because of the sudden change in temperature from cold to hot. The same thing can happen to glass or metal, or practically any substance. (I've actually broken a glass coffee table top once by setting a pie pan out of the oven on top of it to cool... after a couple minutes, the top crashed to the ground, giving me quite a start!)
Some suggestions to prevent eggs from cracking while boiling can be found here. A summary is:
Let the eggs warm to room temperature on the counter for 20 minutes before boiling.
Put the eggs in the pan before heating the water, and raise the water temperature slowly (i.e. don't set the heat to 'High')
Add vinegar or salt to the water to help heal any small cracks.
Cook the eggs slowly.
Vinegar or salt isn't going to heal cracks; it might help the exposed part of the egg coagulate faster before it has a chance to leak too much into the water. But that will affect the egg; better to just not let it crack in the first place.
Also the eggs can crack while the water is boiling when they "dance" up and down and thus hit the saucepan-ground many times. A solution to this is to make sure you have enough water so that the eggs don't hit the ground when the water is boiling.
Drop the egg on it's side on a hard surface like your counter top from a very short distance. 1 or 2 centimeters. If the egg is not cracked, it will bounce slightly. Repeat this 2 or 3 times with a different (lateral) side facing the surface. If there are any cracks, the egg will not bounce.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.193264 | 2012-03-24T08:03:32 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22535",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"BooBoo",
"CakenGifts In",
"Mark",
"Ulrich Stern",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50717",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50718",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50719",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50723",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"nico",
"sascha",
"user6858628"
],
"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
} |
23799 | How to best store cupcakes?
When I put them in the fridge, they developed a kind of a moist surface by the next day. Should I just leave them outside in an air-tight jar? If yes, then for how long will they stay fresh?
Yes, you should store them in a air-tight jar, and the best is to store the jar in a cool place in the house. The fridge is to moist for storing cupcakes. You can store them in the jar for about 3-4 days, but they won't taste fresh any more. So I would suggest if you want to store them longer then 1 or maybe 2 days, freeze them right after they cooled down from baking. If you use a topping, you can top your cupcakes when they are thawed.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.193507 | 2012-05-17T08:11:49 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23799",
"authors": [
"EriBea",
"Jeff Hay",
"Malcolm Renwick",
"Richard V Simmons",
"fweber",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53989",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53990",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53998",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54000"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
24277 | What can be used as an alternative for Applesauce?
This banana bread recipe calls for applesauce and it's not something that's available at the stores here. Will it be okay if I just leave it out or can I use any other common ingredient to replicate the effect?
Applesauce has little flavor and almost no nutritional value. It is added to baked goods for the one thing it does have- pectin.
Pectin interferes with gluten in a similar manner to fat although by a different mechanism. For this reason applesauce is often used to replace some of the fat in recipes for health-conscious bakers. See this question.
Other banana bread recipes are very similar to cakes and rely on a huge amount of fat- often creamed with a large amount of sugar.
Your options are then to:
Replace the applesauce with some other oil substitute. Another puree of high-pectin fruit would work.
Switch to a recipe that just uses the fat and enjoy a richer banana bread.
@Sobachatina--Couldn't one substitute water+pectin, since that's most of what the apple sauce is contributing?
@Ray- sounds reasonable. Though I can't imagine a place where you could find pectin for sale but not applesauce.
@Sobachatina Okay, what if I use more butter? Will that be ok?
@Uday- yes that would work but it might take some experimentation to figure out how much butter. You should consider just finding a new recipe that doesn't use the applesauce.
@Sobachatina Alright. I've already found quite a few recipes that don't use applesauce so I'm good to go. Thanks!
Applesauce made with decent apples has plenty of flavor. That made with modern hypersweet, hyperpalatable cultivars has all the flavor of a cheap storebought tomato, in February.
Although it's quite easy to make applesauce (dice several apple varieties into a pan, add a little water, simmer for 15 minutes and mash), another excellent substitute for applesauce is pumpkin puree. It too has little flavor in baked goods and is high in pectin.
Why not making your own? Making your own applesauce is actually very easy. So I bet there are apples for sale in the stores? The simpelest I can think of is:
4 apples
3/4 cup water
(1/4 cup sugar)
1/2 teaspoon ground cinnamon
Peel core and chop the apples. Cook it all together on medium heat until the apples are soft. (15-20 minutes)
It is no work at all and tastes delicious.
Personally I would use applesauce with no added sugar when using it in cakes.
However if you think it is to much work anyways (but I do not hope so!) it is good to know that in lots of recipes, applesauce is used to replace oil to lower the amount of calories. (Some also claim that applesauce replaces eggs, but I have no experience with that)
However, stating something like: 'replace 1 cup of applesauce by 1 cup of oil' can not be done properly. Applesauce contains water where oil does not. So it will make your cake more fat, and applesauce make the baking more 'cakier'. Also you are making a fruit cake, and of course the apple taste improves this fruity taste. I also think using oil will make you cake more 'heavy' then applesauce. You can read more about applesauce replacing oil via this link.
I think if you are going to replace the applesauce by oil, you have to experiment about the substitution rate. But I would start with using 1/4 cup of oil in stand of the 1/4 cup of applesauce.
If you don't want to make your own applesauce, nor replacing the sauce by oil you might want to look at baby-food. Some jars of baby-food contain just some kind of apple puree.
While it's a good idea to make your own, I think it's quite a lot of work if you only need 60 ml of apple sauce.
I think cleaning a couple of apples and cook them for 20 minutes it not a lot of work. It takes maybe 5 minutes and just 20 minutes waiting in which you can prepare the rest of the cake. And you can eat the rest, freeze it for the next time or... (or just make lots of cakes. )
It's a small thing, but it's still something else to keep track of, so I totally understand substituting something else if possible.
Why cook when you can nuke? 4 minutes in a covered dish in microwave will reduce most peeled, chunked apples to squishy pulp. Stir w a fork. Adding sugar or cinnamon is optional.
The unsweetened applesauce also provides a bit of acid. How about replacing the same weight, not volume, with apple juice and increasing the banana content by an small amount -say half a sm banana?
According to http://www.onlineconversion.com/weight_volume_cooking.htm
1 cup AS = 8.6oz so 2 oz of juice would be about right
With only 1/4C in the recipe, I am assuming that changes here and there won't spell disaster.
Use chocolate pudding out of a little kids cup. It adds an amazing chocolate flavor to the banana but it's not over powering. Use the same amount of pudding as you would with applesauce.
Look for applesauce in the baby food section.
A whipped fat can substitute the missing applesauce.
Hello Gwen, and welcome to our site. I understand you had best intentions when you wrote your answer, but we don't discuss the nutritional benefits of food here, just cooking techniques. This is probably the reason why your answer attracted a downvote. I edited that part out, leaving the actual substitution suggestion. If you would expand it (what fat is suitable, how exactly you substitute), it would be even more useful.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.193613 | 2012-06-07T14:27:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24277",
"authors": [
"Avner Shahar-Kashtan",
"BlackheathHouse",
"Cascabel",
"Jenifer Phillips",
"Kelly Michele",
"Kenneth Reed",
"Laurie Whiteley",
"Lotte Laat",
"Lynne",
"Matt Simerson",
"MichaelK",
"Mien",
"PICyourBrain",
"Ray",
"Sobachatina",
"TheHarryChannel",
"Tina Partridge",
"Uday Kanth",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123819",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123822",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136828",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55250",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70496",
"rumtscho",
"sandra hoy"
],
"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
} |
33435 | How to salvage a cookie dough that is too sweet?
I just baked the first batch of cookies and I found them to be too sweet to my liking. The remaining dough is sitting in the fridge right now and I was wondering if there is anything I could do to it to reduce its sweetness. These are the simple sugar cookies, btw.
It is almost impossible to reduce the sweetness of cookie dough once made, without further reducing the quality.
The closest you could come would be to create a second batch of cookie dough ingredients with reduced sugar, and combine it with your existing dough. However, it will be difficult to achieve good integration of the two batches, and even if you do, the extra working of the first batch from the mixing will create additional gluten, making tougher cookies.
In this case, you might want to try some sort of tart lemon glaze or perhaps a very bittersweet chocolate icing to compliment your cookies and reduce the impression of sweetness. On the other hand, except for butter, sugar cookies contain no expensive ingredients. It may not be worth trying to salvage this batch.
In the end, this is probably a lesson learned that your particular recipe is not to your liking as is. Next time, you will want to either reduce the sugar, or use another recipe.
I was actually considering your suggestion of making another batch of dough with reduced sugar but now I think I'm gonna ditch the idea. I guess it wouldn't hurt to just forget about this and start anew. Luckily, my mom seems to have taken a liking to the cookies so I'm gonna go ahead and make them for her.
@UdayKanth : that would've been my suggestion -- give them to someone with a sweet tooth, and make a new batch for yourself.
A (too) sweet cookie dough can easily be disguised or complemented by adding heat like cayenne pepper. In my experience I added it to the dough and mixed it in. (Second batch of cookies.) Since you've already got your dough mixed working your dough is just going to end up with a tough dough.
I've found the combinations of chocolate, heat, and sweet or lemon, heat and sweet work very well. Make a glaze or frosting. Add the heat to disguise or complement the sweet. I don't think it's a good idea to bite directly into the heat, particularly, when one is expecting something sweet.
I'd experiment with a few of the cookies. First test - Use a very very light sprinkle of the cayenne on the raw cookie dough, press it in so it doesn't just burn on the surface, bake the cookie, frost, taste. Second test - separate some of the glaze or frosting from the main source, add a very very light sprinkle of cayenne to the glaze or frosting, mix thoroughly, frost a baked and cooled cookie, taste. Adjust to your preference.
You should end up with heat but that is an after effect. Sweet with chocolate or sweet with lemon are the first impressions, a few chews and one becomes aware of the heat.
A little suggestion, if I may.
Mix your remaining dough with no flour, some soft butter and corn flakes. Work the dough gently and form your biscuits as usual (try using a spoon to put them on the baking tray, since the high content of butter makes the dough very soft) and finally cook them - though a bit less than usual.
You'll get biscuits with a pleasant, sweet taste, but slightly salty and in proportion to the other ingredients there will be less sugar.
I often use this trick to save dishes with an excess of a certain ingredient.
My attempt to bake chocolate chip cookies from a store bought log came out too sweet. I added a small amount of lemon zest and a few drops of peppermint flavouring to the next dough log. The cookies are much better.
I made my sugar cookie dough too sweet, and I just added lime juice and salt to a cup and mixed it well, then mixed it into the cookie dough, and the cookies came out really good.
When my chocolate cookie dough was too sweet, I put crushed walnuts and hazelnuts on top of the dough before I baked them, and when they came out of the oven I sprinkled a tiny bit of salt on top of the cookies.
This helped tone down the sweetness a lot.
Adding oats and nuts help to lessen the sweetness of the batter :)
Wouldn’t they change the consistency of the batter?
I tried adding oats to store bought coookie-dough, but it didnt help reduce the sweetness, chopped almonds and walnuts worked very well. I think I'll try adding lemon, or cayenne next.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.194089 | 2013-04-13T10:06:20 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33435",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Stephie",
"Uday Kanth",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6640",
"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
} |
20845 | How important is the creaming process while making a cake?
A few of the chocolate cake recipes I read always start with the step - mix butter and sugar until creamy. I've tried a couple of times but failed to create anything near to creamy. But a few recipes completely eliminate the creaming process, wherein the wet ingredients are added directly to the dry mix. I'm looking for a cake which has a light and moist texture. What should I do? All my previous cakes were either too airy or grainy! On a side note, no matter how much time I mix, I'm not getting the sugar to completely dissolve in the butter. Should I be adding more butter?
You shouldn't need to add more butter than what your recipe calls for. However, make sure that the butter is room temperature (not frozen, and not straight out of the fridge) before you try to cream it with the sugar; if the butter is too cold, it'll just get lumpy rather than creamy.
One technique used for butter-creaming is to chop the butter into small pieces, place over a pan of softly simmering/hot water, and whisk until the butter is in a creamed state (with care taken not to melt the butter; usually the butter has to be taken off the double-boiler a few times to whisk the melted butter back into the rest); the end result should be an opaque but "liquid" (about as liquid as custard) bowl of butter. The sugar can then be folded in.
@acidnbass this is a great trick I will try next time
The purpose mixing the butter and sugar until creamy is to distribute air through the batter that will help leaven the cake in the oven. Skipping this step can create a denser cake. You want to add the air into the batter before adding the flour in order to prevent over mixing, which creates gluten; causing a tougher texture.
Beating the eggs until foamy and folding them into the batter or adding the eggs to the butter/sugar and beating until fluffy will also create a lighter texture.
The sugar does not need to dissolve in the butter, but it should be evenly distributed. This site gives a good visual on how creamed butter & sugar should look.
Personally, I never understood this concept until the first time I creamed butter and sugar in a KitchenAid stand mixer. I suspect that hand mixers are not the right tool for the job.
Hand mixers do the job just fine, you just need to make sure you mix for a sufficient length of time.
Maybe the better way to say it is that hand mixers are not the "best" tool. The KitchenAid mixes more efficiently and I probably never mixed long enough with the hand mixer.
The best tool is the one you have to hand :)
@LauraKane-Punyon Thanks I understand it now too. Creamed butter makes all the difference. The cake I made last night came out exactly as I wanted it. however I made a mistake of baking it at 250 degrees centigrade and my cake has burnt edges.
and I used an electronic hand mixer!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.194708 | 2012-01-27T21:49:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20845",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"Laura",
"Laura Kane-Punyon",
"Nick.N",
"R. Singh",
"Uday Kanth",
"acidnbass",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/246",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45881",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45883",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68856",
"manu muraleedharan",
"marinebioloj"
],
"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
} |
23319 | Is it okay to use a microwave in convection mode without the turntable?
I just bought a muffin tin which is too large and certainly won't rotate on the turntable. My microwave doesn't have a "stop turntable" button. So is it okay if I remove it altogether and use just an oven rack to place my muffin tin on? Will it result in uneven baking?
Is the muffin tin metal?
@ElendilTheTall It is metal. I am assuming aluminium. It's non-stick though
And your microwave doesn't use any actual microwaves in convection mode?
@ElendilTheTall Yes, I'm pretty sure it doesn't.
Sorry to state the obvious, but have you checked the manual? It may provide guidance. And also answer if you can use a metal muffin tin and rack in convection mode.
@derobert It doesn't say anything regarding that in the user guide. And yea, I have made cakes in metal tins before so that's not a problem. My only question is that, will it be okay if the steel surface of the microwave comes into contact with the steel oven rack?
@UdayKanth we have had several users from India who asked questions about a combined microwave/convection oven, and in each case, it turned out that the microwaving part still works when the oven is set to convection only. Are you really sure about there being no microwaves? If yes, please tell us the model so we can know which models are good and which aren't. You should be able to test with bread. If you warm bread in the oven and it is OK 3-4 hours later, it uses no microwave. If it is impossibly dry or even stone-hard, the microwave part is still in use and you shouldn't use metal tins.
I'm specifically answering your question "Is it okay to use a microwave in convection mode without the turntable?" -- Yes.
Your own answer points out the reality that if a pan is too large then the turn table will simply hit the sides of the microwave oven and then stop turning. There is nothing wrong with this. There is nothing wrong or damaging to have a metal tin touch the metal sides of your oven.
How was your baked items bottom? If you can sit your tin up so there is air flow under your tin, then you will improve the baking efficiency and it will bake more evenly.
CAUTION: If anyone else is reading this question and wondering about their own machine, then you really need to take caution about the "convention only" mode. You have to make sure there are NO microwaves in this mode or else your metal will conduct and you could have a serious explosion or break your microwave oven.
There was airflow under the tin since I placed on a medium oven rack. The only glitch I faced was that the top surface of the muffins didn't get browned. I didn't risk baking longer because the rest of the muffin was perfectly baked.
And yes, it is important that everyone check their user guide to see if they can use metal tins in convection mode. Mine specifically states that I can do so.
When I work with convection microwaves, I find it essential to preheat the oven. The insides are all metal, so if that is hot to the touch then it will be radiating its heat energy onto your baked goods. Unfortunately, it usually takes FOREVER to preheat, which is a ton of wasted energy.
If the problem is that the tin is too large for your microwave to rotate, then you can put your tin on the turntable anyway (or on an oven rack placed on the turntable). The turntable rotates and the tin tries to rotate but will not after a point. I have tried this, and it was perfectly okay to bake muffins like this. They were evenly cooked too. But you might want to flip the position of the tin midway just in case.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.194988 | 2012-04-25T15:37:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23319",
"authors": [
"Earl Henning",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Frank",
"Jennifer",
"MADCookie",
"Uday Kanth",
"cbeleites",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52795",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52797",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8582",
"rumtscho",
"wandag"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
20019 | Should chicken be cooked beforehand while making pizza?
I was just wondering if I can arrange raw chicken on the pizza base and cook everything along or if I should cook the chicken first separately.
Generally the temperature to which you cook your pizza will not be effective with killing bacteria that is dangerous in chicken. In addition if you introduce the raw chicken to your other raw ingredients for your pizza you will contaminate them as well.
@Chad Pizza is cooked plenty hot enough - just not long enough to pasteurize most cuts of chicken.
I saw you asked what seasoning goes well with chicken, and I assume you meant on pizza. Well, where I live, a (somewhat) popular choice is chicken + curry + banana + pineapple. Might sound weird but I find it very taste and a bit different.
Cook the chicken ahead of time. I doubt your pizza cooking time and your chicken cooking time will be a perfect match, and it is more likely than anything that your chicken would be undercooked. That would not be good for anyone.
If you are worried about the chicken being dry on your pizza, you can try par-cooking the pieces instead of fully cooking them (though that may be a little dangerous, too), or you can add the cooked pieces to the pizza after it has begun baking.
Thanks! Also what kind of seasoning goes well with chicken?
It's all a matter of personal taste, as most seasonings go pretty well with chicken. A place near me serves a pizza that has sauteed chicken pieces that are also tossed in Buffalo wing sauce. It's delicious, it goes well with the other pizza flavors, and it keeps the chicken pieces from drying out.
I've a bias against putting raw chicken on anything that possibly might not get thoroughly cooked. It has something to do with Salmonella. That said, the high percentage of water released when cooking poultry, as opposed to other meats, might cause your pizza crust to become soggy, or your sauce liquidy. Neither of these are good things when it comes to pizza.
i put the chicken on raw. I cut it thin and in small pieces so that it cooks at 450f for about 15 minutes. The trick is to cut it when its still a little bit frozen it is much easier this way. The chicken cooks perfectly and is not burnt, fried, not dry. People are so scared of raw chicken its hilarious. I cook my chicken, mushroom, and onion pizza RAW.
15 minutes is a lot longer than many people cook pizza dough. It's common to pop it in at 500F on a pizza stone for 7-8 minutes.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.195398 | 2011-12-28T19:34:30 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20019",
"authors": [
"Arctiic",
"Chad",
"Kevin Collins",
"Max",
"Nat Bowman",
"Runecreed",
"Sean Hart",
"Uday Kanth",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43719",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43720",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43721",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43723",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8433",
"hunse",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
20023 | How to make a frothy icing?
I bought a tin of ready-made chocolate icing from the super market. But it's very dense and viscous while I prefer the more airy kind of icing the cakes from the bakery have. Can I do something to turn my icing into something like that?
You can easily whip it using a mixer.
I dont need to add anything to it?
Try a bit of milk or cream.
Just to summarise the comments into an answer:
To lighten the icing, you can add air to it by whipping, either by hand or with an electric mixer. It will probably be easier to do that if you loosen it a little with some milk or cream.
I actually would not add any milk or cream to the store bought icing. Just whip it on high for a couple of minutes should be fine.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.195637 | 2011-12-28T22:15:43 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20023",
"authors": [
"Carlos Silva",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Funsi",
"Jay",
"Jere Allen",
"Uday Kanth",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43729",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43758",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
84903 | Controlling variables in homemade yogurt
Making yogurt at home is a fairly straight-forward process. Heat milk to 180F (82C), cool that milk to at least 110F (43C), add live cultures, usually in the form of yogurt with said cultures, incubate, then chill.
There are several variables in the process, some of which are: The fat content of the milk (I typically use whole), how long to hold the milk during the initial heat step, how long it takes to cool the milk, the temperature of the incubation step, and the length of time for incubation, to name a few.
While length of time for incubation, and temperature at this stage, clearly contribute to sourness, I am trying to nail down the variable that contributes to a creamy texture. I'm not referring to breaking or clumping, as described in Why isn't my homemade yogurt smooth?. My yogurt comes out smooth.
My initial hypothesis is that holding the milk for a length of time at the initial 180F(82C) (rather than immediately removing from heat and/or chilling) has an impact on final texture. Any thoughts or experience that might inform my hypothesis?
What do you mean by "creamy texture", do you want it the way it is sold in the supermarkets? These yogurts are stirred before packaging. Or did you mean something else?
Basically, I am curious about which variables impact the texture of the final product. Clearly, straining and stirring impact texture. However, I am specifically wondering about the impact of holding at 180F (82C). I hope to run some experiments soon, but thought I might probe the collective knowledge.
In McGee’s “on food and cooking” he comments that milk is surprisingly stable while heating and boiling. You would certainly lose water and concentrate protein and fat, but apparently the structure of the fat globules does not change appreciably. He goes on to say that freezing milk is a different thing altogether, which dramatically alters the structure of the emulsion. Based on this, it might be more interesting to see how previously frozen milk responds to the yogurt process. I know this does not have much to do with your question, but it’s something to mull over.
@KevinNowaczyk an interesting perspective, and thanks. I didn't think to reach for McGee. Heading to the bookshelf now.
I've been experimenting with goat milk yogurt - changing things up one variable at at time. I've been able to get a consistently creamy texture with 10 minutes at 195, one hour at 120, and then lowering to 86 and incubating until it reaches a pH of around 4.3. A lower pH or a higher incubation temperature result in a more tart (of course) but also more firmly set yogurt. At 4.3 I get something silky smooth.
The initial heating stage takes a little time to denature the water soluble proteins in the milk.
The hotter your milk, the faster the process. At 180 it takes 30 minutes. At 190 it takes 15 or so. Heating the milk longer than this won't improve the texture. I don't believe the texture will change very much unless too much water is lost.
Heating for a shorter time than this will make the yogurt significantly more fragile and less creamy.
"The milk mixture is pasteurized at 185°F (85°C) for 30 minutes or at 203°F (95°C) for 10 minutes."
http://www.milkfacts.info/Milk%20Processing/Yogurt%20Production.htm
Thanks. This leads me to believe that it is not sufficient to simply arrive at 180F. The milk must remain there for at least 30 minutes (or 15 at 190F). Thanks also for the link.
That is correct.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.195744 | 2017-10-09T13:03:45 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84903",
"authors": [
"Kevin Nowaczyk",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
16643 | Would a cream based sauce go well with steaks?
I've reached a point where I am very comfortable with a nice red wine/shallot reduction as a pan sauce for my strip roasts/steaks. I think I remember have a meal once where they served sliced tenderloin with a white sauce. I imagine it was cream based but I don't often see this combination.
I was wondering if there was hope for throwing together a cream based sauce and if so if anyone had an idea of what base (mother or otherwise) sauce would be a good jumping off point for experimentation?
So I ended up making my porterhouses tonight with the Bearnaise sauce. It didn't seem like that great of a sauce until paired with the meat. Wow it went great. Everyone was happy. Will have to try some of the other suggestions next time!
Mind posting the recipe in your question? With an update?
You may have been served Bearnaise, which is a common red meat sauce. Bearnaise is based on Hollandaise (a mother sauce), a butter based sauce. Hollandaise is somewhat advanced to make because it is important to keep the temperature right and the ratios correct while making it, but the result is worth the effort.
Yeah, excellent, I've done hollandaise before and had good success, flavor was a bit off (too much lemon I think) I'll consult my books on this variation and give it a try. Thanks!
My spousal unit taught me to to make cream-based sauces with the drippings when pan-frying steaks.
Something like:
Remove meat to stand
Throw in a few green peppercorns or capers
Deglaze with a little brandy (not too much, if you need more liquid use hot water)
Add cream, turn off the heat and stir until thickened.
You can vary the spice and deglazing agent almost endlessly.
Now I have a hard time walking away from dripping without doing something with them.
Yes I agree, I feel that thrown out drippings are quite a waste. I've even shied away from the grill with steaks in favor of sous vide + cast iron finish. It's tough to beat the best!
I don't see Steak Diane here, so I'll add that. The sauce is prepared from the pan juices, using butter, shallots, cream, and Worcestershire sauce, and flambéed with brandy. Sometimes with mushrooms too.
Pepper corns are mentioned, but no-one explicitly said Au-Poivre. Dijon, brandy/cognac, cream, sometimes shallots. Basically, as stated above, but with a formal name. I've seen this in France with and without the dried crushed peppercorns stuck to the steak. More often it's soft green peppercorns in the sauce.
Both are on every (ok, most) French cafe/brasserie type menus.
To be honest, just add a little cream to your existing sauce and you'll find it pretty delicious. Add some worcestershire sauce (quite a lot) for Diane, add some green peppercorns for Au Poivre.
Cream gravy is traditional with chicken fried steak (breaded and fried cube steak). It isn't a high-end steak cut, though. Cream gravy is basically just wisking flour into a few tablespoons of the pan drippings / leftover frying oil to make a roux, and then cream to make a white sauce, usually seasoned with salt and lots of black pepper.
Often when I see roasted cuts of beef served with a white sauce, it's a sour cream or mayo-based horseradish sauce, though.
My absolute favorite way to eat steak is Oscar style... To @michael's point, this is:
rib eye + asparagus + crab cake (or lump crab meat) + hollandaise... Fantastic!
That sounds sinful. Om nom nom.
The recipe I like to use for pepper steak features cream, and I use strip steaks for pepper steak. Once the steaks are out and resting, get rid of the fat (but not the browned bits, random fallen off peppercorns etc) in the pan, add a little butter, some finely chopped shallot, let them cook but not brown, deglaze the pan with some brandy, reduce, then a nice slug of cream. 18% or 35% is great, but I use 10% when that's what's in the house. Finish with a tablespoon more of brandy at the last minute and everyone loves it. I do fries in the oven whenever I do pepper steak and that sauce on fries ... irresistable.
Sounds delicious, I'll have to give this a try some time!
the best cream based sauce i have found in many years of cooking is caramelized onion sauce,
first get a nice skillet cast iron or a old school pan...not a non stick pan.next get the skillet nice and hot med high heat slice the onions toss em in the skiilet no oil , they will stick at first ,stir with wood spoon as they start to get darker and caramelize add a touch of oil,salt &or sugar , next take about 1/4 cup of redwine/marsala/or sherry to deglaze pan then take them off the heat,in another sauce pan add a little bit of beef stock or base with about 1 quart heavy cream , add onions then reduce on med/low heat till it gets darker and the cream gets thicker a little thicker than a chowder soup base, finally put this cream mix in a blender and emulsify the onions into the sauce. it is great for steaks,venison or any other rich red meats.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.196053 | 2011-08-04T21:59:53 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16643",
"authors": [
"Brian",
"Mary Bevan",
"Ralph",
"Yogurt The Wise",
"chrisjlee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35506",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35515",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35517",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6757",
"tarun713"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
126270 | What is the difference between the various Gourmia GTF7900 Air Fryer cooking modes?
Recently I got myself a new Gourmia GTF7900 Air Fryer. The webpage says this oven has 14 cooking modes. It has 4 heating elements (two below and two above tray) and a hidden fan behind the side wall.
The front panel looks like this:
As you can see, the menu includes only 13 selections. Where is the 14th one?
Here's the user manual. It does not mention the technical details of what elements of the oven are used with each cooking mode. From a few cooking attempts, it looks like most of them apply both the heating elements and the fan. For example, what is the difference between the "AIRFRY", "PIZZA" and "BAKE" modes?
Since the heating elements are inside the main chamber, what is the difference between "BAKING" and "BROILING"?
Also, as you can see, there is a "CONVECTION" button there. But it is not cleat to me what is the difference between using this button and the "AIRFRY" cooking mode?
Obviously you have more than 14 modes, as any "mode" that can have convection added is two modes - one with convection and one not. Unless they only let you use it when in "bake" mode, and then that's your 14th. Probably most of the modes are pretty much the same, but claimed to be different for marketing so you'll buy this instead of a toaster-oven-airfryer with only 12 modes or 4 modes, even if the 4 modes would do everything you actually wanted to do ;-) If the fine manual doesn't enlighten you as to the details...
Conventionally, Baking is using the below the tray elements and Broiling is using the above the tray elements.
@Ecnerwal - thanks. That's what I anticipated re baking vs broiling, but AFAICT it is not so. I'll do some more rigorous testing. Maybe I missed something.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.196456 | 2024-01-03T19:29:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/126270",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6776",
"ysap"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
20372 | What role does alcoholic liquid play in cheese fondue recipes?
Pretty much every recipe I've seen for cheese fondue includes either white wine (sometimes alongside kirsch/brandy) or some kind of beer in the delicious cheesy sauce.
Why is the added liquid (seemingly) always alcoholic - as opposed to adding, say, water? Is it because beer or wine complements the other flavors in the fondue, or because milk proteins are alcohol soluble so it achieves the desired consistency? Or is there some other reason that combines those two explanations (or presents a different one entirely)?
The advertised reason is that the alcohol will cut some of the protein chains resulting in a fondue that is dippable and not so stringy. Obviously the alcoholic beverage of choice will also add a lot of cheese-compatible flavor as well.
Fondue recipes that don't include alcohol universally call for acid to achieve a similar effect.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.196623 | 2012-01-11T18:38:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20372",
"authors": [
"Mary",
"alextercete",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44678",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44689"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
53446 | How can I tell if my acorn squash is ripe before cutting it open?
Is there any way to tell if an acorn squash is ripe before cutting it open to cook it? I keep getting unripe squash from the grocery store, and I don't know they're unripe until I've cut them open, sadly turning them into compost instead of dinner.
First, as a gardener who's grown these, I can tell you that acorn squash — like all winter squash — need to be left on the vine to ripen. After picking, they will get a little sweeter as they sit for a couple weeks, but if picked too early, they won't actually continue to ripen.
That said, there's no great trick to picking a good one. If you see some some orange color in the skin, it's almost certainly ripe, though they can still be mature when all green, too.
Ideally, you should be able to trust that the farmer harvested these properly, but if you're getting unripened winter squash, someone probably screwed up out in the field. If you think the store gives a damn, it's probably worth mentioning that you're getting some bad ones.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.196730 | 2015-01-09T16:53:35 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53446",
"authors": [
"Alex Young",
"J L",
"Jack McDonald",
"Thomas Anderson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125553",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125566"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
30621 | How to eliminate rubbery texture in pan fried veggie burgers made with vital wheat gluten
I like making veggie burgers, and one recipe that I use relies on vital wheat gluten (as well as egg replacer) to have a coherent burger. Here are the ingredients for one particular burger:
1 cup TVP
¾ cup Vegetable broth
2 tbsp. Tamari
2 tbsp. Teriyaki Sauce
1 egg Egg replacer
1 cup Crushed pineapple
2 tbsp. Brown sugar
½ cup Vital wheat gluten
½ cup Whole wheat flour
They are mixed together by hand and refrigerated to thicken up. Then the burgers are pan fried.
What I find is that the outer portion of the burger that makes contact with the pan on either side has an excellent texture, but the inside of the burger is very rubbery, being that it's practically raw and the gluten has that rubbery texture to it. If I pan fry the burgers much longer, they turn brown and get too crispy before the interior is fully cooked, even when I have the burner turned low. Is there a solution to this texture issue?
To me this chewy texture is characteristic of wheat gluten, even when fairly thoroughly cooked. It's leveraged on purpose for a number of dishes, and really only freeze-dried gluten products (common for clear soups in Japan) seem to escape that. Are you really committed to using the gluten for some particular reason?
@JasonTrue I would be happy to leave out the gluten entirely if the burgers would still hold together. I don't get a rubbery taste when I make seitan with VWG, but it is cooked entirely different (steamed, baked or boiled).
I am not too experienced with the product so I'm not going to try to answer, but have you tried baking them? You get much slower and steadier heat with an oven, which should result in more done interiors. You can always finish them off in the pan to get the nice outside texture.
The rubbery texture can be from over-kneading when combining the burgers. For some recipes, I have pre-baked at a low temperature then grilled to get the right texture on the outside. This would work with a recipe with a resting period as well as one that just dries.
Also, if the egg replacer is not binding correctly (I am assuming you are using Ener-G), try using a chia or flax egg (1 tbsp of either milled, then combined with 3 tbsp water and set to congeal). This will raise the moisture in your patty, which likely already has a good amount based on your recipe, so you can use other wet ingredients instead of adding water.
If the problem is that they're raw in the middle, try lowering the heat and covering the pan. In beef burgers and sausages, the lid helps them steam a little, getting the center done faster; you then uncover and raise the heat to get a good sear on the outside. I don't know any reason why this wouldn't work for vegatarian burgers.
once you have made the patties you have to wrap them in foil and steam them for 40 mins and then allow to cool before frying them. this will "cook" the VWG and bind it into a raw hamburger ready to cook.
Here my recipe:
Ingredients
60 gm Textured Vegetable Protein
150 ml hot water
150 gm Vital wheat gluten
1 tbsp Sriracha sauce
1 tbsp Soy sauce
1 tbsp onion granules
1 tsp oregano
1 tsp cayenne pepper
1 tbsp olive oil
1 tsp massel beef stock powder
Method
Begin by rehydrating 60gm TVP with 150ml of hot water and let it sit to hydrate.
Mix 150gm Vital wheat gluten with all the spices Sriracha, Soy sauce, onion granules, dried oregano, cayenne pepper, no beef stock powder and oil.
Mix in the rehydrated TVP.
Now slowly add 100ml water (if the TVP is soggy may less) and stir and mix until the mixture is stiff not watery and then mix and stir for several minutes.
Form into patties and let them rest for 20 mins (it really helps).
Wrap the patties individually in silver foil and steam for 45 mins.
Allow them to cool and then use as raw burgers.
i.e. Fry both sides in a little oil for several minutes on each side and serve.
I have a photo recipe with no inline ads (or life stories) on my blog if you want to see who to cook them
https://www.theplantbaseddad.com/tvp-and-seitan-burgers/
If the patties are cooked all the way through and you find the texture too rubbery, I'd take out half of the gluten and replace it with either more flour or mashed cooked beans. This will still help to bind it, but won't contribute to a rubbery texture.
If the issue is getting the gluten to be fully cooked (which can sometimes take MUCH longer than you'd expect), I generally split the cooking method. I will sear them in a pan to get the exterior texture I want, then put them on a parchment lined sheet pan, lightly spray them with oil, and finish them by baking. The more even heat provided by baking can help get the middles cooked before the outside is burned.
I agree with the last commenter. Replace half the gluten with chickpea flour. That will help for sure. AND bake it after searing it.
Raw chickpea flour is bitter and has a strong not-good flavour, so yeah either bake afterwards or, I would suggest, dry roast the flour before adding to the recipe
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.196864 | 2013-02-02T02:11:00 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30621",
"authors": [
"Ben Smith",
"JasonTrue",
"Said Fadel",
"Sanghyun Lee",
"Sergey Kurtenko",
"Zanna",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50902",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71592",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71637",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71644",
"lemontwist",
"sarge_smith",
"user71592"
],
"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
} |
25707 | Recommend Indian cookbooks for a beginner/intermediate amateur
I would like to experience more Indian food but I need recipes ideas and to learn some more cooking techniques.
What are some good cookbooks for a beginner/intermediate level amateur "chef"?
I have the Easy Indian Cookbook by Manju Malhi. I've found it to be good. The recipes don't usually call for ingredients I can't find in my standard grocery store (though for lamb I need to go to Whole Foods), are explained well, and the measurements are in US-standard units (i.e., measuring flour by volume in cups). It also has meal suggestions (i.e., a meat dish, a veggie dish, a dessert, and a drink), though I've never used these (I'm generally cooking for one, so more than one dish is usually overkill).
Each recipe ore section has a brief (sometimes very brief) overview of the region the recipe(s) came from and the evolution of the dish to what it is today.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.197273 | 2012-08-17T14:19:32 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25707",
"authors": [
"E.M.D",
"New baker at 55",
"Rianne",
"SeeQ",
"einar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58961",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58966",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59075"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
53512 | Is it safe to prepare a crock pot recipe the night before?
I'm looking at slow cooking a beef stew on a workday. The stew includes raw beef.
Recipe: http://m.allrecipes.com/recipe/14685/slow-cooker-beef-stew-i/
Is it safe to combine the ingredients the night before, refridgerating the crock overnight, then cooking it in the morning?
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/49366/67
Assuming it's a proper removable (some old ones weren't) inner crock pot you could (as in your other answer).
BUT
That pot will take a long time to warm up when you put it in and turn it on. I would suggest assembling all the ingredients in another container (which may also fit better in the fridge) and turning them out in to the (ideally preheated) crock pot in the morning. Otherwise you will probably need to add some time even on top of the extra time for starting all ingredients at fridge temperature.
This is roughly what the manual for our previous slow cooker recommended. Our new one is a non-stick steel inner pot (for easy browning) and will warm up much faster - there's no recommendation to preheat this model.
Thanks for the tip on using another container. I do have a removable inner crock, but not wanting to babysit any extra time, it's probably best.
I see absolutely no possible reason for not doing it the night before :-) if anything it might taste better.
Thanks Doug. Thought it would be alright, but better safe than sorry.
I have heard that the more ingredients in your Crockpot recipe that are refrigerated, the longer it may remain in the food danger zone. Ideally you would have your vegetables room temperature, then leave your meat out on the counter for 30 minutes warming up while getting ready for work before adding and putting the crockpot on high. Or if you have to put in the fridge overnight, bring everything to say 120 - 140 degrees on the stove then put on the crockpot on low during the day.
Yes, that’s why in a similar question, I recommended starting the cooker on high to get things warmed up, then switching it to low: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/49366/67
Yes, that’s why in a similar question, I recommended starting the cooker on high to get things warmed up, then switching it to low: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/49366/67
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.197386 | 2015-01-11T15:44:59 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53512",
"authors": [
"Jill Tong",
"Joe",
"Marisa NAILS",
"Molly V. Smurl",
"Vanessa Mock",
"dangowans",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125749",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125750",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125751",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125753",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125769",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"martin harrow"
],
"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
} |
27347 | How long do meatballs in sauce need to be heated in a crock pot?
I'm participating in a pot luck lunch this week. I'm bringing fully cooked meatballs, served in pasta sauce. My plan is to make the meatballs (around 30 - 40) the night before, cook them fully in the oven, and refrigerate them overnight in the crock pot without the sauce.
My question, to have everything properly heated before lunch time, how early should I start the crock pot? I don't want to start too early and turn everything to mush, but I also don't want to serve cold meatballs.
You really have to cook them a loooong time to turn them into mush. A trick is to do small meatballs (say 1cm diameter) that will heat up fast.
Thank you to everyone for your great advice. I ended up using a combination of everyone's answers.
I prepared the meatballs the night before and cooked them in the oven as per usual. I stored them overnight in the fridge in a large ice cream tub, rather than refrigerating the crock. (Thanks for that tip Joe and MargeGunderson.)
In the morning, I combined everything in the crock pot and brought it to work. I started the crock pot on low at 8am. Everything was already cooked, so no need to worry there. The meatballs were heated through by noon. (Thanks everyone for the tip on starting early. Thanks nico for the assurance on "mush".)
Now, time for lunch!
Except that by refrigerating them the night before in a closed container and then slowly re-warming them the next day, they were in the danger zone of 40 to 140 degrees for an awfully long time, probably close to the four hour limit.
They're meatballs. It's a crockpot. Why bother refrigerating them or cooking them in the oven? Just brown them in the oven under broil and then set the crockpot on low and cook them overnight in the sauce. They'll be perfectly done, perfectly safe, and delicious in the morning. A few extra hours won't hurt them at all and then you won't have to worry about time, temperature and food safety.
This is what I would do, you just need to take care depending on your sauce and how low your "low" setting actually is on the crockpot. A sauce with a fair amount of sugar in it ( eg, one based off of tomatoes or containing brown sugar ) will scorch and burn if left unattended for a long enough period of time.
I've allowed tomato-based sauces to go 24 hours on low in a covered crock pot with no problems. I don't see how anything would burn unless you left the lid off and allowed it to dry out.
If you have some reason not to take Carey's answer (eg, making the meatballs earlier than the night before), I'd suggest a second alternative -- reheat the meatballs in a low oven.
Heat the crock w/ the sauce in it.
Put the meatballs on a sheet pan, and heat in the oven. (maybe 300°F/150°C), if you're concerned w/ overcooking or can't monitor them as much, cut it back to 200 to 250°F (100 to 125°C))
Combine when the meatballs are up to temp.
I also wouldn't refrigerate the crock, as it's a significant thermal mass (will take some time to heat on something as low powered as a slow cooker)
The speed that the crock pot will heat up the food will depend on your crock pot and the size of the meatballs.
If you know how long it takes for something like pasta sauce by itself to heat up, I'd suggest starting your crock pot with that much time plus a bit (less for smaller meatballs, more for larger ones). Will there be a microwave? If so, you can heat some of the pasta sauce a bit before putting it in with the meatballs, giving you a head start.
If you're actually putting the crock in the refrigerator as well as the meatballs, it would take at least a couple of hours to heat the crock, and then heat the meatballs through along with whatever sauce you're going to add.
Is the sauce also going to be starting from a refrigerator temperature? If so, that will take even more time, depending on the size of the crock and amount of sauce.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.197718 | 2012-09-23T16:13:01 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27347",
"authors": [
"Carey Gregory",
"Donna C",
"Gregory Jones",
"Kogitsune",
"Nancy Spereno Page",
"Nick Kennedy",
"Patty Wheeler",
"Spammer",
"Stephen Nicholson",
"Traci Guynup",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61597",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61598",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61616",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61733",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"jdf",
"nico"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
27293 | When a recipe calls for a can of condensed soup, is the water implied?
There are many recipes that will use a can of cream of mushroom soup, for example, not as soup, but as flavoring or sauce.
When this is the case, and the recipe does not mention the "add water" step, is it implied? Is it just expected to add water to condensed soup, or in the context of an ingredient, is the condensed soup used for more flavor and shouldn't be diluted?
In casseroles, pot pies and the like, condensed soup is usually added without additional water. It serves as a thickening agent and will pick up sufficient water from whatever vegetables etc. you also have in the recipe.
That's not to say you never add water along w the soup, it's just that the desired end result is more often some sort of solid casserole-like dish than merely a souped up soup. If you've uncooked, dry, noodles in there too, you will have to add some liquid beyond the condensed soup, so as to allow them to hydrate properly.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.198080 | 2012-09-20T11:07:19 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27293",
"authors": [
"Lord Jebus VII",
"Reed Shilts",
"Robin C Thompson Mom",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61451",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61452",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61459",
"user19801"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
62703 | iSi Gourmet Whip Plus - 0.5l or 1l?
I'm buying a iSi Gourmet Whip Plus and I'm not sure which size to go for. The difference in price is only $4 so cost is not a factor. I'm a home cook and mostly cater for 2 or sometimes upto 6. I'm worried that the 1l is too big. Is there a minimum fill amount to successfully charge? Whats the smallest number of servings from the 1l?
I have an older 500ml/pint version and a family of 4; I find it more than adequate for my applications. If I'm doing whipped cream it's somewhat unusual that I go through it fast enough, so I can imagine it would not be helpful to have a larger one unless I was using it for catering or extreme holiday cooking.
For what it's worth, I usually find half-full the minimum useful fill line on the 500ml. (which is to say, about 250 ml). Some people really insist it needs to be full. The cream tends to get too aerated and not dispense properly if you use it for too small of an amount, plus you're going to use at least a full cartridge per use anyway, so it's kind of "wasteful" to use less considering the cost of the disposable cartridge.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.198199 | 2015-10-21T17:07:28 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62703",
"authors": [
"Crystal Diaz-Espinoza",
"Gerard O'Brien",
"Lisa Bell",
"Mark Genesi Cox Clyde ES",
"Mary Vannieuwenhoven",
"Nelly Brick",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149135",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149136",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149139",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149511"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
32255 | Do vegetables ripen like fruit?
This may be a silly question, but I've never seen an unripe vegetable. Is the growing of a vegetable different from a fruit's? I could pick a carrot up from the dirt whenever, and eat it, but I would never do that to a strawberry.
Also, is it dangerous to eat particular vegetables (potatoes, I believe) before they're fully grown?
Yes, the other answers are right, there is no such ripening. I am writing this answer to explain in more depth why this is so.
From a plant's point of view, a botanical fruit (b.fruit) is the package for its seeds. Its purpose is to be eaten by animals, so that the seeds can germinate somewhere far away, avoiding resource competition with its mother and sister plants. To entice animals to eat the b.fruits, the plants have evolved b.fruits which become easy to spot and tasty (= full of energy-dense and easily digested sugars) at the same time as the seeds are mature enough for reproduction. The plant expends quite a lot of its limited energy supply on creating nutrients for its seeds and sugars, pigments and fruity-smelling esters for its b.fruit, and this process takes time. When it is finalized, the b.fruit is what we call "ripe".
This process works the same way for any plant with typical b.fruits, including the ones we eat as culinary fruits (strawberries, apples), the ones we eat as vegetables (tomatoes, aubergines) and the ones we don't eat (yew berries). There are of course exceptions, for example maple seeds get dispersed by the wind, and don't get "plumped" to be tasty for animals.
Of course, the plant can choose to expend its energy (which is the generic currency for life) for other purposes. Instead of adding mass to its b.fruit, it can add mass to any other part of its body - stems, leaves, etc. It can also create intricate nonbulky molecules for these body parts. Some plants can even chemically save energy in body parts which function as "savings accounts" such as tubers (potatoes) or modified roots (carrots, parsnips, onions).
But from the plant's point of view, these body parts are not meant to be eaten, unlike b.fruits. So, when the plant invests energy in them, it does it in ways which support the body part's role. Especially for structural parts like stems, this makes them stronger, so tougher and woodier. But also other parts like leaves or roots tend to get structurally reinforced with time. Others don't change much, except to increase in size. If the plant uses unpleasant molecules to deter eating, it also needs time to build up a supply. There certainly is no swift transition to an animal-enticing state, just slow growth, and in some cases, toughening or a slow buildup of bitter or otherwise unpleasant taste.
This is why it is culinary optimal to pick vegetables (the ones which are not b.fruits) when they are young, with a few exceptions (e.g. for dolmas, you want both the larger area and the stronger taste of older grape leaves).
This goes against the economic interest of the grower, because the tastier young plants have less mass.
In the end, you can eat any fruit or vegetable at any stage, but it is unlikely that you would enjoy the taste if you veer too far off from the traditional picking stage.
Vegetables don't ripen. Carrots, potatoes, leafy greens, etc...
They will get bigger of course and some veggies will get more bitter or woody with age. Greens will get bitter.
Generally speaking veggies are better young. Carrots are particularly sweet and tender when young. Potatoes are also perfectly fine at any size.
The possible exceptions would be the fruits that are labelled vegetables for cooking purposes like some squashes and tomatoes. These do need to be ripe and whether they can be ripened after picking will depend on the plant.
Peppers are also botanically fruits, although they will not ripen once picked. The green ones are unripe; the colored ones (red, orange, purple, and so on) are ripe.
@SAJ14SAJ I'm pretty sure peppers still ripen after picking. It's just really slow, so mostly you only see things like a patch of green on a red pepper going away. But I've seen jalapenos go all the way from green to red before. It's probably worth discussing in another question.
@Jefromi I won't say that isn't true, but if it is, its slow enough I have never noticed it :-)
@SAJ14SAJ Oops, already asked and answered: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23616/do-chilis-ripen-off-the-vine
Belgian endive is an interesting case: "It is grown completely underground or indoors in the absence of sunlight in order to prevent the leaves from turning green and opening up (etiolation). The plant has to be kept just below the soil surface as it grows, only showing the very tip of the leaves. It is often sold wrapped in blue paper to protect it from light and so preserve its pale colour and delicate flavour."
Surprisingly, this is more of a gardening question than a cooking question. While ripening isn't the word you'd use (that applies pretty strictly to fruit), some vegetables, especially greens, go through a process called bolting, which is basically the intermediate stage between edible greens and going to seed. Usually you don't want to eat what results. Lettuce is particularly bad about this in hot weather -- once the stem starts developing, the leaves turn sort of fern-like and very bitter, and the plant fills with latex. Needless to say, unless you're trying to torture a head of roots-on hydro lettuce, this will seldom be a concern in the kitchen.
Fruits are parts of plants that contain seeds (apples, tomatoes, cucumbers, peepers, okra, lemons). What people consider ripe fruit is not always related to the botanical ripeness (the seeds are mature and ready to be dispersed)
Vegetables are all the other parts of plants that we eat
Vegetables do not ripen, they just grow. Many plants are better tasting and more edible at certain times in their growth cycle, but this is generally based on your culture and preference, there are no firm rules. Very few plants change from being poisonous to be edible during their growth cycle
All fruits and vegetables begin to decay the day they are harvested. In some fruits this is to their taste advantage, in most vegetables this is not. Fruits that are picked before they are ripe may improve in flavour and texture over a few days of suitable storage
In most cases fruit and vegetable nutritional profiles decay from the day they are harvested
The statement that all vegetables begin to decay once harvested simply is not true. For example, celery will continue to respire and live for quite a while (days to weeks), especially if treated like a flower and given water. So will many herbs. Even leaves without any connection to roots will continue to respire until they run out of water or other nutrients. Many plant parts can live for a considerable time once off the plant--the fact that some plants can propagate from cuttings is evidence of this! Decay won't set in until cellular death does.
And green parts will continue to photosynthesize in when light is present, as long as they have sufficient water...
@SAJ14SAJ Your definition of decay/growth is different from mine. I assume no input (water, food, light) means no growth, there is no stasis point, so result is decay, if only slight at first. Cellular death is a continuous process, cell growth requires new inputs
If we put a human in a room without food, but lots of water, they will last days to weeks. They don't die immediately. Similarly, if you cut off a plant's roots, it can last a long time on internal resources (plus photosynthesis, if light is available), before it runs out of a critical resource nutrient, and dies; if given water, its most critical resource, this can be many days. This is one reason putting cut herbs or celery into water like flowers helps them keep longer. Decay doesn't set in until parts actually die--and unlike animals, this may not happen all at once.
@SAJ14SAJ Most people harvest and store without water or light. e.g. per OP a carrot it harvested, steam washed, and cool stored in the dark specifically to STOP it attempting to grow without inputs whcih will toughen it. Decay is always occurring, it is a factor of biology, nothing to do with harvesting. Decay is balanced with growth. Growth only happens with inputs
Sorry, that may be true in a metaphorical sense, but it is not true in a scientific sense.
@SAJ14SAJ So you are saying cells don't die continuously, but only when after some point in time after harvesting?
let us continue this discussion in chat
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:25:00.198341 | 2013-02-27T15:48:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32255",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Itamar",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6668"
],
"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.