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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
42575 | Is there a significant difference between French press coffee and Moka pot coffee?
Assuming they are from the same bean, is there a significant difference between the two? How would it be best described?
Yes there is a significant difference between the two. I would put them at pretty close to opposite ends of the coffee spectrum.
French Press: Generally made with a coarse grind, longer steeping time. Result is a weaker (less concentrated) more typical American style coffee. This will likely be consumed in the same way as a typical filtered, drip coffee would.
Moka Pot: Made with a much finer grind. And while many will argue it's not true espresso. It is much closer to being an espresso. I don't really care what you call it, but it'll be a much stronger more robust coffee. The same amount of coffee will be extracted to a smaller quantity of water. This would be consumed in the same way as an espresso would. You can water it down to make an Americano, etc...
What is "a straight coffee"?
I would imagine that what talon8 meant by "straight coffee" is filter coffee.
Edited for clarity.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.685202 | 2014-03-07T01:25:10 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42575",
"authors": [
"Andrew Lam",
"Fix a go inc Gargae door",
"Fluid Revival - Austin spam",
"Paulie",
"Peter Taylor",
"RARA DRIVING SCHOOL spam",
"Sunnie",
"caroluslinnaeus",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99462",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99465",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99488",
"razumny",
"talon8",
"user99455"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
24006 | Does marinating fish actually help the spices get in its flesh?
We fry fish after applying Mustard seed paste, turmeric, and salt to it.
So, if now we apply the three ingredients and keep the fish for certain hours aside, will marinating affect the "taste" of the fish?
I'm not sure what you're asking here - perhaps it's too simple. Are you just asking if marinading imparts flavour?
@ElendilTheTall I am asking "will marinading affect the "taste" of the fish?" not too sure about the meaning of "imparts flavour". :( Yes, this may be a dumb question, but I need to know the importance of marinading.
Marinating means soaking in a seasoned liquid. Are you just letting the fish sit with a spice paste rubbed on the surface? That's a little different.
@Jefromi Ah yes. :( Instead of soaking the fish in liquid, we rub the paste on its body and let it sit. Is that of any help? Thanks for replying.
Yes, marinating, or letting sit with a rub (which is what you're doing) does help fish flavor.
However, for most fish, there's no point in marinating filets or steaks "for hours", since fish flesh is very porous and spices, acids, oils and other flavorings achieve maximum penetration in less than an hour. The exception to this is dense-fleshed fish, such as swordfish, tuna, and opah, which can be marinated for longer -- up to 8 hours. Also, if you're applying a rub to whole, skin-on fish, you do want to wait an hour for the spices to "soak in".
The other exception is salt. There are recipes where you want to salt fish, and let it sit and drain for between 2 and 8 hours to firm up the flesh or change the flavor.
The above is paraphrased and summarized from Jay Harlow's West Coast Fish, and confirmed by my own experience.
Thanks for responding. Is there any particular benefit of specially salting the fish and letting it sit for hours?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.685336 | 2012-05-25T11:10:33 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24006",
"authors": [
"Adam Martin",
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Cascabel",
"Christian Madsen",
"Courtney Chef Clifton",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Gator Man",
"Jack Meibaum",
"Joseph Doob",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54480",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54493",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54494",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"mrhorvath"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
30718 | What is the orange coloured cream inside McAloo Tikki called and what are its ingredients?
The McAloo Tikki:
(McDonalds' official page has a smaller image.)
I have seen the onions, tomatoes, Aloo Tikki, and an orange coloured cream inside this burger.
I wish to know what is that cream called and what are its ingredients?
I'm not sure.. But i think its mayonnaise with some red paprika...
A bit of google searching suggests some kind of vegetarian mayo, yes. Ingredients could be anything in that case!
I cannot speak to its accuracy as I have no experience with this item or McDonald's at all outside the US, but Time In Kitchen in their recipe for a homemade version indicates:
For sauce, beat hung curd in bowl and add pinch of salt and tomato
ketchup and mix well to smoothen it in order to avoid any lumps and
keep it aside
Then again, according to SipputySup, it is "basically Thousand Island dressing)".
This question itself now appears on the 2nd page of google results when searching for "Aloo Tikki sauce" :-)
"basically Thousand Island dressing" Couldn't understand this, sorry.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thousand_Island_dressing
Okay, I thought they coined the phrase themselves. Didn't know better.
I would rather have peanut butter, myself :-)
These western country foods aren't seen commonly here. I'll have to hunt the shop now!
:( Many websites don't agree with you. Google: "mcdonalds thousand island dressing"
It is essentially mayonnaise mixed with tomato ketchup. I wouldn't imagine McDonald's get much fancier than that with it.
Anisha, I don't know what you mean about websites agreeing or disagreeng. I am not advocating anything. I reported what two websites said, and gave you a baseline reference about Thousand Island dressing. I don't have anything thoughts at all on McDonalds use or failure to use a traditional or non-traditional version of that sauce. I try to avoid eating there if at all reasonably possible, on the grounds that their food is just plain bad (fries excepted) in my opinion.
If you are actually interested in a recreation of the US-McDonalds "secret sauce" (I find it hard to imagine why), Kenki Alt's obsessively geeky Big Mac re-creation/improvement recipe contains a sub-recipe for making the sauce. http://aht.seriouseats.com/archives/2011/05/the-burger-lab-building-a-better-big-mac.html
@SAJ14SAJ or, for the "secret" Big Mac sauce, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcu4Bj3xEyI
Thousand Island dressing has pickle relish in it - that is what gives it the look of 1,000 islands. (Actually, I should SNOPE this!) :-)
Hung Curd + Tomato Ketchup + pinch of Salt, Sugar and Vinger. And you are home. I tried at home and its the closest.
what is "hung curd"?
@rumtscho Sometimes YouTube is even better than Google! :) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sshp7tiP7Pk (I did verify that hung curd = hung yoghurt)
Some authors also refer to hung curd as "Yogurt cheese".
It's simple. Put tomato ketchup in a bowl then add milk cream, also known as malai in Hindi with a pinch of salt and pepper. Just mix it all together.
They list it as “Tom Mayo” sauce on their website.
On further web search I find that the “Tom Mayo” means Tomato Mayonnaise only.
It's tomato ketchup, cream, mayo, salt, white pepper powder, some sweet chilli sauce or powdered sugar and chilli powder, and parsley if you like.
the orange sauce is just a mixture of mayo and ketchup
A Recipe for the sauce is
1/4 Cup of Mayo
2 tbsp ketchup
1/2 tbsp of smoked paprika
I tried this and it is almost the same. We don't have Aloo tikki burger available in USA so we have to find such alternates.
Its liquid cheess mixture of processed cheese and permezan cheese
This would taste very different from the other suggestions (variations on spiced mayonnaise and thousand island dressing), are you speaking from experience?
it is mayonaise,i think.
it's sooooooo tasty and it's the only thing i like about ncallo tikki burger.
I don't think mayonnaise is orange.
Is there something added to the mayonnaise?
Mayonnaise color is very much a function of yolk color, and orange yolks aren't unheard off.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.685559 | 2013-02-05T05:46:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30718",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Cascabel",
"Chris Cicconi",
"Didgeridrew",
"ElendilTheTall",
"EphraimRuttenberg",
"Erica",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Kyle",
"MSalters",
"Pez Picacious",
"Property Manager",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"Wendy Gibson",
"Zack",
"Zeba",
"derobert",
"hannah Walker",
"hat",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104076",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113119",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71828",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71829",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84011",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84037",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84038",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98384",
"iBooot",
"lisa",
"mindiga",
"rumtscho",
"Екатерина Постникова"
],
"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
} |
9328 | Chicken without all that fat?
Whenever I make chicken, I end up going through and trimming a ton of fat. I have heard that free-range chicken is leaner. Is this actually true? What, generally, is the best way to make sure you end up getting high-quality meat that doesn't require a huge amount of fat-trimming?
Depends what sort of "chicken" you want to make. If you roast chicken on a rack or rotisserie and make some slashes in the skin, most of the surplus trimable fat will drip away during cooking. Most of the visible fat is directly under the skin
Other form of cooking generally do not allow enough fat to drip away, so skinning and trimming is the answer
Free-range is not inherently lower in fat, better tasting or anything better than other chickens. The fat content depends on the variety of breed, the food they eat, and the conditions they are raised in. You have to make your own call on this
Shop around and find the brand that has least visible fat. I have tested a variety of local chickens myself, and there is a huge difference. Strangely enough for me the large dominant brand is the leanest?
Testing is a good method: standard labels for chicken are quite poor (free-range is meaningless in Canada and the US). Cook it, taste it, try different brands and farms. As an ex-chicken farmer, fat content is strongly related to the speed that the birds are raised and what they eat.
There are a few ways to get less fat from your chicken:
Cooking method (rack/rotisserie mentioned above)
Eat only the white meat (less fat)
Remove the skin when you eat it (some fat remains in the skin)
Eat less of it (easy fix)
Raise your own chickens (and avoid feeding them grains)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.685946 | 2010-11-21T03:30:44 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9328",
"authors": [
"Bruce Alderson",
"José Leguizamón",
"Naruto Sempai",
"fifi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19086",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/201",
"lid"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
18191 | Is it bad to cook frozen meat without thawing it?
I wonder if it is bad to cook frozen meat (chicken, fish, beef,...) without waiting for it to thaw?
Sometimes, I realize I forget to take meat out of my freezer beforehand, when I am too hungry already.
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/46564/67
It's really a question of taste. It's not going to hurt you, but there will be some undesirable effects. For example, to cook turkey properly, it must come to an internal temp. of 180. If the meat is frozen, it is going to take a lot longer for the internal temperature to rise that high, so the outside of the bird will be somewhat overcooked (compared to roasting a thawed bird). That meat will be much tougher than it would be otherwise.
If your question is querying as to whether it will cause ill health, then no, it will not. My mom does it all the time. Her roasts are tough, though. I have done this, but only when I am braising the meat, or using a slow cooker, which will cause the meat to be tender either way.
Just a note - it's 165 for turkeys - though you do may want 180 for the dark meat.
Cooking turkey from frozen is explicitly allowed by the USDA: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsis/topics/food-safety-education/get-answers/food-safety-fact-sheets/poultry-preparation/turkey-alternate-routes-to-the-table/ct_index/#8
I forget if this falls under the category of "convection" or "thermal diffusion" (if I'm wrong I welcome comments), but if you will take your frozen meat and put it in an airtight zip bag and then in a (clean) sink, run the faucet over this in tepid to cool water (not hot or even very warm). You will be amazed at how quickly this will thaw meat. It will thaw about an inch of meat about every 10 minutes.
The trick is that you want the littlest water possible, but enough to wash over the majority of the bag.
It will thaw your meat very quickly without having to microwave it or trying to cook a frozen piece of meat. If you're trying to thaw a roast then you're probably in trouble, but for thinner cuts of meat/fish/etc., this thaws very quickly.
The reason you are normally advised to thaw meat before cooking is simply that it is then easier and more likely that it will be cooked through properly.
Therefore, you can cook from frozen, but you have to be especially careful that the meat is cooked through. A meat thermometer is ideal, but you can also use your eye and finger to see and feel the state of the meat.
It is safer if the meat is pre-diced or sliced as it will cook through easier. Some supermarkets sell bags of pre-sliced frozen chicken for stir fries that goes straight from the freezer to the wok.
You can cook from frozen in a pressure cooker and it only adds about 5 minutes per half kilo of meat to the cooking time. Also, cooking a turkey to 82C (180F) is far too high a temperature, you'll just dry the meat to the point of inedibility. Turkey breast is so lean that it really ought to be cooked to around 60C (140F); however, you can only do that reliably and hold it at that temperature for long enough (29 minutes) cooking sous vide so it's not an option for most people. The FDA poultry tables are very useful here for working out what temperature you can pasteurise the meat at. For instance, holding turkey at 68C (155F) for 72 seconds is sufficient to obtain 7-log10 lethality of salmonella.
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/rdad/FSISNotices/RTE_Poultry_Tables.pdf
When cooked, frozen meat will release a lot of moist. This is undesireable, specially if you want to pan fry it, and it will prevent the meat to cook evenly.
As you can see from other answers, a good advice to quick thaw is to put the piece of meat on a zip bag and run it under warm mater.
it would be advisable only in very thin on finely minced meat, where the is no risk of the food cooking on the outside and staying frozen (or raw) on the inside.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as an amateur I stumbled on a way to cook frozen steak with amazing results. The main problem is the internal temp, and uneven cooking I just cut the steak into little cubes while it was still frozen, (not rock hard frozen, but thawed enough for me to cut through obviously). And keep turning while cooking - it's faster - your meet is now already cut, and it's a similar theory to how stir fry is cooked. I've had results that (with the right seasoning) made me feel like I was eating at Beni Hana's.
While I am sure that is safe, and probably delicious, I don't think it meets the general idea of what a steak is any more.
Based on my experience of working with meat in retail butchering preparation and sales settings for many years, and I have also been preparing meals for a forty year period.
I believe it is best practice to thaw frozen roasts as the thickness of the meat is an issue.
However, when it comes to steaks, chops, ribs or any meat which can be grilled it is not necessary to defrost. We simply place the meat on the oven grill or BBQ grill for a 7 -10 minute period after which it is then turned and left for a further 7 - 10 minute period. By this time the meat will be thoroughly defrosted right through and cooking beautifully
It can still be served either rare, medium rare or well done using this technique. We have found absolutely no difference to the texture, flavor or tenderness of meat cooked in this way in comparison to meat cooked fresh. We have compared the results with a frozen steak with a fresh steak cooking them at the same time and could find no difference in the end result.
I would not however cook frozen meat in a frying pan if you are wanting a flavorsome tender end result. In this instance I think the pan can not be made hot enough and the juices of the steak leak out and the meat is then sauteed instead of being seared quickly. In this situation if meat is to be pan fried because no grilling/BBQing is available then it is better to be fresh or defrosted.
I understand that it is not advisable to cook chicken frozen as the heat does not penetrate though to centre adding risk of samonella. I do cook roasts and corned silverside in slow cooker from frozen they usually turn out nice and tender with good flavour and I have never had any health problems.
Actually, thawing as part of the cooking process is a thawing method recommended by the FDA, and approved by most boards of health. The problem is getting a quality outcome in doing so.
It is possible, if cooking chunks of meat like beef/lamb steak, let it defrost for a bit so the outside is supple. Sear in a hot pan to brown the outside, then place in pre heated oven at 55c for 1 hour with 1 inch steaks medium rare, 4 hours for large cuts like beef fore rib or small leg of lamb.
Adjust temps for different tastes, medium 60c, well done 65. Chicken is best at 63c.
Check internal temp with a probe before serving.
I learned to cook as a very young, new bride from my husband's aunt who had cooked for the USO in World War II. I learned before microwave ovens were commercially available. This was in 1970.
I cooked chicken and rice from frozen cut up chickens and made spaghetti sauce from frozen ground beef. They were good and no one got sick. I expect the key was the moist heat and relatively long duration the meat was simmered.
Cooks Illustrated (the people behind America's Test Kitchen) recommends cooking steak frozen instead of thawed.
"Sampling the steaks side by side, tasters unanimously preferred the cooked-from-frozen steaks to their thawed counterparts." See also here for a video explanation.
I've just completed my yearly work, health and safety certificate, and under their guidelines it is an absolute NO to cook meat straight from the freezer - meat, poultry and fish must be thawed overnight in the cooler. I'm not sure what the reason behind this manadate, but I've decided to adopt this practice in my home as well.
That is certainly NOT true at least in US jurisdictions. Thawing as part of the cooking processes one of the explicitly permitted methods, along with thawing in the refrigerator, thawing by microwave, and thawing under running cool water. Many frozen convenience products are cooked directly from the frozen state.
Thawing quickly will do more damage to the cells, causing the consistency of the meat to be less "natural". This also affects taste negatively.
Is there any evidence for this? It is my understanding that cell damage is caused by the ice crystals that form during freezing. Shock freezing causes less damage to cells because the size of contiguous crystallized regions is smaller. Since all the damage is done at that point, I suspect that a potential effect of thawing speed is a myth.
Only personal experience. My personal home-cooked theory is that thawing quickly leads to a higher difference in temperature inside the material (warming it from the outside). This leads to more tension in cells, causing more damage.
As food safety is the foremost consideration here, I'd say it's OK to cook frozen food right out of the freezer. There's no germs involved, and any surviving germs will be thoroughly cooked by the oven or stove. And cooked germs/microbes taste good!
I BBQ meat taken directly from the freezer hundreds of times now. I can attest to the taste of my BBQ! meat and my good health.
As you are concerned with food safety I have to add from a culinary point of view: If you manage to get the internal temperature up to a safe level while not drying out the outside....
Oh my lord.... Cooking raw meat from frozen is a gamble. It can be very unsafe. If the inside of the meat doesn't come to temperature fast enough it is very very dangerous! Same deal with half way cooking meat and then freezing.unless you are working with fancy commercial flash freezers.. We are not capable of cooling it fast enough. I know lots of people do it. I also know almost always you can get by with it. But if you are at all concerned... Do not do it! Take a food handling class if you're interested. Typically available through te health department for a small fee.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.686160 | 2011-10-05T01:26:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18191",
"authors": [
"Amy Barrows",
"Anssssss",
"Degustibus Dan",
"Eclipse",
"FvD",
"Graham Stearns",
"Helen",
"Isobel Rix",
"Joe",
"Luke",
"Melllvar",
"Niklas",
"OptFirst Internet Marketing",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Stephie",
"Vikram Dutt",
"asjj",
"carla",
"coldice4",
"dogmom58",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133719",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133996",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21284",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39331",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39543",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5081",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84654",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87952",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94517",
"kamency26",
"mbarrows",
"mutluh"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
75495 | How should I prepare this smoked ham?
I just got a frozen ham. I have never dealt with a ham before.
If I don't need to eat it now, should I put it in the freezer or refrigerator? The package says "keep refrigerated". Does it mean it can be stored in the refrigerator at a temperature higher than 0°C?
If I want to eat it now, should I thaw the ham first by putting it in the refrigerator or outside at the room temperature?
After it is thawed, is it easy to use a regular knife to cut it into pieces? Note that the ham weighs about 4 lbs.
Since it is smoked, does it mean it is already cooked thoroughly or is it still raw? Do I need to cook it, and if yes, how?
Okay, there are a couple kinds of hams that you can deal with -
Dry cured - these hams are rubbed externally with a salt mixture, get covered with the salt mixture, which draws out much of the moisture, then are hung to further dry, and are smoked. These are also called "country" hams in the USA, and cured meats like Black Forest hams (Germany), jamon (Spain), prosciutto (Italy) all fall under this category, as well. Since they have such a low moisture content and a lot of the salt is in the meat, you would not receive this as frozen. These arrive in boxes, usually in some kind of a mesh or cloth bag, and can be kept at room temperature until you cook them. They do need to be scrubbed, skin and fat trimmed away, cooked in liquid to partially rehydrate, then cooked, thoroughly. These take a lot more time and effort to make, and their cost reflects that, but the flavor, because of less water content, is very intense. It is fantastic sliced thin after cooled/cold, as well.
Wikipedia - country hams
Most hams eaten in the USA, and ones that you generally buy at a grocery store, are water cured hams. The fact that it was frozen, the appearance, packaging and ingredients list all identify the ham you are asking about as a water cured ham. A saline/sugar/water solution is used to brine the ham.
While you can keep it in the fridge for a while, the brining method used here is more for flavor, not preservation, and those hams will go bad if you just leave them in the fridge for a long period of time.
Here is the USDA site with information about it, along with cooking times -
Ham that - USDA
Hams are either ready-to-eat or not, thus spoke the USDA. And, by its regulations, a ham that must be cooked has to show cooking and safe handling instructions.
Hams that are not ready-to-eat, but have the appearance of ready-to-eat products, will bear a prominent statement on the principal display panel (label) indicating the product needs cooking, e.g., "cook thoroughly." In addition, the label must bear cooking directions
The 'cured with' portion tells you that you have a wet-cured ham, one that was either injected or soaked in a solution of water and salt, sugar, etc. According to the label, it was smoked after curing.
Yes, you can keep it in the freezer, frozen; in the refrigerator section, it will gradually come to the same temperature as that area, which is how you would want to thaw before use. It will slice like other proteins, such as chicken or beef, using a regular knife. It is ready to consume, sliced, diced, or chopped into a ham salad. It can be fried up as a breakfast steak or heated, either as is, or glazed and oven-baked to 140°F internal temperature (safe because it is cured and pre-cooked).
Does the labeling rule apply to what might be not originally intended for sale to end customers? ("FOODSERVICE")
@Stephie I would think even more so; it bears the USDA stamp, as it has to, and should it be uncooked, it would also be required to have the warning and cooking instructions.
The SPECIFIC ham that you have pictured does not need to be cooked but should for the best result. There are no heating instructions due to the fact the restaurants are the ones that buy that particular brand. I suggest to oven bake it face down and fat up at 300 to 350 F, (150 to 175 C) until the internal temp is 140 to 145 F, (60 to 62.5 C.)
Cover the ham for a more juicy ham. Leave the fat exposed for a dryer crustier ham.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.687062 | 2016-11-14T23:14:43 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75495",
"authors": [
"Giorgio",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39489"
],
"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
} |
75704 | How shall I arrange my slowly-eating plan and preserve a box of 5Lb frozen eggs over a long period?
I have a box of 5Lb of frozen eggs with citric acid, where
1 Lb is 9 large eggs
Unopened product should be used within 3 days of thrawing.
Unused portion should be kept refrigerated and used within 24 hours of
opening
I can't eat all after thrawing and opening it. I can only eat 1 egg i.e. 3 table spoon per day. How shall I arrange my slowly-eating plan and store the remaining frozen eggs over a long period?
I would thaw one pound, and make something with it that I can freeze. For example. I bake quiches in leek and chard season - each quiche uses three eggs. They freeze beautifully once cooked (I slice them into servings before I freeze them) and it's easy to remove one slice, warm it in the microwave, and enjoy. So make three quiches and freeze them, you could eat two slices a day if you wanted to.
You could experiment with a variety of egg dishes that are not just "one egg, scrambled", or "one egg, fried" to use 9 eggs at a time. The internet is full of recipes for frittatas, quiches, soufflees, egg casseroles, and the like. Just remember to cook your creations before freezing, and to partition them for serving.
Tortilla (Spanish omelette) freezes well and is another to add to the list. You'd need a big freezer to get many portions in but you might also try pasta carbonara. Cake freezes OK too. But many egg-based foods are quite prone to freezer burn.
How do you go about thawing 1 pound?
Probably the most useful idea is to thaw the whole box, and promptly open it and refreeze in single-egg sized, or divisible into single-egg sized portions (maybe using an ice cube tray? three, one tbs cubes per "egg"). Frozen egg cubes can probably be packed in the box again for storage purposes - or else some freezer-safe container, clearly labeled. You might wait until you have some egg-intensive need (baking day?) that will let you use up a fair portion of the product all at once - and recall that egg cooked into something will have its own safe storage times, likely longer than just the 24 hours if properly stored.
Once the box is thawed and opened, you have twenty four hours before it needs to be used - that can include refreezing (which pauses the time spent), as long as you remember that the time that has passed is still gone - ie, assume your re-frozen egg portions are only good for 20 hours in the fridge after re-thawing, if it took you 4 hours to freeze all the egg.
Of course, if you really don't want to thaw and re-portion before re-freezing, the only other option I can think of is to very carefully cut the box off of the still-frozen eggs, and while keeping it very cold (intermittently sticking back in the freezer if it looks like it's thawing?), cut into smaller, more manageable cubes freehand, then quickly pack up and store in the freezer again.
Also worth pointing out - you can cook with the egg, and keep the products for longer than just the egg. Foods kept in the fridge usually have 5-7 days, I think, but you can freeze foods that have been cooked with egg as well, nearly indefinitely. It likely won't use up your five pounds, unless you do a major holiday baking day to feed the whole family plus gifts, but it may use up a fair portion and then you can refreeze the rest.
Considering the text "shake well before using" I'm not sure how homogeneous the mixture is while frozen so I'm not sure if cutting it up without defrosting is going to work.
@Catija - fair point, but I suppose it would depend on how non-homogeneous it looks after the box is opened if someone would like to try that way anyway. Or, of course, they can thaw it first. Or maybe slushy the stuff and refreeze it from partially frozen, that might let you mix it without thawing
I had read you are not supposed to refreeze raw protiens. http://www.thekitchn.com/5-foods-you-should-never-refreeze-tips-from-the-kitchn-212039
Thanks. does your last paragraph suggest me to cook all in the box, divide the cooked eggs into portions per day, and re-freeze them?
@Paparazzi - It looks like that's mostly a texture thing, which I don't think will apply to already-frozen eggs - egg's texture changes dramatically with cooking, unlike frozen meats. And even that link says that it may be safe to refreeze if thawed in the fridge, just perhaps with poorer texture.
@Tim - you can do it that way, if you know how you are going to want to cook the eggs and are prepared to do all the cooking for the whole batch at once. Mostly I was suggesting using as large a portion of your eggs as you can figure out how in this manner, and re-freezing the rest - since I can't think of much I'd want to cook that much egg's worth at once.
You have 45 eggs and can only eat one per day. By the rules you would only be able to eat 2 (consume open within 24 hours).
I assume the 24 hours is based on oxygen contact. Let's say it thaws in 1 day then quickly pour some off in a small container you fill up so there is no oxygen. You should be able to get a full 3 days out of that but then you are still only up to 4 days.
Cook what is left over from the first and freeze 2-3 day portions. According to this can get 4 months. how to freeze cooked eggs
Your assumption that it is "based on oxygen contact" is wrong. As soon as you introduce potential contamination (open the container) the clock starts ticking.
@rumtscho Really? I have a degree in chemical engineering. Time to contaminates and volume of contaminates are big big factors.
And there is a difference between chemical engineering and public health legislation.
@rumtscho Now this is legislative issue?
Yes - food safety is a mixture of epidemiology, sociology and law. Or maybe I should say "science communication" instead of "sociology", or in addition to it - the lines are blurry. Chemical reaction are usually disregarded, except in some rare cases.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.687420 | 2016-11-21T14:42:06 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75704",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Chris H",
"Megha",
"Tim",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"paparazzo",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
39985 | Cranberries taste bitter
Today I bought a small bag of cranberries. I ate some but they tasted bitter. I was wondering if they can be eaten directly?
Cranberries are just about always sweetened. In their natural state, they are extremely tart. They're safe unsweetened, just not pleasant.
Most people would characterize cranberries as sour, not bitter. If yours truly taste bitter, something is probably wrong and they should be discarded.
While it is safe to eat normal cranberries raw or cooked, usually they are made into sweetened dishes because they are so sour.
Agreed, they aren't really bitter - I suspect the OP may be interpreting an unpleasant combination of very sour and astringent as bitter.
It depends on the cranberries you get but sometimes they can have bitter notes; it's not harmful. Generally if they're more ripe (deeper red) you won't experience that.
Well I'm very curious - I would characterize cranberries as bitter, not sour (lemons are sour, for instance), so I guess it depends on an individual's taste buds. I use fresh cranberries every year to make cranberry sauce around Christmas - I don't use quite as much sugar as the recipe calls for, but even when I do, there's still a back taste of bitterness. This bitterness is allayed somewhat by the addition of port to the recipe, I find. It seems to be the nature of the fruit, and it makes a very good accompaniment to both duck, goose, turkey and chicken, as far as my taste buds are concerned. Certainly, cranberry juice also has that back taste of bitterness and leaves a sort of dry, faintly bitter feel in the mouth, and this is often a reason why many of my friends and relatives don't like cranberry juice on its own - mixed with other fruits (raspberry for instance) the bitterness is almost completely disguised. I certainly wouldn't want to eat one fresh.
When you say "dry, faintly bitter" it makes it sound like you're in fact talking about astringency - which cranberries certainly do have.
@Jefromi Yup, that's probably a good adjective, hadn't thought of it. Definitely applicable to cranberry juice.
Are you still trying to say there's an actual bitter flavor, beyond the astringency?
Astringent, tart, bitter, sour...and a partridge in a pear tree...
@Jefromi: Yes, actually, I am, though I'm thinking specifically of cranberry sauce here, which is not so much astringent but more slightly bitter. It's the juice to which 'astringent' is the best adjective. But I think taste perception is down to how many taste buds and how good a sense of smell you have, and that differs between people.
In West Bengal we call it Karonja the plant is of lemon-plant height and thorny. The fruit is green or with reddish-stripe but when ripes it becomes blackish as congealed blood. The taste of the fruit is so sour that one has to make a sound with his tounge with closed eyes. Funny is that when it ripes become sweet and sour. This is my personal experience. I have tasted it plucking from the Plant. So, I can't agree with the view that the fruit is of bitter taste. Ofcourse, if it is the same fruit you have talked about.I am sure the fruit is same because I have seen the whole Fruit and parted fruit.
You are talking about Carissa carandas, while the original question is about Vaccinum macrocarpon. Those are two different plants.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.687904 | 2013-12-05T02:22:45 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39985",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Casey",
"Jolenealaska",
"Stephie",
"bamboo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61020"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
18376 | Washing Vegetables With And Storing Lemon Essential Oil?
According to this article it is better to use lemon essential oil when washing vegetables. It is said to add prepared mixture to spray bottle but nothing about if it is possible to store spray bottle and under which temperature.
This is why i ask this question here. Maybe somebody knows?
Also, is it critical to store mixture in a clean new spray bottle or i can use cleaned spray bottle from windows cleaning detergent?
Thanks.
I would strongly suggest not to do that. First, WikiHow and random YouTube videos are not such a great source of information, and this thing is just wacky. The idea that you can dissolve hydrophobic residue on fruit with oil may be OK, but it won't happen with a few drops of oil in water, you'll need to wash the fruit in pure oil (which leaves you with the problem to remove the oil from the fruit). Second, commercially sold essential oils are not food grade, a bottle I found in the cupboard is clearly marked as irritant and has some boilerplate about seeking medical help if ingested.
Sites like wikiHow and eHow are widely considered to be content farms with unreliable content. For things that are already common knowledge, they'll probably be just one more highly SEOed copy of it on the internet, but then there are tons of articles like this. I'd suggest avoiding them altogether, since if you "learn" anything new, you have to go check somewhere else whether it's true or not anyway.
@rumtscho What if i clean with lemon juice but not oil? What is the difference between both actually? I can also use lemon acid or lemon sauce?
An essential oil is produced by distillation and/or steeping plant matter in a solvent (and the solvent can be toxic when ingested). It chemically extracts the aromatic compounds of the plant. A juice is produced by pressing, and contains the water-based fluid from the fruit, but no solvents. The video recommends using oil, because it fears that the fruit surface is contaminated with water insoluble pesticides. If we assume that there are such pesticides and there is sense in removing them, it is physically impossible for juice, citric acid, or drops of essential oil in water to remove them.
But I doubt very much that there is any need to do it. There are laws against selling fruit covered in toxic pesticides (except fruit with inedible rind), and government inspections make sure that producers/importers comply. Washing fruit with pure water is enough to make it safe to eat. Until somebody publishes a peer-reviewed study that washing with something else makes it significantly safer (as opposed to somebody spreading untested ideas on YouTube), there is no need to wash with anything else. If you are still afraid of pesticides, buy organic fruit, it has none per definition.
I was once washing Ocra bought on market and it was dirty in some places. Washing it with water did not clean dirt from these places. That is when i though about a solution that helps to clean dirt in hardly accessible spots.
Soap and a sponge work well. Just make sure you rinse carefully. If you use dish soap, it's quite safe.
@MarthaF. But FDA are against this.
I don't see a point to doing this at all. The lemon oil may act as a mild surfactant in larger quantity. Use water and elbow-grease to clean your veggies -- you're primarily trying to remove dirt. Use of Scotch Brite-style scrubbing pads (so long as they're detergent-free) works nicely for heartier veggies like carrots and potatoes, and a vegetable brush or cloth for more delicate things.
If you're trying to kill germs, you may want to try soaking briefly in a VERY mild bleach solution. If you're trying to prevent browning via oxidation, particularly in cut vegetables, acidulated water should do the trick -- add some lemon juice or crushed vitamin C tablets to water and soak until needed.
"The lemon oil may act as a mild surfactant in larger quantity". Is that good or bad for effective cleaning?
Surficants are good at cleaning. Citrus oils are added to soaps to help with this. But to use pure lemon oil in a quantity that would act as a soap, you'd be spending way too much money. You're better off just getting some sort of food-grade soap.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.688499 | 2011-10-15T09:07:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18376",
"authors": [
"Aaron Traas",
"Alan Johnson",
"Boris_yo",
"Cascabel",
"Eli Wrathall",
"Martha F.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39746",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41820",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7769",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
50348 | Is it safe to drink the whey?
If you make cheese with starter culture and rennet is the whey that is a byproduct of this process safe to drink? I have heard from some that there does exist some who are fond of drinking this but I'm not sure if the whey from rennet is safe?
If you don't want to use it as-is, you can make ricotta from it : https://www.fiascofarm.com/dairy/ricotta.html
Whey is an excellent source of protein and whey protein in particular is used in many body-building supplements.
Please see the excerpt below from FARMcurious .
Drink Up! – The acidic tang of whey may be a bit of an acquired tasted but I actually find it refreshing. Cultured whey has pro-biotics that can help balance the microflora in your gut as an extra bonus to the protein.
The web page gives a lot of information about whey and the many other uses for it as well as a great tip for storing.
Hope this helps!
Whey is an excellent element when making soup. I generally use it with home made stock. It adds complexity in a good way.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.688856 | 2014-12-05T16:53:28 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50348",
"authors": [
"Dana Lacher",
"Das Fantastico",
"David Smith",
"Gil Wojciechowski",
"Joe",
"Lynn olszewski",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120760",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"nertaliraine Saint louis"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
20138 | What are the ways of classifying bread?
What words and dimensions are used to describe bread and their recipes?
I realize describing bread is subjective, I'm only looking for common words to describe bread.
This is waaaaaaaaaaaay too general. I could describe it using any of thousands and thousands of adjectives...
It would seem general among most amateurs and hobbyists. But
I imagine it wouldn't be to general among professional chefs who commonly use a select or standardized way of describing bread. Like the standard words used to describe beer tasting.
Asking "how do you describe beer?" would be way too general, too.
You're asking for all the professional jargon to describe a finished loaf, and the doughs, all the ingredients, the techniques, etc. It's still extremely general at that.
Ah sorry for the confusion. After reading some of the Answers we have gotten so far it looks like I should have used the word 'classifying" instead of describing. I have made the edit above.
This is a very general question, but I can see some use in it. If (for example) you have a recipe that says "shape into bâtards", that might not make any sense to the amateur.
So if you're looking for a straight definition of bread related terms; check out the baking glossary at the fresh loaf
As for the shapes of breads, this link from recipetips seems to be a good start.
Lifted from the first link:
Banneton: a woven basket, sometimes lined with linen, used to hold a shaped loaf while it is proofing.
Batard: a loaf that has an oval or oblong shape.
Biga: a term used variously as a very stiff (~50% hydration preferment), or as a generic term for preferment.
Boule: a round loaf (French for "ball").
Brotform: a coiled cane basket used to hold a shaped loaf while it is proofing.
Couche: heavy linen fabric used to hold formed loaves for proofing. The fabric can be pleated around the loaves to help them hold their shape.
Crumb: When a baker talks about the crumb they are talking about the pattern of holes inside of a loaf.
Fermentation: (1) the process by which yeast metabolizes sugars to produce carbon dioxide and alcohol (2) (aka bulk fermentation, first fermentation) the period of time the dough rests after mixing and before dividing/shaping.
Folding: one of the best ways of encouraging gluten development in slack doughs. Folding the dough consists of taking a wet dough out of the bowl, spreading it out a little on a clean, well-floured surface, folding it in thirds like a letter, rotating it 90 degrees and folding it up again, picking it up and dusting the loose flour off of it, and then returning the dough to the bowl and covering it again. Like punching down, folding degases the dough some, but it also encourages gluten development.
Gluten: "A tenacious elastic protein of wheat flour that gives cohesiveness to dough." Gluten is what allows bread dough to develop those long, beautiful strands and create large open pockets of air (think about the inside of a loaf of Ciabatta compared to the inside of a muffin). Bread flours tend to be made from hard wheats that are higher in protein than regular flour, providing more gluten.
Hydration: the ratio of liquid ingredients (primarily water) to flour in the dough. A dough with 500g of flour and 340g of water has a hydration of 68% (340/500).
Lame: a thin blade on a handle, used to score (slash) loaves before baking.
Levain: usually used as a synonym for sourdough.
Pâte fermentée (aka prefermented dough): a type of preferment in which the ingredients (flour, water, yeast, salt) are mixed in the same proportion as (usually) a basic white bread dough at about 65% hydration.
Poolish: A type of sponge. Typically quite wet, an equal weight of water and flour with an extremely small amount of yeast. For my batch of two French Bread loaves, I typically use 8 ounces of water, 8 ounces of bread flour, and 1/8 teaspoon a instant yeast. Mix it, cover the bowl, and leave it at room temperature overnight.
Proof: (1) the final rise of the shaped loaves before baking (2) the hydration of dry active yeast in water before it is added to the dough
Score (aka slash or dock): to cut the surface of the loaf prior to baking. This provides for controlled expansion of the loaves during baking so they do not “break” undesirably. Scoring is also used to enhance the appearance of the bread.
Sourdough: a preferment that is a culture of wild yeast and bacteria that is perpetuated by the periodic addition of flour and water, or a bread leavened in whole or part by this culture.
sponge: Also known as a "preferment," a sponge is a portion of the ingredients that is mixed ahead of time, typically overnight. Using a sponge extends the fermentation process longer and generally releases more complex flavors in your loaf. It can also be used to soften dry ingredients (such as whole grains) and release sugars from the grains.
Your answer will fare better if you actually summarize the information then list your link as reference.
The Bread Baker's Apprentice has a 2-page long chart of different types of breads; in terms of classifying (not "describing") them, they look at the following:
Water Content - literally the amount of water in the bread. From lowest to highest you have Stiff, Standard, or Rustic.
Richness - the amount of fat, primarily, but also sugar, milk, eggs, or anything else to provide a richer mouth-feel.
Fermentation - direct or indirect specifies whether or not there is pre-fermentation.
Leavening - various categories describe the type of leavener used, including commercial yeast, wild yeast, chemical leavening, or a mix.
Flatbreads have their own designation and can also describe unleavened breads.
That's enough to classify the vast majority of breads out there.
As far as "describing" bread goes, that is entirely subjective and culture-dependent. For anything more detailed, you really need to go and read a book - there's far too much literature to condense into a single Q&A thread.
As for judging crumb, my favorite two terms used by German Meister Bakers are juicy (saftig) and woolly (wollig).
The first, praise for tarter breads such as sour rye; the second for toast bread and lunch rolls.
An unflattering term would be cotton (Baumwolle) for flavorless and dry fluff.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.689110 | 2012-01-03T05:08:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20138",
"authors": [
"Deonnetti De Antoni",
"Flimzy",
"Gabriel Fair",
"LaChocolaterie",
"Lizozom",
"N. Syiemlieh",
"Something",
"congusbongus",
"greg blonder",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44042",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44044",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8332",
"kujiy",
"mfg",
"pdg137",
"rawbee",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
66277 | Making cheese sauce
I have been doing the following and was wondering if there is a term for how I make cheese sauce?
I first get a lump of butter and then with a fork knead a bit of flour in. I'm sure there is a fancy French term for that. I make the flour mixture in a saucepan, with about two spoonfuls of flour and about two spoonfuls of butter. On a gentle heat, stirring constantly, I gradually add about two cups of milk.
When the white sauce is good but has a slightly runny consistency I add the grated cheddar (two cups) which seems to thicken it.
When I have a nice bit of sauce I then add two cups of grated cheddar. This seems to thicken up the sauce nicely. I sometimes also add a little bit of fat that is left from the ground beef for some added flavour.
Is this a traditional French way to make cheese sauce? I'm also interested in knowing if this produces a sauce like people might use for lasagne?
I'm going to guess there's some heating in there somewhere? You don't say anything about it, though.
Can voters please explain the close vote? Casting a vote to close and not leaving a comment is not good.
You haven't thoroughly explained your process, as I stated an hour ago. You don't say anything about heat, so should we assume all ingredients are hot? or should we assume all of them are cold? You need to add more detail to your question.
I'd recommend http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/4381/67 ... then add cheese. Although it sounds like you're starting with 'kneaded butter', rather than a roux.
OK I have made an edit hopefully it is more clear now.
People still seem to be a bit confused: are you heating/cooking the butter and flour together in the pan before adding the milk, or just putting it in the pan and immediately adding milk and heating?
I took a stab at editing; please edit further to add details like I asked about or if I've messed anything up. Note that it's much more helpful if you edit the original text, rather than adding things onto the end, so that people can just read it once and completely understand.
Considering the update to your question, you seem to have a sort of hybrid of two methods. The "Traditional" French method to make a cheese sauce, or Mornay, is described in the steps below with some additional notes at the bottom of alternate methods. If you go through this process to the "Bechamel" step, you'll get the white sauce often used for lasagna.
An alternate method, which uses kneaded butter and flour as described in your question is called a beurre manié. The difference between the traditional method for this and your method is that you place the kneaded mixture in a pan and start heating it and gradually add milk while a traditional beurre manié would be added directly to hot liquid as a thickening agent. Once it has reached your desired thickness, you can then add cheese to make it into a cheese sauce.
If you are heating your kneaded butter/flour paste so that it's actually melting down and cooking a bit before beginning to add the milk, then it's more similar to the roux preparation, though a roux doesn't require kneading the two ingredients together before putting them in the pan, though I don't suppose it would hurt.
Roux
A roux is the first step in a traditional French cheese sauce. It's the process of cooking together equal parts of flour and fat and is used to thicken various sauces and gravies.
Roux is flour and fat cooked together and used to thicken sauces. The fat is butter in French cuisine, but may be lard or vegetable oil in other cuisines. The roux is used in three of the mother sauces of classical French cooking: béchamel sauce, velouté sauce, and espagnole sauce. Clarified butter, vegetable oils, bacon drippings or lard are commonly used fats. It is used as a thickener for gravy, other sauces, soups and stews. It is typically made from equal parts of flour and fat by weight.
Different sauces will need you to cook the flour-fat mixture to a certain point. White sauces will generally cook until pale tan/yellow while others will cook until slightly darker and the general rule is, the darker the roux, the less it thickens but the more flavor it offers.
The fat is heated in a pot or pan, melting it if necessary. Then the flour is added. The mixture is stirred until the flour is incorporated and then cooked until at least the point where a raw flour taste is no longer apparent and the desired colour has been reached. The final colour can range from nearly white to nearly black, depending on the length of time it is over the heat and its intended use. The end result is a thickening and flavoring agent.
Bechamel
When you add milk to your roux when it is in the whiter end of the color spectrum, you get a bechamel sauce. The amount of milk added will determine the end thickness of the sauce.
Béchamel is traditionally made by melting a quantity of butter, and adding an equal part of flour to make a roux, which is cooked under gentle heat while stirring with a whisk. As it is a white sauce, care must be taken not to brown the roux. Then heated milk is gradually whisked in, and the sauce is cooked until thickened and smooth. The proportion of roux and milk determines the thickness of the sauce, typically one to three tablespoons each of flour and butter per cup of milk.
One tablespoon each of butter and flour per cup of milk makes a thin, easily pourable sauce. Two tablespoons of each makes a medium thick sauce. Three tablespoons of each makes an extra thick sauce, such as used to fill croquettes or as a soufflé base. Salt and white pepper are added and it is customary in Italy to add a pinch of nutmeg.
It is common to find lasagna made with bechamel sauce - though it doesn't have to be - many people make it with ricotta or even cottage cheese instead of the sauce.
Cheese Sauce
While you certainly could call the final cheese sauce a Mornay, the traditional Mornay is made with Gruyere cheese though it can be made with other cheeses, including cheddar - even your addition of "extra fat" could be considered similar to the traditional addition of an egg yolk, which has a high-fat content, to a Mornay - it could also more specifically be referred to by the English name "Cheddar sauce" which is commonly used for Macaroni and cheese and other applications.
Other Cheese Sauce Methods
That being said, there are tons of different ways to make cheese sauce that range from this version (and the beurre manié) all the way to simply melting a cheese that melts well into a sauce with no thickeners at all. This is commonly done with special cheese products like "Velveeta" in the US.
Other options, like this recipe for nacho sauce, use thickeners in the form of cornstarch and add evaporated milk to help prevent the cheese from separating into an unsightly mess of solids and grease. See their testing process here.
The fancy French name for the first step is called Beurre manie. It is different from roux, which is a cooked mixture of flour and fat, and has not just "a bit" of flour, but almost 50%.
This makes your sauce officially "not a Mornay". The traditional classification of sauces is very strict, and if you change one step (in this case thickening with a beurre manie instead of a roux), it is not considered the same thing. As I don't know of a traditional sauce made the way you are making it, I would say that your sauce is just not part of the repertoire of classic French sauces and so does not have a name derived from them.
If this is the standard way people around you make cheese sauce, then the proper name for it will be "cheese sauce".
I had at first thought that your question is purely about culinary language. I now noticed you have two more questions on the bottom.
Is this a traditional French way to make such sauce? No, not at all. The traditional way involves a roux, used as described in Catija's answer. Beurre manie is rather unusual for this type of sauce, and if it is used, it is dropped when very cold into the prepared sauce, making it closer to a liaison sauce.
Can you use this sauce in lasagna? Sure you can. There are many variations of lasagna, with different sauces, and it is up to you to choose the one you find tasty.
Interesting... though both methods traditionally use a 50-50 mixture of flour and fat... but the OP says nothing about the heating method. It certainly seems the kneading matches but the gradual addition of milk sounds more like bechamel while the method for berurre meanie is to add the glob of flour butter to hot milk...
@Catija "kneading then gradual addition of milk" is certainly not bechamel. For bechamel, you have to cook your roux, so you are not kneading. Also, gradually adding the milk will facilitate clumping if at least one of the ingredients is hot. I guess you could use a gradual addition in the cold/cold method, but that's an unusual one in home kitchens, which don't prepare roux in advance to keep it in the fridge and take it out cool.
I'm not saying you're wrong... I'm saying the OP seems to be using an oddly mixed up version of both. He never says if the milk is hot... which it must be for this method. And you wouldn't gradually add the hot milk in this preparation, you have a pot of hot milk and chunk the balls of beurre manie into it and whisk.
What you are making could be called a Mornay sauce. More often it is made with Gruyere, but there are many variations that use other cheeses such as Swiss, Cheddar, Emmental, Parmesan, as well as others. Some traditional recipes for Mornay sauce also call for egg yolks.
To break your questions down more, the mixture of butter and flour is a roux. You want to cook/heat this long enough that the 'raw' taste of the flour is gone. In a traditional Béchamel sauce, this is what would thicken the sauce as you would not be adding cheese which also helps to thicken it.
Béchamel is one of the 'Mother Sauces', which can be used on their own or as a base for other sauces. Some interesting reading about the sauces can be found at Stella Culinary . Here is an excerpt from the page:
Since we covered so much ground in the French Mother Sauce Series, both on the blog and podcast, I figured it would be a good idea to place all the information in one, easy to find post. The mother of all mother sauce resources if you will.
So here it is; a list of the mother sauces with their corresponding podcast episodes, classic components, serving suggestions, and how to posts.
But first, a quick history lesson.
A Brief History of The Mother Sauces
The French mother sauces were originally four base sauces set forth by Antonin Careme in the 19th century. Careme’s four original mother sauces were Allemande, Bechamel, Veloute and Espagnole.
In the 20th century, Chef Auguste Escoffier demoted Allemande to a secondary sauce of Veloute, and added Sauce Tomat and Hollandaise.
One Last Thing…
Some of the classic versions of these sauces use different thickening agents to bring the sauce to its proper consistency. If you’re unfamiliar with thickening agents such as roux, liasons, or emulsions, you can follow the corresponding links for more information.
Yes, you're right. That is the traditional way of making cheese sauce. You can use the same recipe when making lasagne too, however it depends on the type of lasagne your making. A traditional lasagne would use white sauce along with a tomato sauce. White sauce follows the same steps in making as a cheese sauce, but without the cheese.
Is the white sauce called a buchamel?
Yes -- Béchamel
Is what I'm making Mornay sauce?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.689666 | 2016-02-07T09:47:03 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66277",
"authors": [
"633 S Plymouth",
"Adrian Sagman",
"Alvin LeBlanc",
"Carmen Rosekat",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Emily Bogan",
"Erica",
"Jaye Adam",
"Joe",
"Joe Furny",
"Josh Ramwell",
"Laura Turnbull",
"Mary Holton",
"Neil Meyer",
"Sara Eatman",
"Seamus Diver",
"Spammer",
"Teresa Radake",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158681",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158701",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158702",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158703",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158706",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158711",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158712",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158716",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158717",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho",
"umit guzel"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
59687 | What do I substitute for Greek yogurt in a pizza dough?
The two ingredient pizza dough recipe calls for 1 cup of Greek Yogurt and 1-1 1/2 self rising flour. I can't find 'Greek Yogurt' where I live. Can I use 'natural yogurt'? Or whatever.
Greek yogurt is typically thicker than natural yogurt, you may not get a thick enough result.
possible duplicate of Substitutions for greek yogurt?
This question is about substituting in dough, while the other is about a sauce, so I think it's not quite a duplicate. You can get away with a lot more in sauces than you can in baked goods.
You can make your own version of Greek yogurt and it will be even better than what you buy in the stores. What you need to do is buy "plain unflavored yogurt", preferably full fat or whole milk. Then get a cheese cloth, and put the yogurt into the cheese cloth that is covering a bowl (please make sure the cheese cloth or a very thin cotton type wash cloth not (like a bath towel) but very smooth like a bed sheet, is secured over a bowl so that the yogurt can drain and the cloth will stay in place. It will take an hour or maybe two or even three, but the water will come out of the yogurt and it will be thicker and richer. I think the water that comes out is called whey. Preferably buy a middle eastern brand of yogurt, or an Armenian or even Russian brand. There is something different in those brands that tastes a little bit better, especially if you get the water out, Mountain High is also good. You can also buy something called "lebni" but that is a different product of yogurt, similar process, but if you try what I say, it will work fine. If you do this with nonfat or lowfat, it is ok also, but we prefer the whole milk style and my friends and family do not like the Greek yogurt at all. Funny, my Greek friends don't care for Greek yogurt either. We find Greek yogurt has more of a cloudy taste rather than a crispier creamier fresher taste and not so heavy and old as Greek yogurt. Good Luck
What we Americans call "Greek Yogurt" is called "strained Yogurt" by about everyone else: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strained_yogurt
user33210 has given a good summary of how to make the stuff from regular yogurt. Here's a website with pictures and everything: How to Strain Yogurt: http://toriavey.com/how-to/2011/08/how-to-strain-yogurt/
The point of the yogurt in this recipe is both flavor and for the acid in the yogurt to react with the leavening agents in the self-rising flour (usually baking powder) so that the dough will rise.
Greek-style yogurt is regular yogurt that is strained to remove most of the liquid (yes, it is whey) and you can do this yourself the way user33210 instructs. You want a texture like a very soft cheese. You'll need about 2 c regular yogurt to end up with 1 c of Greek-style strained yogurt.
The flavor of the resulting strained yogurt will depend on the yogurt you start with and how you handle it while straining it.
If you strain it in the refrigerator it will stay unchanged, if you strain it outside the refrigerator it will tend to become more sour as the yogurt bacteria become more active.
Actual Greek yogurt from Greece doesn't taste exactly the same as Greek-style yogurt from the US, but the difference probably doesn't matter for this recipe. Yogurt from different countries use slightly different bacteria cultures and also may tend to be milder or more sour, thicker or thinner styles. The sourness will affect the taste of your resulting dough if it is extremely sour.
I find purchased Greek yogurt and American yogurt are both on the mild side, although I've had homestyle yogurt in Greece that was stronger. If it is an American recipe it is probably expecting a mild-flavored strained yogurt.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.690591 | 2015-08-07T09:07:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59687",
"authors": [
"Bob Bryan",
"Cascabel",
"Clarence Adams",
"GdD",
"Jenny Rist",
"Mike S.",
"Nassaucounty09",
"Russell Chenoweth",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142645",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142652",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142658",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142661",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"larry deitcher",
"pete jaram"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
65310 | How do I cook large quantities of sliced bacon?
This question is pretty straightforward. Are there ways to take a sliced slab of bacon (i.e. a whole large package) and effectively cook all the slices to be used in standard scenarios, like breakfast? Non-microwave methods are strongly preferred.
I probably should have mentioned that by large quantities I mean about 20 lbs or so I want to quickly complete multiple batches
It really depends on how you're planning on using the bacon:
If you're going to be crumbling it anyway, you can cut it across the strips, and drop it into a pan and slowly render it, then turn up the heat to let it crisp. You might also need to drain the grease part way through.
If you're willing to take a loss in flavor ... you can separate it into slices and simmer it. It won't crisp up, but you can par-cook it, and then finish it using some other method.
If you have the time & equipment to sous-vide it as moscafj mentioned, I suspect you'd get a similar effect as simmering, but wouldn't lose as much flavor. I'd also recommend splitting it up some to increase the surface-to-mass ratio as much as possible while still fitting in the bag, to decrease the cooking time.
If you want strips, the easiest bulk method is cooking it in the oven. If you have multiple sheet pans and cooling racks (or use a broiler pan), you can cook a whole pound of bacon at once. It can take an hour if you're cooking it slowly, but it's mostly unattended. (although using a broiler pan requires flipping them over a few times).
If you do go with the simmer method, save the water for some other meal later (eg, beans & rice).
Oven has usually been my go to method for up to 1.5 lbs of bacon. Here I'm going to have to deal with a whole lot more bacon, upwards of 10 lbs, though at the final point of serving a large skillet top is available so I can always do the final browning there. This still presents the challenge of getting 10 lbs of bacon cooked and prepared and still warm previous to that point
@Skyler : you could par-cook it in the oven, so that it at least shrinks so that you can fit more on per tray. Most people don't complain about room temp bacon if it's cooked crispy (if it's flabby, that's its own problem). You can also cook it stove-top, and then move it to a tray in the oven on warm to hold it 'til you're ready to serve people.
I must say... Although my method still takes some attending I cook about 900 grams of bacon in approximately 4 minutes. It gets crisp but not brittle. "How?" you ask... I deepfry it. It's amazing!
When making bacon for a group, I generally just take about half the slab, drop it into a pan, and separate it with a fork while the pan heats up. If you had a big enough pan and don't mind crowding, you can use the entire slab at once, but I find half at a time simpler. Maybe grab two pans?
If you're going to cook large batches in a pan, I find it useful to cut the slices in half (so they're shorter) before cooking -- it allows me to fit them better into the pan to make the most of the surface area.
If you mean to cook it together as it comes out of the package rather than by separating each piece, then I would say no you don't want to do this. The pieces will get glued together, and the finished product will be more like salt pork rather than bacon that you are accustomed.
Try a double griddle. The middle is not going to cook as fast but just let it cook a little longer. As you lay them down you can overlap a bit as they will shrink. Overlap with fat side on the grill for faster shrinking. Start on far side for less grease splatter on you. Thick slices will be less slices for the same weight.
Cooking bacon at high temperatures causes the fat and muscle to contract at more divergent rates, yielding crinkly bacon. Plus, bacon has plently of fat, none has to be added! So, for large batches, I usually just place a large wire wrack of bacon in the oven over a pan to catch the drippings. 425 F for 20 minutes, plus/minus 2-3 minutes depending on the cut thickness.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.690926 | 2016-01-12T05:33:00 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65310",
"authors": [
"Deborah O'Donnell",
"Deonrossouw",
"Dermatology Facial Treatment",
"Gladys Miller",
"Jermaine Hamilton",
"Joe",
"Karen Blackmore",
"Male Liposuction",
"Rolly Abella",
"Shane Brown",
"Skyler",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156121",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156153",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25327",
"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
} |
67191 | Homemade Corn Flour
I have a wondermill which I use for grinding wheat (I think it grinds it by blowing it through blades of something). Is there is some way for me to dry out frozen corn kernels so that I can send them through the grinder and come out with flour?
If I can grind dry corn somehow, is this something that'd risk breaking the machine? Please don't recommend a method if it's risky!
If you could, what you get wouldn't be your standard corn meal.
There are a few different varieties of corn, and what you get frozen would be 'sweet corn'. Corn meal and corn masa are made from either 'flour corn', 'dent corn' (aka 'field corn') or 'flint corn', all of which are lower sugar, higher starch, and allowed to dry in the field.
You'd have better luck trying to grind popcorn into flour. (which is yet another variety of corn, but has a harder outer husk that allows it to pop)
You might be able to find suitable corn for grinding in latin markets (as it's used to make masa for tortillas), or in feed stores (as it's used for animal feed).
Why would sweet corn not work as well? Do sugars and starches have an effect on grinders?
Sugar is good at gooing up blades. I use a screw grinder wherw that shouldn't be a problem, but the high speed spinners with hundredes of cutting blades are not going to like material build up on what should be sharp edges.
Corn is harder than wheat. I use a corn mill to grind corn.
That said, question 4 here makes the claim that your mill will grind dried corn nicely. I'd start with just a quarter cup or so to see what happens, then work my way up if all seems well.
Thank you for your answer, the wondermill website has a link to willitgrind which tells in detail what my grinder can, and cannot grind.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.691377 | 2016-03-07T21:10:26 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67191",
"authors": [
"Ann Kady",
"Annette Sloane",
"Beverly Taylor",
"Melissa Benton",
"Mindi Reich-Shapiro",
"Sarah Klco",
"Sean Garland",
"Shirley Garrison",
"That One Actor",
"Toni Glandon",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161202",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161233",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35334",
"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
} |
70522 | Why does pressure cooking of chicken eggs make eggs easier to peel?
In an experiment, I cooked a 12 organic chicken eggs from the same batch:
A) 6 in boiling water and
B) 6 in a pressure cooker:
6 eggs in a basket which is on a tripod inside the cooker
5 minutes in hot steam at 117 °C
waited 5 minutes to cool down until the pressure was at room level
alternatively I cooled the cooker with cold water from outside until the pressure was gone.
In both experiments the eggs were put in the cold cooker without a hole in the shell. The eggs were put in a bowl with cold water in the end.
I found that the shell and membrane of the pressure-cooked eggs were a lot easier to remove. (The eggs also seemed to taste fresher and more intense.) I could not find a reason or explanation. I have repeated this since 2016 once a week.
The effect is remarkable, because organic eggs are often much more difficult to peel than factory farming eggs.
Is there an explanation for the pressure-cooked eggs being easier to peel?
I would like to see reliable sources (e.g. papers or other trustworthy publications), not just personal opinions.
@Stephie yes. Added this now to my question. Thank you for pointing me to this.
Time for the boiling water version?
My opinion is you should not give orders about opinions. Fresher and more intense is an opinion. Do you have any quantitative data to back that opinion.
I steam eggs in a regular pot and get great results in peelability. Check out Foodwishes soft hard boiled eggs.
Yes, I wrote a post about this a few years ago - the first to describe the method in a home pressure cooker. The theory goes that the pressure difference inside and outside the egg PLUS the shock of the cold facilitates the detachment of membrane from the shell. The Kitchn tried and confirmed my method and many of my readers will no longer hard boil an egg any other way but Serious Eats had different results - I don't know why.
I've tested it too and got results like yours. How odd that Kenji didn't.
Alton Brown says, "but recently I’ve taken to steaming the eggs in a pressure cooker for the easiest peeling I’ve ever experienced..."
I suspect that Kenji's differing result is that he did a double-blind test.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.691585 | 2016-06-07T17:52:45 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/70522",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"Jolenealaska",
"Jonas Stein",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27575",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54051",
"paparazzo",
"user6591",
"wumpus D'00m"
],
"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
} |
78504 | Is the advantage of wagyu and other fine beef obliterated when formed into minced burger patty?
The best thing about wagyu and similar cuts is its fine marbling. I've recently seen a 'wagyu-beef-slider' on a menu at an upstanding and well respected establishment. Upon internal reflection of appetizer selection (which I recommend all must do) I came to the startling realization that ground wagyu beef, which is the foundation of this slider, might in fact taste the same as any other pedigree with the same fat concentration. I got french onion soup.
Was I right that with ground beef, there's likely no advantage to using wagyu?
I think asking whether you made the right choice is subjective and opinion based, and could get closed. I suggest you ask what the advantages of a wagu beef burger would be over other beef instead.
@GdD Yeah, it is good to avoid inviting opinions like that - but at the same time, those of us with close-vote privileges should prefer to edit rather than voting to close, so there shouldn't really have been a risk of closure here.
That's why I suggested an edit, I think its overall a good question.
I agree that it is opinion based, and my answer is definitely opinion, but hard to ask the question without inviting the opinion. It is one I would love to see a suggested edit to make it less opinion based.
@GdD I'm merely saying, there's no reason to say "could get closed" since we should not be closing things that are fine after a little edit.
@dlb I think my edit mostly addresses the subjectivity issue, but if you have more in mind, go for it.
I'd think this same question would be applicable to the more expensive "ground sirloin" vs. ground chuck sold in stores as well, or should that be a separate question?
@T.E.D. Doesn't sound like quite the same thing; wagyu is a different breed, so you can have wagyu and normal versions of the same cut, while sirloin and chuck are different cuts.
Note that wagyu is merely a breed and actual Kobe beef is the product of a tedious and expensive raising process. While the breed itself may produce meat that is more marbled than another breed raised the same way, raising wagyu the same way that other breeds are typically raised in the USA (for example) will not produce Kobe style beef. If you paid a scandalous amount of money for a small portion and had a singular and unforgettable taste and texture experience, then you almost certainly had Kobe beef. If not, it might have just been wagyu.
The main thing that wagyu is supposed to get you is dense marbling. That's especially important for cuts low in fat, like the filet and the sirloin. That is, steaks.
The rest of the cow has to go somewhere. The parts that get ground into burgers on conventional cows might as well go into "Kobe sliders". There will be some differences from conventionally-raised beef, where the ground meat is usually made by combining fatty cuts with lean cuts to achieve a precise fat ratio. I would expect ground wagyu to have more fat than a conventional burger, and to have the fat incorporated somewhat differently, but it will vary from processor to processor.
So I'd say that the advantage isn't obliterated, exactly. I'd just say that a wagyu burger will be a lot more like a regular burger than a wagyu steak compared to an Angus steak. There's nothing wrong with that, at least as long as they're not trying to charge massively superpremium prices for it. (In my experience they come with a modest upcharge.)
This article is disputed by others, so consider it one person's researched opinion and take it as you wish I think: http://www.seriouseats.com/2016/07/fake-kobe-wagyu-beef-japanese-steak.html
The general statements are that almost all claims of anything severed as Kobe or even Wagu are likely false or misleading. Now, the author makes his money by writing about fake foods, so has a vested interest in such claims, so that should influence merits, and saying something is a Wagu slider that was made with part or all US Wagu, is that fake food, misleading, or honest? Your call on that.
But, personally, I think you probably made the correct call. I would expect something called a Wagu slider would be one that might have some amount out Wagu trimmings added, but not enough to really be the correct us of the meat or representative of the name. The same went on for some time with Bison meat, a wonderful alternative to beef if properly prepared. But for years, it was difficult to find anything but tourist stop samples as over-cooked burgers and meatloaf that was likely about 10% bison and gave people a very poor introduction to a fine meat. That also is opinion, not backed by evidence other than person anecdotal experience though, so no one yell slander please.
Ah, I understand, but does the act of grinding the meat remove the advantages of the pedigree?
@hownowbrowncow In my opinion, it would, yes. But that is opinion, not experience. I have been fortunate enough to have fine Kobe once. Incredibly rich. You would not want more than a couple ounces in a sitting. But to grind it into a burger? You would need to cut it with regular meat and lose all of its uniqueness in my opinion.
I don't think this responds to the question. OP is assuming that the beef presented as Wagyu is in fact Wagyu and asking whether there is a good reason for preferring it. I agree that what you get may not be what is advertised, and you might avoid it in a restaurant you didn't trust, but I think that is a different question.
I'm a carnivore who eats 2 lbs of beef a day.
As someone who started consuming wagyu ground beef (sourced here) on daily basis, I can confirm that there is a huge difference in the taste compared to conventional ground beef.
Marbling is not the only factor. Remember that much of the meat flavour is in the fat.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.691813 | 2017-02-17T18:55:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78504",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"GdD",
"Ross Millikan",
"T.E.D.",
"Todd Wilcox",
"dlb",
"hownowbrowncow",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42110",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330"
],
"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
} |
59931 | How do I avoid splatter when frying ginger garlic paste?
I see in all cookery shows that they use ginger garlic paste with ease. When I bought a sachet of the same and put it in oil, it spluttered so much that all of my stove surface ended up oily. How do I avoid that?
Have you considered using a splatter screen? You place it over the frying pan while cooking and it will prevent any oil or other substances from splattering out of the pan and onto the stove. Something like this: http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/81D4-YeDBtL.SL1500.jpg
Alternatively you could try lowering the temperature you are cooking at.
Hmmm.. Not a bad idea.. I was thinking more on resolution on garlic paste.. Because when I use crushed ginger garlic instead of the packet, it doesn't create so much of splatter.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.692288 | 2015-08-15T18:35:45 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59931",
"authors": [
"Anu",
"Kathryn Church",
"Mervin A Manwarren HSCNC",
"Scott Fry",
"Spammer",
"Tomasz Ciszek",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143327",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143333",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37000",
"jocelyn gutierrez"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
55098 | Why did my storebought spaghetti sauce bubble out of the jar?
Tonight we were having meatball subs we open store bought spaghetti sauce and put it on our subs. We just spooned it out of the jar, no heating. We looked away for a moment, then once we started eating I looked at the sauce and it had bubbled and run over the sides of the jar. The top looked like lava with bubbles busting air. Anyone ever hear of this? What happened? It was sauce with Italian sausage.
You can also check if the product was recalled, from the manufacturer's web site or a gov't agency. In the US that's the FDA Recalls, Market Withdrawals, & Safety Alerts and the USDA Current Recalls and Alerts. Also you should not buy bottled products that do not have a pop-up type lid or another safety feature.
How are you feeling? I think we are all concerned about you.
Since it was unheated, this is definitely a sign of food contamination. Since this had Italian sausage, it is low pH, and could be in danger of botulism toxin. Here is information from the CDC about botulism. If you ate the sauce, I recommend you see a doctor quickly, as it can lead to paralysis.
If it had been heated, it could have just been boiling over. As liquids boil, bubbles start to form. Since the spaghetti sauce is thick, it's going to trap the bubbles, and release them with more force. The bubbles may accumulate so much, that it will spill over the pan.
I called hospital and they said there was nothing the could do to call ohio food safety in the morning
Please try to get medical help. This is a sign of serious food spoilage, and can lead to paralysis, including the loss of lung and heart function. I really don't want anyone to die because of this.
Thank you for your concern. I just called nurse and they said they can't help us unless we have symptoms. But I will go to hospital if we develop any symptoms.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! Your answer was in an odd state from your edits so I rearranged it a bit - especially since this is a food safety issue I really wanted the main advice up front.
You'll want to call the manufacturer and save the jar and lid as well. @Tiff
As MCheng said that is very likely botulism. You will need to watch for symptoms for 10 days. If you develop symptoms then you need to get medical attention immediately. It doesn't take very much to be in danger so unfortunately even the amount you ate can pose a risk.
From the CDC's website:
If you develop signs or symptoms of botulism, seek medical attention
immediately. These include new onset of double vision, blurred vision,
drooping eyelids, slurred speech, difficulty swallowing, or muscle
weakness. If untreated, the illness may progress from head to toe,
with paralysis of the face, arms, breathing muscles, trunk, and legs.
Symptoms generally begin 18 to 36 hours after eating a contaminated
food, but they can occur as early as 6 hours or as late as 10 days. If
your physician suspects botulism, he or she should contact local or
state health officials, who may collect any leftover product and cans.
If you ate a recalled product in the past 10 days, no intervention is
available to prevent botulism. Treatment is only given to persons who
show signs or symptoms of botulism. If you develop signs or symptoms
of botulism, seek medical attention immediately. You do not need to
make yourself vomit or take any other action. Watch for signs or
symptoms of botulism for 10 days after you ate the recalled product.
If you ate a recalled product more than 10 days ago and you have no
signs or symptoms of botulism, you are very unlikely to develop
botulism.
Also, please make sure you dispose of the contaminated food correctly:
Do not open or puncture any unopened can of the recalled product.
Dispose of food that may be contaminated by placing in a sealable bag,
wrapping another plastic bag around the sealable bag, and then taping
tightly. Place bags in a trash receptacle for non-recyclable trash
outside the home and out of reach of humans and pets. Do not discard
the food in a sink, garbage disposal, or toilet. Avoid splashing and
contact with the skin. Wear rubber or latex gloves when handling open
containers of food that you think may be contaminated. Wash hands with
soap and running water for at least 2 minutes after handling food or
containers that may be contaminated. Wipe up spills using a bleach
solution (use ¼ cup bleach for each 2 cups of water). Completely cover
the spill with the bleach solution. Place a layer of paper towels, 5
to 10 towels thick, on top of the bleach. Let the towels sit for at
least 15 minutes, then put the paper towels in the trash. Wipe up any
remaining liquid with new paper towels. Clean the area with liquid
soap and water to remove the bleach. Wash hands with soap and running
water for at least 2 minutes. Sponges, cloths, rags and gloves that
may have come into contact with contaminated food or containers should
be discarded with the food.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.692406 | 2015-02-25T01:56:13 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55098",
"authors": [
"Andy L",
"Bobbie Higgs",
"Cascabel",
"Chrystle Mcbride",
"Clifford Bird",
"Dena Cissna",
"Escoce",
"Kathy Wheatley",
"MCheng",
"Renee Stroud",
"Robert Duncan",
"Tiff",
"fontophilic",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130892",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130894",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130899",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130902",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130903",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33789",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33790",
"khaiqha",
"user3169"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
58158 | How can I safely jar up my homemade salad dressing?
I'm wanting to jar up my favorite House dressing made with miracle whip, so I can sell it and give it away. I want to make sure I do it safely!
Are you trying to make it safe at room temperature?
If you're going to sell it, you need to consider "legally" as well as "safely" (here, as in a number of situations, they're related). Check out the report "Cottage Food Laws in the United States" from Harvard Law School, or this report on the California Cottage Food Bill. Basically, with limitations, you can create and sell "non-hazardous" foods in home kitchens, but the phrase "non-hazardous" means different things in different jurisdictions. For instance, the Harvard Law report says that the 2009 FDA Code lists the following as potentially hazardous foods:
meat, poultry, and eggs; fish and shellfish; cooked vegetables; dairy products; mushrooms; cut melons; unmodified cut tomatoes or mixtures of cut tomatoes; untreated garlic‐in‐oil mixtures; baked goods subject to spoilage (such as cream‐ filled pastries or others that must be refrigerated); reduced sugar jams and jellies; pickles and salsa; and, raw seed sprouts.
The basic theory seems to be that "cottage foods" must be intrinsically safe, so that even with poor preparation and storage they won't result in a dangerous product. So, even if you could make your salad dressing safely, if someone could potentially NOT make it safely then it probably wouldn't be considered a legal "cottage food".
The California Department of Public Health gives a long list of approved foods, and none of them match your dressing idea.
The Wikipedia article gives the primary ingredients of Miracle Whip as water, soybean oil, vinegar, high fructose corn syrup, sugar, modified corn starch, and dried eggs. It also includes potassium sorbate, but I'd still be concerned about the resulting product's safety, and your lawyer may as well.
(Not a lawyer or a food safety expert, YMMV, void where prohibited, use no hooks, etc. etc. etc.)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.692803 | 2015-06-11T16:16:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58158",
"authors": [
"Brian Bowman",
"Cascabel",
"Emily Mayotte",
"Kara Neilson-Schoer",
"Mary Flynn",
"Maxine Mc Clelland",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138574",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138575",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"sherry nugent"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
35827 | Why use liquid nitrogen to make ice cream?
I turned on the TV yesterday just in time to see a guy use liquid nitrogen to make his ice cream. At first I thought it was just to make the show more exciting, but it seemed to be an important part of his ice cream making process.
What benefits (if any) are there to using liquid nitrogen to make ice cream?
If you are going to give -1, you should at the very least state why.
moomoochoo, explaining downvotes is definitely polite and helpful, but also not required: it's better for people to vote without explanation than not to vote at all. (Not that I really have any idea why you got one, but don't worry, it'll even out in the end.)
liquid nitrogen works 100% of the time, ice cream makers often fail under HOT tv lights!
Ice cream is an emulsion and in it, you have air, fat, and ice. The smaller the ice crystals, the smoother the icecream and better chance of achieving a velvety, creamy, smooth texture. The flavor is also elevated given the smaller crystals. Put it in the freezer, and ice crystals start to grow bigger and you lose the benefits.
Also, colder temperature inhibits the taste buds ability to pick up sweetness. At liquid nitro cooled temperatures, you can get an explosion of flavour as the icecream warms up and melts in your mouth and the taste buds start to pick up on sweetness.
Finally, aside from a show, it's much much faster to make icecream with LN2 than in a regular machine. Seconds versus 30-45minutes.
There are hazardous issues with liquid nitrogen and handling. As a starting point, look into this primer.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.692997 | 2013-08-06T03:09:58 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35827",
"authors": [
"Angela Cardill",
"Cascabel",
"ForeverLearning",
"Ian",
"Kane",
"Matthijs Brouns",
"Rita",
"TryHarder",
"agf",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150744",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83947",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83952",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9831",
"phillip Minyard"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
21697 | Fat in chicken skin after boiling
After boiling a chicken for soup and straining with a fat separator, how much fat is left in the chicken? Does it depend on how long I boil the chicken for?
Welcome to the site! I've gone ahead and edited your question - asking about fat is perfectly fine, but we try to avoid health and nutrition claims here. I think I've preserved the meaning of your question, but feel free to edit it further if you like.
Yes, it depends on how long you cook the chicken. Much of the fat is in the skin and can be removed by peeling it; other fat (such as in the thighs) tends to stick around. Long, slow cooking will render more of the fat, which melts at around 95° F.
I'm guessing you're trying to avoid fat for dietary reasons, but consider saving it for future cooking purposes - like where you might use another oil. It's delicious, and not terribly harmful in small quantities.
I agree, a fair amount of fat tends to remain in the skin. Evidence for this: to make soup, I boil a whole chicken for 2-3 hours, then cool and pull off the meat. Usually I peel off the skin and fry till crisp in a pan. It doesn't produce as much fat as bacon, but more fat than you would think.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.693160 | 2012-02-24T20:32:49 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21697",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"GRC",
"KrasPvP",
"LSU Moose",
"Martin jacques",
"Matt",
"Pulkit Aditya",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48173",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51472"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
20683 | How to best store cocoa powder?
Say I buy a bag of Callebaut Cocoa Powder (like this one). What's the best way to store the powder once I begin using it? Figure that I'll use no more than 1/3 to 1/2 a cup of cocoa powder a week.
Thanks!
Welcome to the site! It's generally best to ask questions separately, so that you can get good answers for both. I've gone ahead and edited out your question about where to buy baking supplies. Note also that you might be best off just asking about online shopping - though you seem to have already found a place. The best physical stores for baking supplies will completely depend on your specific location (especially since you've ruled out national chains), and this site isn't really a good place to have a question per city about everything.
I thought the post-script might be over reaching but figured it would be worth a shot. Thanks for the suggestion.
Store cocoa powder in a dark, cool, dry place, sealed against vermin. Dark and cool both slow the process by which volatiles (i.e., flavor) degrade. That said, don't keep it in the fridge or freezer unless sealed airtight, because both types of chill-chests are relatively humid environments. Humidity promotes mold, even on cocoa.
By the way, for future reference: When buying cocoa powder, note the manufacturer's suggested use-by date. Cocoa powder should last about three years, properly stored. If the use-by date is much less than that, look for another container.
I was concerned more how to store, not where to store. But if I read you correctly, keeping it in any airtight container (e.g. a freezer bag) and in a dark cabinet somewhere should be fine, eh?
@StevieP, Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. You've got it exactly right -- an airtight container in a dark place is perfect. Be a little cautious about plastic bags; some of the "freezer" zip-top bags are sufficiently porous to permit a slow exchange of gas. Better to get a glass or ceramic jar with a rubber seal.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.693302 | 2012-01-22T16:14:06 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20683",
"authors": [
"Adonis",
"Bruce Goldstein",
"Cascabel",
"StevieP",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8827"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
23749 | Why is my masa mushy?
When I steam my tamales, the masa becomes mushy. What am I doing wrong and how can I prevent this?
I know this thread is way old but I did just find it It took me years to figure out that it was my meat filling that was too wet, making my tamales take forever to steam.
I think you're probably either making the masa dough too wet to begin with or you're not steaming them long enough. They should steam until the tamale easily peels away from the husk. The wetter your masa dough is, the longer the tamales will need to steam.
You also may have put too much water to steam them...
Something that will help is tearing the leave of the tamales and get tying it around the pot or put a bag on top of the tamales and put tree chili pepper on top of it.
Okay, so I got really frustrated when my tamales that I worked all day on wouldn't firm up. I tried a longer cook time ... like 4 hours longer ... and nothing. Finally, I put around eight in a covered baking dish in the oven at 350 degrees for an hour and they came out perfectly. Thank goodness. I thought I was going to have to throw them out.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.693476 | 2012-05-14T16:00:43 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23749",
"authors": [
"Andrew Rhodes",
"Bonilla",
"Carole Dallago",
"Daniel",
"Jade Dragonm",
"Laurie Hart",
"Lori Fraser",
"Rob Gilton",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154810",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53851",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53856",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53858",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54018",
"mattgately"
],
"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
} |
59413 | How to clear your palate between different flavored dishes when cooking?
I found myself making a couple of disparate-tasting dishes. One was a salad dressing with blue cheeses and garlic, and another was meat flavored with thyme and rosemary.
I tried to taste both while cooking, but as I sit here and write this, all I can taste is the salad dressing.
I'm guessing this might be covered in some formal cooking education: how do you clear your palate when cooking multiple dishes, each with a strong and powerful flavor? I am asking this from the point of view of the chef, not the diner.
I would assume that this could become problematic as the size of the kitchen gets larger, and the number of strongly-flavored dishes would become more prevalent.
Sounds like the problem was that only one of them had a strong/loud flavor. Would you take "eat them separately" as an answer, or are you asking about specifically how to serve them together?
My first thought is to tie them together or plan them in order to closest ingredients that might lend flavor to the next.
On another note, here is an article at About.Com written by By Rebecca Franklin a French Food Expert: http://frenchfood.about.com/od/explorefrenchfood/a/palatecleanser.htm
Traditional palate cleansers:
Apple and Calvados Sorbet
Lemon Sorbet
Lime Sorbet
Mint Sorbet
Unorthodox palate cleansers:
Sparkling water, with or without a twist of citrus
Lightly brewed green, black, or mint tea, with minimal sweetener
Celery sticks or fresh tart apples
A sprig of parsley
Flat water with a twist of citrus
Here is, Fig & Brie “Bites” found here: http://entertainingiseasy.com/fig-brie-bites/
I would add fresh mint leaves and ice to a glass of water or ice cubes with mint leaves and put them into sparkling water or citrus in sparkling water.
I'd try mint or ginger tea,
a creamy cheese or port wine cheese on table water crackers,
or even something creamy like shrimp scampi might be helpful as well.
Please let us know what you choose :)
For sweet things, a typical cleanser is bread cubes or crackers (when doing taste testings, etc.)
Thank you. Apologies that my question was not fully articulated when you answered; I am looking for ways for chefs to keep their palates clean while working. Just wanted to be sure you saw the edit.
I understand that one of the purposes of gari (picked ginger served with sushi) is to cleanse the palate between different types of sushi, so that could be another option.
I like both of these answers. This one especially for the sourcing and the enumeration of cleansers themselves.
Unless you have to serve them close together then one of the best palate cleansers is simply time plus a glass of lemon water.
If you want to serve close together then some sort of palate cleanser is not a bad idea. There are many traditional palate cleansers which have already been covered very well, if you want something different then try serving a small, strong cocktail like a gimlet or a lemon drop. It doesn't have to be alcoholic, although a bit of kick won't hurt - just keep it reasonable so your guests don't get sloshed. Of course you could just give them a piece of lemon to suck on too.
Also keep in mind that the palate isn't just the tongue, your nose is at least as important as your tongue when tasting food - try pinching your nose while eating and you'll see what I mean. The upshot is that strong smells help clean the palate as well as strong tastes, try giving them some ground coffee to smell, that's what many wine tasters do in between tastes.
Thank you. Apologies that my question was not fully articulated when you answered; I am looking for ways for chefs to keep their palates clean while working. Just wanted to be sure you saw the edit.
I see what you are looking for. I tend to use a glass of wine personally
Ha. Very nice. I do the same. Unfortunately, when I am cooking all day on the weekends, it turns into a bottle.
I'd say have a glass of cranberry juice or a slice of lemon handy then.
I like both of these answers. This one especially for the tip on pinching the nose.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.693729 | 2015-07-28T00:58:41 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59413",
"authors": [
"Ana Prutdhome",
"BenM",
"Caitlin Geaughan",
"Cascabel",
"Dorthy Gooden",
"Eric Boncher",
"GdD",
"Jason P Sallinger",
"Joe",
"Michael Matthews",
"Michelle Anders",
"Pam Klotzbach",
"Rajesh Pandey",
"Ronald Schweizer",
"Sally Landes",
"Samantha Matthews",
"Todd Sands",
"Trevor Brown",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141932",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141934",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141936",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141952",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141969",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141981",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37538",
"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
} |
86956 | Broccoli Cheddar soup coming out pasty
I made such a soup this weekend (my first attempt) that was very pasty and gritty as an end result. I believe this is due to the preparation of the roux.
I sauteed onions in a stick of butter then added 1/3 C flour and toasted before adding the milk (instructed all at once).
I believe if I prepared my roux closer to what I'm more familiar with, by using less butter for the roux itself (also adding the milk a little at a time), and using the remainder of the butter to saute the onions separately, then incorporating them later, that the final consistency would be smoother.
Is this the right approach, or is there another way to ensure a cheddar based soup not come out pasty?
Your description of the end result as "pasty" (which I'm interpreting as "very think, like a paste instead of a thick soup") implies to me that there was too much roux for the amount of liquid. And since the strength of a roux is determined by the amount of flour, I don't think sauteing the onions separately would have had much effect. Without having the full recipe including the amount of liquid, though, we can't say for sure that the ratio of liquid to roux is off. But if you try reheating the soup and adding some more liquid and that improves the texture, then I think you'll have your answer.
As for adding the liquid a little at a time instead of all at once, I also prefer that as a method of thinning the roux gradually and ensuring as few lumps as possible; however, it isn't necessary if you're willing to do a lot of whisking.
Taken along with "gritty", it also seems plausible that the roux was undercooked, so you get a gritty paste of grains instead of a smoothly thickened texture.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.694074 | 2018-01-08T01:42:25 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86956",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
67146 | How can I reheat leftovers without a microwave?
We are swearing off our microwave for our own personal reasons. Aside from running the oven to warm up leftovers are there other appliances or cookware that use less energy to warm food up? We use a toaster oven for some things but it's not practical for everything.
Example: I want to warm up leftover roast and potatoes. The large oven seems like overkill to me. The toaster oven seems to re-cook things and overdo it, or might just be too small. What else could be used to warm that up?
I have trouble understanding the question. A microwave is in itself a substitute for more traditional ways of heating food, and does a worse job of it, with one trump: convenience (e.g. you don't need a separate pot to warm your milk, you can warm it in the mug). What would count as a substitute for you? Are you looking for something with the same level of convenience (I don't think it exists at all)? If not, why is not the standard method the substitute?
@rumtscho I realize that I wont find a one size fits all. We will warm soups in a pot. But things like leftover roast can't be done that way and warming the oven seems like a huge waste of energy. Do they make smaller more efficient countertop ovens for warming smaller amounts of food or something else that would accomplish this? I realize I'll have extra dishes.
I suggest planning around leftovers that can be stirred while reheating on the hob (anything in sauce really). This might mean cutting up the leftover roast to make a curry, for example. This sort of thing (also pies) was traditional before microwaves. In fact tracking down some books from before microwaves are commonplace might be helpful.
Can you give examples of things that aren't practical in the toaster oven or in a pot on the stove? You say the toaster oven isn't practical for everything, but your given example (roast and potatoes) seems like a perfect use for it. And then in a comment you ask "do they make smaller more efficient countertop ovens" which kind of suggests you don't actually have a toaster oven?
@Jefromi The toaster oven I have might just be too small. It also seems to re-cook things and over do it. I like the idea from one of the answers below about a bamboo steamer though. We bought about 7 acres of woodland and are going back to an simpler way of life. Funny how you forget how to do things when you've been raised on modern conveniences.
There are ways to avoid the overcooking in the toaster oven; you should mention that in the question.
Use a frying pan; this is what I use since I don't own a microwave oven.
We are in a similar situation, while the house gets remodelled we didn't want to buy another one. The microwave we have is the combination microwave and exhaust fan model that's 10 years old, which can't be moved out without a lot of thought.
But we find that it is a rather indispensable modern workhorse for reheating leftovers. As long as the foods you are reheating have some kind of water/moisture it will reheat in the microwave very well.
This being said, we have gone to using a pot and some bamboo steamers on the stove top to reheat most if not all of our leftovers. The steamer is pretty quick if you have an induction cooktop, which boils water extremely fast. We can reheat several things at a time, by adding more steamer baskets. The bamboo keeps excess water condensation from dripping on your food, so no need to really cover it with anything. It reconstitutes dried out food more moist and it doesn't overheat it.
But it doesn't work well when you want something crisp and warm. For this we use a convection toaster over, with the door slightly open. We find that our particular oven gets really hot even with the convection fan running it tends to just burn things. So having the door slightly open keeps the food from burning but still heats up.
We might also heat up a pizza slice on a cast iron grill or pan with a lid or a sheet of aluminium foil on top to keep the heat in. Also keeps any splatters inside.
As for your particular foods, roast and potatoes. I might try cutting it into smaller pieces and start with the steamer and then putting it in the toaster over just to crisp up the skin. As for the potatoes I guess it would depend on how they are prepared. But I think the combination of wet heat and dry heat will reheat nearly anything you got.
But I do think that the microwave is a pretty ingenious way to reheat food.
When you don't have a microwave, it might actually be easier to convert a given meal into something else -- for instance, your example of a roast and potatoes:
If you cut it up, added a liquid and some other vegetables (carrots, onions, green beans), you could very easily turn that into a soup or stew by simmering it on the stovetop.
Cut it up, and add it to a pan with onions, bell peppers and maybe a few eggs and you have a hash.
Depending on the state of the potatoes, you could turn them into a potato salad that wouldn't need reheating ... and then serve it as a side with roast beef sandwiches.
Many things can be converted in casseroles and baked. Quiche and frittatas are well known ways to use up whatever leftovers you might have in your fridge.
... so don't think you of your food as leftovers that must stay in that same state to be served (as you would with microwaving) -- consider how they could be an ingredient to make something else.
Nothing is going to replace the speed and convenience of a microwave. You will just have to plan your life a little differently. The oven and toaster oven that you mention will be best (what did people do before the microwave?), but a couple of ideas come to mind...though neither will be as practical as the microwave. There are various models of solar oven, which, of course would save on energy, but would be less reliable and could only be used at certain times. Secondly, you could use an immersion circulator and water bath (sous vide), which does a nice job of warming leftovers, but I am not sure how it compares to a microwave for energy efficiency, especially because you would have to run it longer. Finally, there are a variety of combi-ovens on the market...some home counter top models, though most are quite expensive.
OK. Not worried about speed. Just looking for alternatives to cranking up a huge oven. This is helpful.
Just place your food in pan, add a bit of water, low heat and cover it with lid. Depending on the food - this may take 3-5 min. You may need to add bit more water but with time you will get the right amount each time. It is the fastest way without burning food. Good luck! ;)
I would get a counter top convection oven. They can come as large as your microwave, so it can do tasks the toaster oven cannot. Or, if you're in the mood for an entire new range: some have convections as well.
Convection ovens use less energy, cook faster and result in great product (the swirling air browns nicely, and baked products all brown at the same rate).
Side note: if you were using microwave popcorn, check this out: Alton Brown Stove Popcorn. It's very good.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.694255 | 2016-03-06T12:26:03 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67146",
"authors": [
"Ashley Despres",
"Augustine young",
"Brooke Williams",
"Cascabel",
"Chris H",
"Christine Bunyan",
"Cindy Logan",
"Debra Rybak",
"Jiffy Pop",
"Lex Joosten",
"Lisa Billiter",
"Lisa Bramwell",
"Mariano Lopez",
"Max",
"Michelle Grayson",
"NKY Homesteading",
"Shattered Moon",
"dania asmar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161090",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161091",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161094",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161095",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161133",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161223",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
47099 | Can I make grain-free noodle/ravioli/dumpling dough?
I'm celiac and I'm intolerant to virtually all the grains (also to corn/maiz). So, the question is if I can make noodle/dumpling dough without grains?
Yuca and potato starch are good for me, also chickpea and other legumes are fine. Any suggestions?
Can you source glucomannan(also called konjac root & may also appear as pounded yam flour)? How about methyl cellulose? Can you do teff or quinoa?
You could look into cellophane noodles. They're made from starch (often yam or potato), so it sounds like they'd work for you.
If you have a decent Asian grocery store around, you may well be able to just buy them, too. You'll just have to be careful to check the ingredients, as they are sometimes made with corn starch too. (I'm not sure if it's whole corn or even the starch that you can't have.)
And when looking through Asian groceries -- you might see bags of noodles in water, typically under refrigeration. They're shirataki noodles, which are made from a variety of yam.
Yes, It can be done. Jamie Oliver is a good place to start. Here's a collection of recipes by celiac cooks Celiac.com. Plus, check out this Google Search and this Google Search.
I don't have any personal experience cooking grain/gluten free, but I may be going back to Iowa soon. My cousin there is celiac, so I'd love to hear how this goes for you. I'd enjoy cooking dinner for my cousin.
The Jamie oliver link has both rice and corn flour/starch which would be excluded given the OP's dietary restrictions.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.695060 | 2014-09-13T19:52:25 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47099",
"authors": [
"Autumn Measom",
"Bradley Torbik",
"Didgeridrew",
"Jamie Futrell",
"Joe",
"Little White Lithe",
"Manika Rana",
"Mike DeVries",
"Yunus Kazozibwami",
"ashley abbott",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113663",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113664",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113700",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116774",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25745",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"michael benedick"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
23871 | flash fire from self-cleaning oven
We have a self-cleaning oven (GE). We put in some stewing beef in a roaster into the oven at 300F for 45 minutes. After about 20 minutes there was smoke coming from the rear vent. When I noticed it I opened the oven door to see what was going on and had an extreme flash come from the oven, which burned my eyebrows and the hair on top of my forehead.
There were no spills in the oven (e.g. grease) of any kind. The side of the range was hot as if the self clean feature was on.
The first sign of something wrong was a week ago we were baking a frozen pizza. After about 20 minutes @400F (called for 23 minutes), smoke was coming from the vent and I just turned it off and left it as I didnt want to fill the house with smoke. When I took out the pizza, the bottom was like thick rubber soles of boots and the top was scorched. Not a normal baking cycle.
Three weeks before this we baked a normal pizza. No spills on the bottom of the oven as the pizza was on a cookie sheet.
Can anyone tell what happened in the oven?
If you're 100% certain that there was no grease, then it sounds like an equipment malfunction, not a culinary issue. Separately, never open the oven or microwave door if you see signs of a fire. You'll just be supplying more oxygen, thus turning a minor problem into a major one.
I don't think it really matters exactly what happened. Unless you've left out something important, it's not working right, and you need to get it repaired. The best case is that it keeps burning your food, and the worst case is that you set your place on fire.
If you want to confirm that it's doing something wrong, you could put a thermometer in it and turn it on (no food) and confirm that it's getting way too hot. (Edit: but please be careful, as Aaronut said. If there's any sign things are going wrong, turn it off, and leave the door closed.)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.695231 | 2012-05-20T22:04:32 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23871",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Grimou",
"Marcos",
"Ryan Bourne",
"carbo",
"cheryl",
"hashim alkabaaz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54166",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54171",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54179",
"user54171"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
84112 | What quantity of baking powder satisfies a mass of size x?
I have always had a question when it comes to "how many grams of baking powder to use for that amount of cake I made." I would like to understand if there is any kind of proportion and if there is technique where I can always make changes based on it. Without ever having to rely on a ready-made recipe.
What do you mean by "chemical yeast" - actual yeast made out of living organisms, or chemical leavening made out of (usually) sodium bicarbonate mixed with an acid or two?
@rumtscho I've definitely seen people use "chemical yeast" to refer to chemical leavening before, but never yeast. (Especially French speakers -
yeast and baking powder are "levure" and "levure chemique.") Looks like the OP is from Brazil; in Portuguese it's "fermento" and "fermento em pó" (yeast powder). So... I just went ahead and edited - Suhany, please fix it if I was wrong!
Sorry, baking powder.
The problem is that in many recipes the baking powder will create only part of the "lifting". Would an answer that ignores that effect be helpful to you?
About 5g baking powder per 150g flour, or about 1tsp of baking powder per US Cup of flour (Source: Michael Ruhlman's Ratio app.) That will work for most chemically leavened batters, quick breads, pancakes, etc. This is a guideline, not a rule.
Sometimes more leavening is desirable— you might want a slightly puffier quick bread and you're using a dough with enough protein to handle it. Maybe you want less because you've got a batter that doesn't stay together on something you're frying.
Unless you're planning on doing some workshopping, I recommend using an existing proven recipe to get a good ratio of ingredients. After a while, you'll get a better idea of how much leeway you've got with each variable in the technique.
There is no such amount. Each recipe behaves differently, and a lot of experimentation is needed to finetune the ratios of all ingredients, including the baking powder. Change an ingredient, and you have to start all over again. Formulas are impossible here - you can use "average" ones for a given type of cake, like 1:1:1:1 for pound cake, but as soon as you start to change the base ingredients or adding other ingredients or change the mixing method, the way the cake leavens changes too, and you are likely to get into a situation where a different amount of baking powder is needed. And then there is personal or cultural preferences - what kind of internal structure is the goal.
If you are in a pinch, you can use some rule of thumb. Just be aware that it will not result in a good cake all the time, and almost never will be the optimal for a given recipe.
You already see this arbitrarity in the two answers you got, one is 5 g per 240 g flour and the other is 5 g per 150 g of flour. For what it is worth, European producers sell baking powder in sachets of 15 g, and usually print something like "for 500 g flour" on them, so 5 g per 167 g flour. However, I personally never use this ratio, because it tastes too metallic to me. But if you want to start working with a single number, you can pick any of the three, or another in that range, it doesn't really matter.
Well, it depends on the type of cake, so let's take a simple one.
One of the most basic cake batters there is is the standard 1-2-3-4 Yellow Cake. In this formula, the "3" stands for "3 cups self-rising flour", which is contains roughly 4.5tsp baking powder (and recipes which use regular flour bear this out).
So your mass here is:
roughly 8oz Butter
2 cups sugar (14oz)
3 cups flour (14oz)
4 eggs (9oz)
1 cup buttermilk (8oz)
Totalling 53oz of ingredients to 4.5tsp baking powder, or 1tsp baking powder for every 12oz of cake batter, roughly. Or, in real measurements, 5g of baking powder for every 335g of batter.
However, that's a limited use ratio because cake recipes scale up and down poorly; both very large and very small cakes usually have to be adjusted to avoid over or under cooking, rounding too much, or center collapse.
it's probably worth mentioning that the 'oz' in this are weight (1/16th of a pound / ~28.3 grams) and not fluid ounces.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.695429 | 2017-09-03T14:19:14 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84112",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Joe",
"Stephie",
"Suhany",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
49165 | Is it a good idea to use cardamom in chili?
I am preparing a chili for a contest. The recipe calls for cardamom (along with chili powder and cumin). I have never cooked with it before. From my research, it seems this spice is used more commonly with Indian cuisine.
I do love Indian food. In fact, a good Indian friend at work tells me he does use cardamom, but most usually for sweets. His suggestion was to use garam masala instead of cardamom. But I wonder if the combination of cardamom and chili powder (and possibly cloves) will make my beef chili work.
Has anyone used this spice for anything other than sweets? Does anyone have strong feelings about using it or omitting it in a beef chili?
This seems either unclear what you're asking or just primarily opinion-based. It's clearly something that a lot of people like in non-sweet dishes (all over the place in Indian cuisine, and it's in the recipe you found) and the only way you can really find out if you'll like it is to try it; all we can say is "sure sounds good to me". Is there anything specific you're trying to find out?
Yes. What I asked - about others' experience with this spice in chili. I counseled my Indian friend, and he didn't think it was wise. Therefore, the recipe I found is questionable. Would my question not be useful if a Seasoned Advice user (or many users) had this very experience?
I have had cardamom in coffee (not sweetened), and it was very good. It's a fairly smoky spice, and I think it would add a neat dimension to a meat chili.
For what it's worth, I think the real question here was "is cardamom commonly used in chili or other savory dishes". Beyond that all there really is to say is what I said in my first comment: try the recipe and find out for yourself (or not), and sounds good to me. (This is what your accepted answer said, after addressing the "is this common" bit.) And that's the answer to almost every "is this flavor a good idea?" question, hence my wondering whether this was really anything but an opinion poll.
If there is another forum for questions like these, I would appreciate some education. It makes little sense to me that this type of question, hoping to solicit good conversation, does not belong among all these other questions. I did research on other cardamom questions. They didn't answer my question. And for the fact that there exist multiple other cardamom questions within the array of all other general questions...to have you (both) be mere arbiters on this particular question without citing which policy has been broken...I cry foul. Either cite policy or be silent.
Jefromi metioned policy in his first comment: "primarily opinion-based". I personally think this is an acceptable subjective question, which should "inspire answers that explain 'why' and 'how'" (I learned about different cardamom types!) and "invite sharing experiences over opinions." You did ask for experiences using cardamom in non-sweet dishes. However, your secondary question asking for "strong feelings" could be improved -- perhaps bringing in the chili flavor profile aspect you mentioned below, which is less subjective.
Thank you, Erica. That does outline policy somewhat. I suppose my nose is bent out of shape because there seems to be so much meta-discussion on what seems to be every question. To better understand, is there some guide within this site which outlines when to use which forum?
By the way...the chili is sitting here beside me, warming until lunch. It came out very well.
I did follow your link (for 'subjective question'). It seemed, though, Jefromi and Jolene mentioned there may be other forums than just the open question pool. I would like to learn more about these other forums.
@JasonPSallinger Wikis are sometimes used for poll questions (that in and of itself is controversial), or questions where we are trying to get an answer that is "canon". We can call a question and its answers "community wiki" which encourages edits, in order to make one really good answer. For example: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34670/how-do-i-know-if-food-left-at-room-temperature-is-still-safe-to-eat. One way to do a Wiki version of THIS question would be to ask, "What are some strategies for winning cooking competitions?" No rep is awarded for Wiki posts.
Glad to hear the chili is good. Was that the competition batch? Or a test batch?
It was for the competition. It didn't place but I did receive several compliments .
Jolene, my question regarding most appropriate forum is still unresolved. I am not interested in asking whether cardamom will win my competition. (by the way, the title of my question was entirely different. Jefromi altered the title and content immediately...another frequent occurrence on this and other Stack... sites that I don't agree with. I have a very good handle on how the English language works. I don’t need help expressing myself)…(cont.)
…Given this (edited) question, how is it even debatable whether it belongs here. That is the essence of my argument that your aside with Jefromi is arbitrary. Your arbitrary meta discussion detracts from the discussion that should be taking place – the answering of my question.
@JasonPSallinger Would you meet me in chat? If you type anything and hit enter, and I'm up, I'll know you are there. Jefromi and I weren't discussing a different forum. My comment to him was just that your question brought to mind a potential Wiki for another day. I'm sorry if that rubbed you the wrong way, that was not my intention. Jefromi is right, "Is ingredient X good in Y" is a question that is likely to bring out answers that won't be particularly useful to future readers. But I think this question turned out fine. No one voted to close. Can't say that about a lot of MY early questions.
I'm available .
One thing about cardamon: Don't overdo it. It's a very strong spice that can easily dominate the taste and it's not good as dominant taste. It gives a very specific tint to a taste when added in moderation, but it can spoil your dish if you add too much - and in its case a very moderate amount can be too much. In case of coffee, one pinch is right, three pinches and the coffee turns icky.
Cincinnati Chili often has cardamom, along with cinnamon and cocoa. Cardamom is used in savory and sweet foods all over the world, not just in India.
If you have reason to want to try this particular recipe, then try the recipe as written. There are thousands of beloved recipes for all kinds of chili. There is no reason to say, "That one looks good, I'll do it just like that but omit a certain ingredient 'cause it makes me nervous."
Your friend's advice is a bit odd to me because Garam Masala usually contains cardamom (sometimes black, green and brown)
My advice is to either try the recipe as written, or find another with which you're more comfortable.
Or come up with your own. There are no hard and fast rules when it comes to chili.
BTW, I love cardamom in savory. I make a Vietnamese Beef Noodle Soup (Pho) that I crave if I haven't had it for a while. It wouldn't be right without cardamom.
Since this is a contest, I am worried that the flavor will have too much of an Eastern taste. But at the same time, I don't want to make the standard Western chili favor profile.
@JasonPSallinger That is exactly the challenge of these kinds of competitions. Some judges (I would be one) want outside the box, others want what they know, done well. What I would not do is make an "outside the box" recipe, but shy away from the most "outside the box" ingredient. That's just asking for it to not excel on either level. BTW, if your cardamon is ground and it doesn't say otherwise, it's green (at least in the US). Cardamom other than green will specifically say. Only the pods are truly green
Jolene, this is the motivation I needed. Perfect advice. If you craft an answer, the cred is yours.
oops. I see this was your answer. And so you shall... ting
Given your description, I assume that you are speaking of green cardamom.
I, however, use black cardamom in my chili. It is a radically different spice from the green, and imparts a smokiness to the chili. I highly recommend exploring that. So, yes, for me it is a staple.
Black and Green Cardamom
Judging from the appearance of the cardamom in the container, it looks like it might be black. Unless green cardamom also appears with a greyish tint.
Green cardamom is smaller (about 1 cm) and had a semi-pliable husk. Black cardamom is significantly larger (1-2 cm) and has a hard outer husk that needs to be cracked. Green smells sweet, soft, and pleasant. Black smells like a sharp smokey-menthol shot into the nose: A recoil from the jar is not uncommon.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.695775 | 2014-10-22T19:46:21 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49165",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Des Birch",
"Erica",
"Grey Dog",
"Jason P Sallinger",
"Jessie Trujillo",
"Jolenealaska",
"Karen Roy Vissage",
"Lisa Peters",
"R eh",
"Ruth Flores",
"SF.",
"Saima H Malik",
"Steve Dodds",
"Sue Dunkavich",
"Tim Villwock",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117394",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117395",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117396",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117400",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117402",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25282",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28767"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
79034 | Does there exist a chemical-free, homemade substitute to deli?
Kids eat cold cuts cheerfully, whether alone or in sandwiches. I avoid salamis as their (saturated) fat content is conspicuous and alarming, but even the better ones, such as capocollo, are still filled with chemicals, with MSG, sodium erythorbate, and sodium phosphate present in those claiming to be superior because they contain no wheat.
The next best option is to prepare my own meat, slice it as thinly as I can, and use that. Unfortunately it'll be necessary to freeze and thaw, since otherwise the time investment would be prohibitive.
What is a class of homemade cold cuts that can replace store bought ones? I can think of roasting (slow cooking) lamb, pork, or chicken, suitably spiced with garlic, oil, and mustard, but the resulting flavor does not quite compete with the deli section. Does a healthy (chemical-free) homemade solution exist?
Health is off-topic here, including asking people to judge what is and isn't healthy. Chemical-free is pretty unclear, too - do you mean nothing but meat and spices? It also sounds like you might be looking for cured meat, which generally requires various chemicals, though not the ones you listed - is that also not okay?
People have been eating cold cuts from the store for decades. I think you might be overly concerned here. Or, perhaps, don't let your kids eat a pound of it in one sitting.
Deli meats are preserved meat products. By their nature, they are made with chemicals. Home made versions may not have many of the commercially available items you mention, but they are still typically made with high amounts of sodium and likely nitrates and nitrites, well, because that is how meat is cured for them. It is also how the lesser cuts often used are made palatable as well as curing them.
I second (third?) the request for more detail about what chemicals you want to avoid. Technically even something such as water is a "chemical" composed of hydrogen and oxygen.
Is salt a chemical by your definition?
@Paparazzi OP is asking if there's a cigarette that isn't harmful when consumed in large quantities.
Roast beef is relatively easy to make at home and is much more delicious that store-bought. Here is a good roast beef recipe from the New York Times.
There is a Japanese method of cooking chicken called "Torihamu" where the goal is to make the chicken the texture and flavor of deli ham. Here is a little more information and a recipe.
A lot of the flavors of deli meat are dependent on salt. A deli meat without salt just does not taste the same. Remember that when making it at home, you will always be using less salt than a manufactured meat. Celery salt may also give you the flavor you need.
There's also a lot of good recipes like this DIY Homemade Lunch Meat.
Here is a video for making deli ham. The trick to that deli ham texture is cooking gently in water and then pressing.
I hope this was helpful! Best of luck to you.
It is certainly possible to make classic deli-meats at home. Most "deli meats" fall into the cured category though which means that the preservative agents are still necessary to prevent food borne illnesses such as botulism. Nitrites and nitrates alongside salt are the main inhibitors in this case. At home you CAN safely leave out most of the "fillers" that are often used in commercially prepared things.
There is FAR too much to detail here regarding meat curing, however there IS a plethora of information available online regarding everything from ham to salami and more. I encourage you to look into something called "Charcuterie" which is the practice/art of making cured meats and sausages (which is what most deli meat is).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charcuterie
There are many books about the subject too. Off hand, several books regarding meat curing and butchery are: The Whole Beast, Charcuterie: The Craft Of Salting Smoking And Curing, Home Production of Quality Meats and Sausages.
If you are not interested in curing meats, smoking them may be another option: things such as smoked turkey breast are common deli meats too. Again, there is too much about smoking to list here, however there is SO much information online about it. You can either buy a smoker or make your own (google "DIY smoker"). The smoking process generally causes the meat to loose a lot of moisture in addition to adding the smokey flavour which should transform them into something similar to that found in a deli.
I think this is a great answer, learning to cure their own meat could work to reassure OP since they will have a lot of control over it. It will be a great answer from future people who will encounter this question. However, for this particular OP, who seems afraid of "chemicals", perhaps curing salts will be too much, or perhaps they will worry a lot about the (safe) mold that grows on meat in lots of curing processes.
Nutrition is off topic here and this is kind of in between a nutrition and cooking question. You might want to ask a nutrition focused version of this on health.stackexcange.com
I am surprised you are finding packaged lunch meat taste better than what you prepare.
My neighbor just grills a chicken breast for his daughter every school night while he is cooking dinner.
I like to crock chicken thighs. To me they taste better than a breast in a sandwich as a little more moist. And the are 1/2 the price. I do skin side down with no extra oil and some oregano. Garlic and onion if I have it. You can keep them in the fridge for 2-3 days and freeze for a lot longer. I let them cool just bit and then remove the skin and bone. To me it is easier to remove the bone after it is cooked.
I used to trim the fat and skin first but it would be dry. Removing skin last and drain is a lot easier.
Below is actually from the BBQ but same basic idea. BBQ taste better than crock but more prone to overcooking as a pretty narrow window. On the left is skins for my dogs and next bone and straight to the fridge.
Note that https://health.stackexchange.com/ tends to prefer more focused, directly answerable questions, so "what kind of meat is healthy?" is unlikely to do to well there.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.696618 | 2017-03-10T18:01:06 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79034",
"authors": [
"BunnyKnitter",
"Cascabel",
"GdD",
"Sarumanatee",
"SnakeDoc",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36737",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
64060 | How do I brown nuts without burning and without taking forever?
Whenever I roast nuts (walnuts, sesame, ...) to add to dishes, I either choose a very low oven temperature and then it takes far too long, or I use a very high temperature and I struggle to get them just golden, without getting any higher notes of oil that reached the browning point.
What is the right temperature and the range of duration to obtain strong tones of roasting in nuts? Is this different for different nuts?
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/29351/67
or even better, see : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/28224/67
I know that most oven based recipes I've seen suggest 350 F and checking every 3-5 minutes. I personally prefer to use a skillet over medium heat - this way I can move the nuts around as they roast and I have more control over how dark they get. The time, of course, depends on the size and type of nut, etc.
I've struggled with the skillet method. Because the heat is too intense at one point I always end up with one or a few dark spots on each nut, with the rest of the nut still uncooked. It might be a matter of constantly stirring. That's why I was hoping for a standard recipe: preheat oven to 350F, put nuts on foil, and bake for X minutes. Since all walnuts are about the same size, I'd expect X to be in a narrow range, and then we can all look after something else while the nuts are browning.
About the foil: is there any other material that does not hold heat but that is reusable—to avoid blistering the bottom of the nuts and to avoid having to turn them halfway?
Since nuts are grown and not manufactured, there are too many variables to be able to say "always cook this amount of time" as depending on when they were harvested, how much water the tree got etc the nuts might be drier, oilier, etc which all have an effect on the roasting. Then you also have to take into consideration the how long it's been since they were harvested, how they were stored, etc. This is why they say to check them every few minutes - there isn't a once size fits all time.
What you're saying makes a lot of sense. Yet it would make me have a lot of sympathy for the use of almonds at an industrial scale in things like chocolate bars. It's hard to imagine these factories have staff with the patience to lovingly roast small batches of almonds.
I don't believe that they do - however I also don't believe that they need to. In a home scenario, you're roasting enough nuts for your single batch. If they are over(or under)-done, they have a large impact on your dish. In a commercial setting, they'd be roasting a huge quantity - so some will be over-done, some under-done and some just right. Once chopped up, mixed and distributed the homogenous mixture should be "good enough"
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.697192 | 2015-12-03T00:08:20 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64060",
"authors": [
"Calaf",
"Charlene Yin",
"Joe",
"Karrie Cheng",
"Lisa Odierna",
"M Taylor",
"Maureen Barclay",
"djmadscribbler",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152604",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152605",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152606",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152617",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152665",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9799",
"katie hauck"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
63477 | What is the difference between crème anglaise and crème pâtissière?
I am amateur and novice baker. I cannot differentiate the two recipes. Are they only different in proportion?
I know that the two are egg-based, mixed with sugar and starch and tempered with milk (or occasionally fresh cream) previously boiled with vanilla bean and then heated until it thickens. So what is the difference between the two?
Crème Pâtissière is a thicker mixture, and is usually used for filling a pastry. It would be rolled into, or injected into something that would then be baked. As such, it needs to be thicker, so as not too leak out, and usually more flavourful, as it is the main flavour in the pastry.
Crème Anglaise is what the English would call custard. It is usually served as a "sauce" for sweet dishes. A classic dish would be apple crumble, served in a bowl with custard around it. The custard is there to add richness, and complement the flavour of the cake, and is therefore usually more subtle in flavour.
Another name for crème patisserie is confectioner's custard.
Hello, @Carmi. I don't really doubt your statement, but do you have sources to back them? I've searched in a lot of places and I've seen different definitions. For instance, in one of them, custard was specified as being in between crème pâtissière and crème anglaise regarding thickness. In other, they called both crèmes as custard instead of the crème anglaise. Thus, I am a little confused with all the terminology...
@MateusFelipe My experience seems to match yours: crème anglaise tends to be thinner in consistency (and lighter in colour) than common custard. Similar usage, though.
Also (@gidds) while ordinary custard may be served cold, as in trifle, it's generally hot. Crème Anglaise on the other hand is usually cold. At the same temperature it would be much runnier than custard. But they're all types of custard, which need more detailed names when it matters (as its the contents of a custard tart, which is thicker still).
In a nutshell, both have the same ingredients, except crème pâtissière also has flour in it. That is the main difference.
With the addition of flour (or cornstarch) you need to then boil the sauce to thicken it and to cook the thickener so it tastes good. (You do NOT want to eat raw flour!!! Ick!!!)
So the differences are mainly the thickening agent and the added boiling/cooking, resulting in a thicker sauce.
Creme anglaise is fairly runny. And not as heavily flavored as it is a supporting sauce while patisserie cream is much thicker and a more main ingredient of the dessert, and thus more strongly flavored!
Those are your main differences!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.697477 | 2015-11-15T02:39:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63477",
"authors": [
"Angela O'Keefe",
"Anthony Sutton",
"Chris H",
"Fernando Andrez",
"Makynlee Adams",
"Mary M",
"Mateus Felipe",
"Pam Hegarty",
"Tina Torresin",
"gidds",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102325",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151058",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151075",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151829",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151831",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37751",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68458",
"user23614"
],
"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
} |
63770 | What can I substitute for Gruyère in quiche lorràine?
Gruyère cheese is too expensive here and I want make quiche lorràine. Is there some other cheese that I could substitute for the gruyère that would preserve the original flavor?
As your profile mentions Brazil ... I'm not familiar with their cheeses, but a little research seems to be pointing me to either queijo minas curado (or maybe meia-cura) or queijo de colônia.
There are a couple variations that if you're lucky might be cheaper: Beaufort and Comté. (I've only actually tried Comté, but I've seen Beaufort listed along with it and Gruyère.)
A bit farther away are Emmentaler and Jarlsberg. They both have the Swiss cheese flavor but aren't quite as firm nicely aged. Beyond that there's simply all the varieties of (American) Swiss cheese, which are generally roughly like Emmanteler but likely even softer.
If you use one of the farther away substitutes, I'd suggest adding in some hard aged cheese as well to make up for the difference. For example, I've used (American) Swiss cheese plus dry jack and parmesan and been pretty happy with it. The specific hard aged cheese probably doesn't matter a whole lot, as long as it has some nice aged flavor and not a lot of overpowering other flavors.
Gruyere is pretty expensive here as well. It's about 4x the cost of jarlsberg which is a household favorite in my house. Most recipes that have called for a large amount of cheese, I have used jarlsberg as the substitute. The cheese closest to the rind is nice and firm. Not as hard as Gruyere, but harder than the nice soft interior of the wheel.
If you want to be faithful to the French terminology, a quiche (lorraine) does not contain cheese. Ever. It's not even a matter of being "classic" or "authentic", putting cheese on a tarte is very common, but it's just called differently if you do (namely tarte). Have you ever tried an actual French quiche (i.e. without cheese)? Maybe you will like it.
Alternatively, you can put just about any cheese on it. Results will differ, hard somewhat aged cow-milk cheese like those suggested by @Jefromi will be closest to gruyère but anything goes really: Dutch cheese, soft cheese like maroilles or munster, blue cheese, goat cheese, feta cheese, feel free to experiment with what's available where you are.
Incidentally, if anything, I think it's actually more common to add a relatively bland, creamy cheese like emmentaler rather than a stronger older cheese to a tarte so there is no reason to consider the latter as the ingredient to be substituted or a tarte with gruyère as the "original flavor" to aim for.
Now if you like that and want to do it on the cheap, then maybe comté or beaufort are not very good options, as they might be just as expensive and possibly harder to find. I would try to look for an aged Dutch-like cheese (locally produced Gouda imitation or something like that).
You could just find a recipe that doesn't use it. Classic quiche Lorraine does not contain cheese.
According to Julia Child's Mastering the Art of French cooking, "the classic quiche Lorraine contains heavy cream, eggs and bacon, no cheese."
That may be true but if the op wants to make a specific recipe that does call for cheese, it's irrelevant that you have a version that doesn't.
https://www.google.com/search?q=classic+quiche+Lorraine+does+NOT+contain+cheese&oq=classic+quiche+Lorraine+does+NOT+contain+cheese&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 The "classic" is unknown. Several world-renowned chefs use cheese today.
Just because some chefs have decided to add the cheese, it doesn't mean that all recipes have to have it. I can't say which version is more "classic", but cheeseless Lorraine is quite normal for me.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.697784 | 2015-11-23T18:52:56 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63770",
"authors": [
"Alia Faleh",
"Catija",
"David Reeves",
"Escoce",
"Joe",
"John",
"Jolenealaska",
"Mladen Mantarkov",
"Sarita Tiwari",
"Shaun Wadsley",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151819",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151820",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151827",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151828",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50780",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"mary",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
71311 | Can panettone paper molds be used for other things?
Can the paper forms used to make panettone be used to bake cake batter? Any cake, a basic dough, sponge cake, chiffon, genoise, etc.
Yes, they can be used for other dishes. I've never done it myself, so I cannot elaborate.
I scanned the Amazon reviews for a panettone paper. I saw people had used them for sweet bread, muffins, some used it for cheesecake. I imagine the papers could be used for souffles and quiches.
One Amazon reviewer mentioned you may need to increase the moisture in your recipe since the paper soaks up some of the liquid.
In any use, I would pan it in a way where spillage would be contained.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.698127 | 2016-07-10T04:17:21 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71311",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
75148 | Is there any way to bring an egg to its natural state (not boiled) after you cook it?
This is probably a stupid question, but I'm curious now after I opened the refrigerator looking for eggs to make a cake and there was only one and it was cooked. Is there any way to undo that, whether at home or an industrial way?
Asked a follow-up question here https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75177/can-one-bake-a-cake-with-a-cooked-egg
No, there is no way you could do this in a kitchen. The process of denaturation is usually considered irreversible, a boiled egg stays boiled.
Ok, it is possible to un-denaturize proteins if you have the right chemicals and a fast centrifuge available and it earned Colin Raston and his team an Ig Nobel Prize. But even they can't "unboil" your boiled egg from the fridge yet.
So it seems you either have to quickly perfect the method of Colin Raston (and possibly earn an award or two on the way) or schedule a trip to the store. Alternative approaches are asking your friendly neighbours for an egg or two, choosing a cake recipe without eggs or postponing the baking project.
If I understand right, even that process doesn't totally do it: it's only the white, the proteins get un-denatured but no guarantee they're entirely back to their original structure, and there are non-egg chemicals left in the egg white (not sure whether it's trivial to remove them).
You can't unboil or unscramble an egg. This is called entropy.
@henning: Entropy has nothing to do with it. A stack of lego blocks will tend to fall down and scatter across the floor as life happens around them, but you can still pick them up and re-stack them. Same goes for cooked food; it's just much more difficult because of the scale and complexity. The only place entropy comes in is saying some of the energy used to put Humpty-Dumpty back together again will be forever dissipated in an irreversible manner.
Yes its possible.
But its not easy - the team who first did it won an Ignoble prize - you can see it here
+1 for the Ig Noble Prize, -1 because even said Ig Noble Prize laureates can't unboil a whole egg.
Yeah, this is pretty cool science, but summarizing it as "possible" and "not easy" is misleading. Maybe consider editing to include a more clear summary of what those folks did (and didn't) do, and a more clear answer about what you can actually do at home, which is what the OP is asking about?
Somethink like: https://youtu.be/MZamL8FXKOE?t=800
The simple and practical answer is no. You will have to go buy another egg!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.698219 | 2016-10-31T19:20:07 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75148",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Crowley",
"Federico Poloni",
"MichaelS",
"Stephie",
"henning no longer feeds AI",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42716",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51242"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
63019 | Making a decent pie crust?
I have tried many pie crust recipes, it either sticks to the cutting board or rolling pin. I've even tried wax paper or plastic wrap with a generous amount of flour and it still sticks. If I'm lucky enough and it doesn't stick, it breaks up when transferring to the pan. What am I doing wrong?
Welcome Sharon, There are many different pie crust recipes, if you could edit your post to include the one you use you will have a better chance of getting a good answer.
Sticking could be because the dough is either too warm or too wet. So it's possible you're not letting it chill fully. It's also possible the dough's too wet because you added too much water in order to get it to come together. I suppose it's also possible that your definition of a generous amount of flour isn't actually very generous, and you're letting either the surface or the rolling pin get sticky, but that seems less likely.
If it breaks in a crumbly way when transferring, it's probably too dry. That could happen if you add too little water, or perhaps if you let the ingredients get too warm while you're mixing it up, so it seems to come together thanks to the fat melting, but then once chilled it's too dry and ends up crumbly. If it's just tearing easily, you could be rolling it too thin, or even just letting it hang under its own weight too much.
So it's hard to tell you exactly what you've done wrong, and it could well have been different things each time. It's even possible that some of the recipes you used were actually bad. For what it's worth, this recipe has worked reliably for me. If the recipes you've used are significantly different in any way, that could've been the problem. (It calls for a food processor, but even doing my best imitation with a pastry blender it's always worked well.)
Beyond that, all I can really do is try and give some generic advice:
Check your measurements. Consider using a scale for the flour for more precision.
When mixing flour and butter, make sure the butter is well-chilled and work quickly. Use a pastry blender, or a food processor if you have one, so that your hands aren't adding heat. If the room's warm, be extra careful about this (or crank up the AC, or do this at a cool time of day instead).
Add only enough water to make the dough come together. The amount in the recipe should be pretty close, but sometimes there's a range. If you have to really force it all together and it's threatening to crumble, you probably have too little. If it comes together really easy, without having to push it into a ball at all, you probably have too much.
Chill the dough thoroughly before rolling. You probably need at least a couple hours in your fridge, but you can be extra sure by giving it several hours or even overnight.
Work reasonably quickly when rolling it out. Especially if the room is warm, taking a long time to roll the dough lets it heat up too much, so it'll get sticky. (Again, AC or cool time of day if possible.)
Make sure to roll somewhere close to a circle. It doesn't have to be perfect, but if you're way off, you'll have to roll it too thin in order to make it big enough to fit your pan.
Make sure you really are using enough flour. You don't want it bathed in flour, but you do need to get a thin layer across everything, and it's fine to add more if it starts to stick. You shouldn't need any tricks with wax paper or plastic wrap; a decent amount of flour on the work surface and rolling pin will do just fine. It can be hard to dust evenly enough, so if you notice it's patchy, rub it around to make sure things get covered. (You can swirl the disk of dough around in the flour before starting, then flip it over and repeat. When you add flour on the rolling pin you can rub it around with your hand.)
When transferring the dough, be sure you're lifting it securely. Get both hands under it (shouldn't be hard if it's floured). You can also roll things out on a flimsy plastic cutting board and just slide them off into the pie dish. (That's especially useful for lattice tops.)
For transferring, you can also roll it around your rolling pin, then move that to the pie plate and unroll it. (well, not for lattice tops, just solid sheets)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.698453 | 2015-11-01T03:05:05 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63019",
"authors": [
"Bonnie Carlson",
"Debbie M.",
"Joe",
"Kelvin Hughes",
"P A",
"Salbrox",
"TJ Burmesch",
"Thomas Pucino",
"Virginia Conrad",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149981",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149982",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149984",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149986",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149987",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"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
} |
59247 | How much white chocolate should I use in a white chocolate cake?
I am trying to develop a white chocolate cake formula. The recipes that we tried were dry or did not have the right flavor or consistency. I found no guide line as to how much white chocolate to use. Can any one help? I am concerned that the white chocolate contains sugar, fat and emulsifiers. What I do not know is what percentage should white chocolate be in this recipe that I created?
Here is what I have so far: I have not tried this recipe yet. All I did was the math!
15 oz. cake flour,
2 oz oil,
4 oz butter,
15 oz. sugar,
7 oz. of eggs,
4 oz. milk (hot to dissolve white chocolate),
1 tablespoon + 1 teaspoon baking powder,
1 teaspoon salt,
1 tablespoon vanilla extract,
4 oz. white chocolate (real chocolate containing cocoa butter),
I plan to use creaming method, pre sifting dry ingredients and adding the white chocolate and hot milk just before adding eggs, and bake at 350F.
Is that a good amount of white chocolate?
Can you give examples of (links to) the recipes you tried, and explain what you didn't like about each specific one? Knowing a recipe and what's wrong with it makes it possible for people to recommend solutions, while telling us a recipe you haven't even tried doesn't really provide a starting point.
I've edited for clarity without changing the meaning, and I suppose it's not actually a recipe request in current form (which would be off-topic) but it'd still be way way easier for people to answer if you provided examples like I mentioned, or alternatively let us know how the proposed recipe came out.
Where did the other ingredients / ratios come from? A tried and tested recipe? Experience? Random values? Have you made anything similar to this and how did it turn out? Welcome to the site, btw.
Looking at your recipe, there's not enough butter or eggs for the amount of flour and sugar. I'm saying this because I'm assuming the the oz measurements are weights. You could also increase the amount of white chocolate to 6 oz.
Since white chocolate doesn't have much of a presence in a cake - the primary flavour is vanilla - you may want to make a good white or yellow cake and save the white chocolate for a spectacular icing.
You should put a bit more white chocolate like 1 or 2 more ounces
Generally, it's helpful to give at least a brief explanation as part of an answer. Why do you think it needs more white chocolate? Is there some sort of guideline you're basing this on? Not only will it help the person asking the question to understand your answer, but a more general guideline or explanation could help other people who don't have this exact recipe but have a similar problem.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.698895 | 2015-07-22T00:39:07 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59247",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Brenda Turner",
"Cascabel",
"Isobel Wardley",
"Marie O Brien",
"Myra Kirkpatrick",
"Stephie",
"Ward Elias",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141517",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141518",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141519",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141520",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"saurabh agarwal",
"tehreem usman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
59498 | Why did my chocolate chip banana bread split?
Usually, I mix the butter and sugar first, then add the banana mashed with a little milk, and I put dry ingredients in last. But this time I put the baking powder with the butter and sugar and egg mixture, and my bread split in half while baking. That had never happened before! Did putting the baking powder with the wet ingredients first mess it up?
When you say 'split' do you mean it developing a crack and opening up some in the top? If so, that's just a sign that the crust set when there was still plenty of action still in the leavener (ie, it continued to rise after the top had firmed up) It's fairly common in quick breads.
Two thoughts:
First, baking powders are typically double-acting leaveners, where gas is created in two phases: (1) when mixed with wet ingredients, and (2) when heated. By you mixing the baking powder early, it had more time during this first phase, thus giving your bread more rise before it went in the oven.
Second, as @Joe described, the cracking results from the crust setting before the leavening is done. Since your bread had extra leavening on this batch, the amount of rise may not have been able to keep up with the timing of the crust setting.
If you decided that you want to continue mixing the baking powder early, you could try either: (1) covering the bread dish with foil for part of the baking time, which might help slow down the crust setting (since moisture released from the surface would be trapped and keep the crust soft), thus making it more forgiving to the extra leavening; or (2) you could reduce the amount of baking powder or just finish mixing it all very quickly.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.699123 | 2015-08-01T00:29:44 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59498",
"authors": [
"Bethany Webster",
"James Jefferies",
"Joe",
"Philip Jackson",
"Richard Soria",
"Robert Travis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142157",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142165",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"kelly alexander",
"susan burgess"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
59556 | Can I use oil in marinades for dehydrated mushrooms?
I have a new dehydrator that I'm looking to use to replace some of my unhealthy quick snacks with better alternatives. To that end, I think I've found a great base for alternative-snacking in dehydrated mushrooms--they have a mild, earthly flavor that could work great as low-calorie comfort-food with some spice or barbecue added to it. I'm currently experimenting with making my own rubs for my mushrooms, but I'm stymied when it comes to marinating mushrooms before putting them on the racks.
Most recipes I see for marinated vegetables utilize oil, and my understanding is that oil does not work well in dehydration. Calorie concerns notwithstanding, the oil itself will not dry and thus the results will require refrigeration and have a short shelf-life. I'm really looking for something I can toss in the pantry to be eaten later when I feel like a snack without having to worry about it going bad, so this is a non-starter.
Should I worry about oil spoiling my vegetables? Is there a good way to substitute a drying-friendly alternative for oil in recipes I find?
Thanks for coming back and fixing up your question! I've removed the last bit - asking for lists of low-oil/oil-free is as you say pretty broad, and I don't want this to end up as a poll for everyone's favorite sauces.
Why do you use oil at all ? shouldn't you simply put the mushrooms in the dehydrator as-is ?
@Max: Same reason one uses marinade for anything else--to add flavor. I want to make flavored veggie-jerky, but any recipe I find for veggie marinade contains oil. I don't know, but I would guess that the oil serves a purpose in these recipes--however, I don't think the oil itself is compatible with dehydration.
You can use oil in food you are dehydrating but you are correct that it will affect the shelf-life. The oil will become rancid before the dried mushrooms would have spoiled, but it will still be good for at least a few weeks and that can be extended to months, if you vacuum seal it.
If you want to avoid the oil, just skip it and use the spices in a bit of water (or diluted soy sauce, lemon juice, or vinegar).
I haven't done dehydrated mushrooms, but I have made dehydrated spice mixes that contained some oil. They were fine and dried like anything else, but I didn't use a whole lot of oil in them.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.699307 | 2015-08-03T16:37:36 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59556",
"authors": [
"Ashon L",
"Cascabel",
"Donald Goskirk",
"Frank",
"Glenda Castro",
"Gregory",
"Jacquie Elysia",
"Marge Clendenin",
"Max",
"Pinkgirl6",
"Siddhisvari Bulloch",
"Trish Na",
"Yolanda Navarro",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142333",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142402",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142597",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142889",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37256"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
43515 | How should the smoke appear in the exhaust in a kettle charcoal grill
I am about to start my BBQ adventure. I intend to buy a Weber charcoal grill. I am going to use it for grilling and smoking. I was listening to a podcast where the desired smoke color was discussed. They claimed thick white smoke to be undesirable, but a clear blue smoke to be preferable.
Why is that? What texture/color is optimal and why? What is going on in the combustion process?
How did you ever have the patience to sit through that long enough to hear anything substantive about actual cooking, and not his self-indulgent blather about the show itself?
Just skip that stuff until he starts talking to Meathead
@l3win I've changed the link to at least point to the start of when the first guest shows up, don't really have time to listen; if you want to be helpful you could change it to point to the actual part of it that you're interested in.
You want thin blue smoke. While I don't have any good explanation on the chemical differences between 'blue' smoke and white smoke, there's certainly some advantage in taste. Blue smoke is a slightly cooler smolder from the wood, rather than an almost-burning-state.
Use chunks of smoke-wood (roughly fist-sized chunks, rather than the coin-sized chips of wood) for long-smoked BBQ. Put the smoke-wood on first, put the cover on and let the smoke-wood get down to a smolder before you put your meat on.
However - it is a fairly minor difference. I've made plenty of good BBQ with the wrong-kind of smoke when the food when on. If you're just starting-out, don't freak-out too much that your smoke isn't perfect. You'll have your hands full trying to keep it within your target cooking temperatures, which is more important!
I don't usually pay attention to the color of the smoke. Just don't put anything on the grill/smoker until the charcoal has turned white or gray. This allows them to reach proper temperature as well as burn off and chemicals used to start the fire. If smoking, soak the wood chips or chunks first. They will burn slower and give off smoke longer, which is a good thing for consistent flavoring. A thick white smoke will be given off after first putting on the wood, then slow as the wood burns off. I prefer to keep the smoke less and cook at lower temps for longer periods, as the smoke gets deeper into the meat as opposed to thick on the outside.
It turns out the soaking thing is a myth; it just means the chips have to dry out before they start to smoke. Otherwise, there is no effective change.
@SAJ14SAJ I don't doubt you, but I'd be interested in hearing more about this. Do you have a source?
http://amazingribs.com/tips_and_technique/mythbusting_soaking_wood.html
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.699538 | 2014-04-15T03:28:49 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43515",
"authors": [
"ABellows",
"Cascabel",
"Eli",
"Gail Sallis",
"John Bachir",
"Kat",
"Ray",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"chutz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101951",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101952",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"l3win"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
36678 | Can I use expired cream cheese spread?
I bought cream cheese (Milkana), didn't use it, and I found out it already expired on 5 August 2013 (over a month ago).
Taste and smell are still good. Can I use it for baking?
Is that an expiration date or a "best by" date?
Taste and smell are good indicators, and most companies take a very safe approach with labeling, and are quite conservative in their estimation of expiration. Dairy products tend to spoil in a manner that isn't stealthy (no sneaky botulism*). I might eat it, if I was really in the mood for cream cheese.
But you have to ask yourself, "Do I feel lucky?"
Well, do ya, punk?
*Probably. There have been scares, but the incidence of botulism in dairy products is vanishingly small. Dairy comes with its own suite of microfauna that outcompetes nearly all other types of bacteria.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.699791 | 2013-09-10T16:16:34 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36678",
"authors": [
"baka",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4535"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
36123 | Do metal skewers make a considerable different cooking time than wooden?
When making kebabs I usually use the metal re-usable skewers. However do they differ at all than their wooden counterparts? Dishes are fun to do but only if the meal is good.
Absolutely! Metal skewers contribute to cooking the meat from the center as they pick up heat from the exposed parts and conduct it throughout.
It is a good idea not to crowd your metal skewers with pieces of food to promote this. Not crowding the skewers also exposes more surface area for the food to caramelize. Doing this on a wooden skewer runs the risk of burning the skewers and losing food into the grill.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.699887 | 2013-08-19T12:43:59 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36123",
"authors": [
"Arko",
"Flavour 101",
"James McGuigan",
"Kristi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84729",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84730",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84732",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84741",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84749",
"pacukluka",
"raga",
"tacoscool"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
35212 | Why is there liquid at the bottom of my lemon meringue pie?
Why is it that whenever I make a lemon meringue pie, (packaged lemon filling, directions followed EXACTLY), and I cut into it, there is always a puddle of liquid on the bottom? I do use 7 egg whites but I put a bit of cornstarch in to help with the beads of moisture on top. That works, but I don't think that is related to my puddle problem! I have also tried to add the meringue to the lemon filling when it was hot and when it was cold. I have also tried to refrigerate the pie and just leave it on the counter. Still, a puddle! Does anyone have any ideas why I am getting a puddle on the bottom of my pie?
Do you mean that the puddle is below the bottom crust?
I think what may be happening is that the acid from the lemon is making the protein in the eggwhite/meringue curl tighter and squeeze water out of the emulsion. maybe try the corn starch in between the lemon and meringue?
Was the meringue baked?
Water seeping from meringue is practically always coming from the egg whites. There are a few standard things you can do to reduce it.
First, do not overbeat. For some reason, recipes love to direct people to beat egg whites "to stiff peaks". These are almost never needed, and can easily lead to self-destructing foam (the proteins continue tightening after the beating, squeezing the water out and creating large, easily-collapsed bubbles). Go for soft peaks at most. I have found that using a high speed setting also helps, and beating per hand almost always leads to weeping, even if stopped early.
Second, use cream of tartar to create a stabler meringue without too much beating.
Third, the cornstarch isn't binding enough of the free water. If you whip less, you will have less free water, but if it is still not enough, you can use something more effective, e.g. xanthan.
Look around the site for more advice against weeping meringue. Also look at the pictures in that answer - the meringue there is for macarons, which are very sensitive to the meringue quality.
Making pies with meringue will also weep if the weather is damp or humid. When I make my Lemon meringue pie I always make my meringue first then I cook my lemon and then pour the hot lemon in the crust and put the meringue on top and throw it right in the oven and seals it. Now if you're using white sugar you can substitute it for icing sugar and that can help also from weeping.
If despite these good pieces of advise you still experience the issue you can put some almond powder on your crust which will act as a sponge and absorb the excess liquid.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.699991 | 2013-07-10T02:32:16 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35212",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"MandoMando",
"Mien",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580"
],
"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
} |
58987 | Why did my chocolate eclairs fail?
I made chocolate eclairs, my second attempt copying exactly from Laura in the Kitchen on YouTube (full recipe here), and the pastry was not all well creamed and looked oily as I placed in oven. It looked as though it was frying.
Please can you kindly explain what I did wrong? I feel so frustrated as they baked over 30 minutes and came out rock hard, but completely moist in the middle. Just wasted so many ingredients, eggs and milk and flour and butter.
Sorry, but "Laura's kitchen on Youtube" is somewhat vague - could you please at least give a link or, even better, post the recipe + instructions? We are eager to help but we prefer giving answers over detective work on the Internet to understand the question.
Just because you are new here, some help: Do you mean this video?
If that's it, this should be the full recipe, so you don't have to watch a video: http://www.laurainthekitchen.com/recipes/eclairs/
What is your baking experience level? Not that experienced bakers can't fail but there's something you learn with experience at making simpler things. Without knowing what you did, we can't possibly know what went wrong. Did you follow the *recipe exactly? Did you complete each step?
And what do you mean by wasting milk? It doesn't go in the batter and the custard can be used otherwise, no problem. Or what did you do with the milk?
As the commenters have already said, it's hard to know exactly what happened from the information you've given but I'm going to try to give some direction.
First, I think the key is in this statement:
"the pastry was not all well creamed and looked oily as I placed in oven".
This sounds like either the oil (butter, in this case) separated out from the batter, or it wasn't well-mixed to begin with. Let's assume that you mixed it thoroughly to begin with until it seemed like a creamy, smooth batter and everything seemed well-incorporated.
So, what happened? I'm guessing that you left the eclairs-to-be resting on the pans for a while, maybe while you were piping out the rest of them.
If you let the batter sit for a while, oil can start to separate out, especially if your kitchen is pretty warm (which they can be, in summer when boiling water on the stove and pre-heating the oven). This shouldn't happen immediately, but I think it would explain what happened.
Next time, make sure everything is ready and laid out before you start. Start to pre-heat the oven before you start boiling the water. Once you start piping, move quickly, and if possible, work in a cooler part of the kitchen. Pop the trays directly into the oven as soon as you finish piping them all out.
There's a second thing you said that I think is significant. You said that the outside was rock-hard but the inside was too moist. I think the excess moisture is from steam.
It is normal for the eclair to have a bit of a crust to it (not rock-hard, of course, but there will be a crust) and this traps steam inside. You need to break a hole through the crust to let the steam out, and my guess is that either you may have missed this step, or the hole you made wasn't big enough.
BTW, it is also possible to have something get too hard and still be raw in the middle if you cook for too long at too low a temperature (it dries out instead of cooking) but you said you cooked for 30 minutes and that matches the recipe timing, so I don't think that was your problem here. But if you have a lot of problems with things not taking the right amount of time when you bake, you might want to invest in an oven thermometer and see if your oven is heating to the temperatures you expect. Not all recipes are very finicky about exact temperatures but some are.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.700223 | 2015-07-11T13:27:57 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58987",
"authors": [
"Briana H.",
"Carol Walton",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Deborah Castle",
"Elizabeth Davidson",
"James Capek",
"Stephie",
"Tyson Mugambi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140824",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140825",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140847",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140849",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142282",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
59145 | Can I use dry milk instead of whole milk?
If a recipe calls for whole milk and you only have dry milk, what would you do? Explain your answer.
Uh, "Explain your answer"? We aren't your students. Maybe you should start by explaining your question.
I was able to find this pretty easily online:
1 Cup Milk = 1 Cup Water + 3 Tablespoons Powdered Milk
3/4 Cup Milk = 3/4 Cup Water + 2 1/4 Tablespoons Powdered Milk
2/3 Cup Milk = 2/3 Cup Water + 2 Tablespoons Powdered Milk
1/2 Cup Milk = 1/2 Cup Water + 1 1/2 Tablespoons Powdered Milk
1/3 Cup Milk = 1/3 Cup Water + 1 Tablespoon Powdered Milk
1/4 Cup Milk = 1/4 Cup Water + 3/4 Tablespoon Powdered Milk
Source: http://preparednessadvice.com/food_storage/conversion-chart-for-powdered-milk/
Additionally, I've done some calculations to show why this works for creating 1 cup milk (a little bit more :)
Dry milk composition in %
Protein (%) Fat (%) Sugar (%) Minerals (%) Water (%)
Dry milk, Fullfat 26 27 38 6 2.5
Dry milk, nonfat 36 1 52 8 3
Fresh milk 3.4 3.7 4.8 1 87
Dry milk composition in 42 ml (3 tbsp)..just converting % to ml
Protein(ml) Fat(ml) Sugar(ml) Minerals(ml) Water(ml)
Dry milk, Fullfat 10.9 11.3 16.0 2.5 1.1
Dry milk, nonfat 15.1 0.4 21.8 3.4 1.3
Fresh milk 3.4 3.7 4.8 1.0 87.0
If you add 1 cup water = 42+236 ml liquid
Dry milk with water
Protein (%) Fat (%) Sugar (%) Minerals (%) Water (%)
Dry milk, Fullfat 3.9 4.1 5.7 0.9 85.3
Dry milk, nonfat 5.4 0.2 7.9 1.2 85.4
Fresh milk 3.4 3.7 4.8 1 87
Which is nearly the same as whole fresh milk.
Source for dry milk stats (1st table): On Food and Cooking by Harold McGee.
If a recipe calls for milk you mix your powdered milk with water according to the package instructions and use the amount given in the recipe.
If your powdered milk results in the equivalent of skim milk (as opposed to whole milk), it depends on what you are cooking / baking whether you need make up the difference in fat content by adding some butter, cream or similar or use it as it is. Without a recipe or at least an idea what you intend to do we couldn't say.
If you mix the dry milk as directed you can replace the regular milk in cooking. You might need to add some fat to your recipe if it calls for whole milk. Sometimes powdered milk used in some recipes will change the flavor a little because of the different flavor between whole milk and powder milk. I have found that if you mix the powdered milk with warm water, refrigerate over night then aerate the mixture by pouring it back and forth from glass to glass it helps with the flavor.
I have great success adding the amount of powdered milk necessary on the package directions, say for 1 cup, by adding the dry powder with the flour, sugar etc.... Then add the amount of liquid (water) per instructions that would have been used to make the (cup of milk), ie 1 cup of water to the liquid ingredients in the recipe. This has worked great for me.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.700536 | 2015-07-18T13:38:45 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59145",
"authors": [
"Gabby Conroy",
"Jackie D",
"Jim Hunter",
"Marcy Thalacker",
"Marti",
"Merilyn Thomson",
"Shads Ajam",
"brian bell",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141274",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
58899 | How much cream should I make for my mini Oreo cream pies?
I'm making mini cream pies, in custard cups, and I just need to know how much cream to make to fill them all.
Oreo cream pies are no bake pies. It honestly just depends on how much to want to be in it.
You could estimate by filling the cups with water about the level you want the cream to be at, then dumping into a big measuring cup. You'll end up with a bit of extra cream that way unless you compensate for the space the crust is going to take up, but wouldn't be too far off!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.700865 | 2015-07-08T17:06:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58899",
"authors": [
"Andrew Blogg",
"Cynthia Chilekwa",
"Jay",
"Kate Barlow",
"Mani Arthanari",
"Mummy Lim",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140553",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140696",
"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
} |
45439 | How do I save curry with too much cumin?
I think I may have added too much cumin in my curry sauce last night and it has this dry seasoning taste in every bite. It may have soaked into the veggies as well... Is there a way to save the curry that is left? An ingredient or something to balance it out?
When/how did you add the cumin?
If you have a dry seasoning taste it's possible that the spice simply wan't cooked enough. If you added a load of cumin (or other dry spice ) at the very end then it may not have had enough exposure to heat. If this is the case then simply cooking it for 10-15 minutes may improve it somewhat.
One thing that has worked for me before in similar cases is adding some yogurt or a dab of cream and cooking it for a bit. I think it may be that the fats in them help the cumin to release their essential oils, or it could be that the flavors of the milk have some sort of interaction. The reason it has worked is unknown to me.
Beyond that there's nothing you can do that I know of. A bit of cooking work yogurt is probably worth your time and effort to save it, but any more than that is likely a waste of your time and money.
Another good option is coconut milk. I had a similar experience when I made a curry mix. My jamaican friend passionately suggested adding coconut milk (she couldn't imagine curry without it).
A more simple soloution is to make a second batch of curry with less of the offending ingredient, and combine the two. I personally would also liquidise the 1st batch so that the flavours can combine more easily.
There are few ways to fix when you have added spices more than the required amount.
If you have added more chili powder : Add some coconut milk or desiccated coconut, or cream or a spoon of yogurt.
for cumin powder : Add pepper,crushed garlic and cook in a low flame and make ur sauce thick.
This will complement cumin and bring in a different taste and flavor(hopefully of ur liking)
a small tip : if you had any spice ,esp for curry always add it before pouring water.
Normally in Indian cooking you add spices after you add your vegetables or meat, so mix well and cook the spices slowly ,so that the oil oozes out of the spices. This way you wont get a woody taste while you have ur curry.
Hope this helps.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.700965 | 2014-07-09T15:47:08 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45439",
"authors": [
"Adam",
"Air",
"Bernard",
"Craig Ward",
"Michael E.",
"Winona",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108276",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108277",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108280",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25818",
"javs",
"user108280"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
35902 | How much salt and pink salt do I need for pork sausage?
How much salt and pink salt (in grams) do I need for 50kg of pork sausages?
I have worked out for 50kg of pork meat I will need 1200g of salt and 155g of pink salt. Is this correct?
What kind of sausage are you making? Are these cooked sausages, or dry aged sausages?
According to Smoking Meat Forums, you would need 2 ounces of pink salt for 50 lbs of sausage, which is a ratio of 0.0025 pink salt to meat (they provide three significant digits) for short curing time sausages. These are sausages which will be cooked or smoked.
Therefore, converting to metric, 50 kg, you would require 125 grams or so pink salt.
Note that the regular salt is not really a curing agent at concentrations used in this type of sausage, but for flavor and texture:
Although salt is not generally used in concentrations sufficient to
effect preservation it exerts some antimicrobial activity. Some
bacteria are already inhibited at 2 percent levels of salt. Other
microorganisms tolerate a much higher concentration of salt.
You would need to provide an original recipe or formula on which you have based your calculations to get any validation of your computation of the regular salt amount.
See also:
How to dry homemade pork sausages with proper humidity and temperature?
Rhulman on meat curing safety issues
Officially, you want 2% salt and 1/9th of that Pink salt. Although for fresh sausage you may find that a bit salty. 1% or 1.5% maybe taste better and be healthier.
modern medicine is now onboard with cancer caused by Nitrites. If your meat is clean, from a good source and not from 100 different pigs, consider skipping the pink stuff.
Salt IS indeed a curing agent, just not at 2%.
For more details, check out Charcutrie by Michael Ruhlman.
You get far more sodium nitrite from a stalk of celery than from a sausage. More importantly, it's not sodium nitrite that is carcinogenic, it's nitrosamines, which are created from nitrite under conditions of high heat. There's a very good article about this here: http://culinaryarts.about.com/od/seasoningflavoring/a/nitrates.htm For fresh sausage, you can do without the nitrite (though it has a positive effect on flavor), but you can still get botulism from a salame made out of the most pristine, well-raised pork in the world if you don't include nitrates.
Nitrosamines also occur in acidic environment such as the stomach. The OP can choose based on the balance of risks from botulism and cancer.
Exactly: eat vegetables, ingest sodium/potassium nitrate -> nitrites and other derived chemicals are formed in your stomach.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.701178 | 2013-08-10T04:09:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35902",
"authors": [
"Diane Ebbert McMahon",
"Joshua",
"Kenny B",
"MOUNIR AIT WAALLA",
"MandoMando",
"Nyakwai",
"Rrryyyaaannn",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"That-Kickass-GirL",
"Vee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84202",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84490",
"jscs",
"tomc"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
35905 | Doubts about forming a crust on a souffle to make it rise further
I've read on some cook books about souffle and found a trick that might make the souffle rise further: put the souffle for 1-2 min under the broiler before baking, so a crust will be formed and more of the steam that rises will be trapped before it escapes completely from the souffle.
I know that if a crust forms on top of a souffle or cake, it will lose its ability to rise (not flexible anymore). So why would the souffle, after the broiling, expand and rise even further during baking?
To be more precise: I don't understand how it's possible for the souffle to rise after creating a crust on top (via broiling). The crust created is supposed to prevent the rise of the souffle during baking, so how does it instead make it rise even more?
Could you also explain what causes the crust to form during baking?
I'm confused, you say that you know that if a crust forms on top of a souffle it won't rise, yet you ask why it will. What is the actual question?
@GdD Often crusts prevent rising, especially around the edges, making a less flexible layer stuck to the sides of the pan. The question is why that doesn't happen in this case (and implicitly, whether this trick actually works - I don't think the OP has tried it).
I think rather than a crust what this process would ideally do is to seal the top a bit so it would trap more steam but still be flexible. The trick is to do it long enough to form that seal but not long enough that it forms an actual crust which would stick to the rim and inhibit rising. A seal forms on the top naturally in the first few minutes in the oven, I think the point of this technique would be to form that seal before baking to prevent steam from escaping before a crust would be formed, maximizing the rise. Whether it would work or not would I am not sure, I would suspect that the souffle ingredients, type of dishes used, and whether the rim is buttered or not would all be factors. The only way to know is to try it both ways and measure the results. If I had to put money on it I'd bet that this technique would get more rise, not by that much though.
If I was going to try this technique I'd generously butter the rim and side of the souffle dish and carefully monitor the top as it is in the broiler, pulling it out before it forms a real crust. I'd also have a knife or maybe a thin barbecue skewer ready to run around the edge to break off any that has stuck from the side of the rim.
Now if you want to be really slick, chefy, and slightly geeky you'll use a chef's torch instead to form the seal on the top, that way you can be sure it won't touch the sides and you can control the result completely.
If you do try this please post the result, I'd be very curious to know how it works for you.
See the article I linked in my answers, with pictures of when they used this technique.
I suspect the premise of your question is incorrect: broiling the souffle does not help it to rise in the slightest; instead, it gives it a brown, delicious, and visually attractive top:
(Image from The Kitchn)
Broiling (or grilling, in UK parlance works) is nearly 100% a radiant heat method: the heat is transferred to the food via infrared radiation, a slightly longer wavelength than visible light, but otherwise exactly the same. The radiant heat only directly heats the surface of the foods it shines on.
In the case of the souffle, which is in its souffle dish, this means only the top of the souffle can become browned. It gets a gorgeous color, and a brown, toasty delicious flavor without over baking the entire souffle.
Then, during the normal baking period, the souffle rises lifting the crust on top like a ship on a rising tide. The interior of the souffle which was not browned shows around the edges of the browned top, providing a delightful visual contrast.
The broiling must be done first, prior to the main baking, for a couple of reasons:
If the souffle had risen, the contrast of the browned portion to the non-browned portion would be much less dramatic, since the radiant heat would reach some of the edges which are above the rim of the souffle dish
Once a souffle rises to its maximum proper height, it should be served immediately. Otherwise, there is a risk of either collapse or overflow and rupture, neither of which are very productive
The crust is simply the outside of the food, which has been directly exposed to the heat sources. Because it is as the surface, it can dry out via evaporation of the surface water.
If the surface water is evaporated faster than it can be replenished from the interior of the food, the surface can reach temperatures above the boiling point of water. If it gets hot enough, caramelization and the Maillard reaction can proceed, giving the crust brown and toasty delicious flavors.
The crust has a different texture from the rest of the food because it is desiccated, and because different chemical reactions have occured due to the higher temperatures reached.
See also: Souffle article at The Kitchn describing the technique, based on a recipe from Paule Caillat
I know that if a crust forms on top of a souffle or cake, it will lose its ability to rise (not flexible anymore).
I think that you got this part wrong.
A cake or souffle indeed stops rising when the proteins in them set, so the batter is not flexible any more. But it happens when the batter is set in the area which is supposed to rise. Recipes and baking instructions for cakes are designed so that crust formation on top and the setting inside happen at the same time, because then you have a nice, even cake.
If you have ever baked a cake shaped like a small hill, you will know what happens when this fails. The upper crust of the cake is set and cannot expand. The sides of the cake are already inflexible or semi-flexible and do not rise (much). The center is still completely flexible and continues rising, creating an unsightly buckle and cracking the upper crust.
But a souffle rises differently from a cake. There, you want to have a vertical rise only. This is why you use a ramekin. A ramekin is straight-sided, and it has thick, insulating ceramic walls and a smaller diameter than a cake pan. This ensures that during a normal baking process, your souffle won't get a liquid center and set walls in a horizontal cross-section. The vertical walls covered with generous amounts of butter plus a non-pasting granulate (frequently grated parmesan for cheese souffles, nut flours for nut soufles, sometimes breadcrumbs) as opposed to flour for cakes, give you perfect vertical expansion while not permitting sideways expansion.
As SAJ14SAJ mentioned, a grill/broiler heats in a very specific way. It heats surface very quickly to very hot temperatures, but the heat does not really penetrate well under the crust. (It does so, but very slowly. This is why grilled chicken has to be rotated all the time, else its skin would burn hopelessly by the time the inside is cooked). By placing the souffle under the grill, you cook the crust only, to a very small depth. The crust itself cannot rise anymore, but this is not tragic, as the depth of the crust will be very small in comparison to the complete height of risable batter. The batter below it will not set. It will not even become semi-flexible. It will remain raw and perfectly risable. When you then put the souffle into a normal oven with bottom heat, the raw batter will be able to rise normally. It will just push the hard crust upwards.
So, the theory says that the trick can work well. I have not tried it myself and cannot say whether it has a noticeable effect. This will depend on how much steam is lost through the raw batter surface when the souffle is baked normally.
I hope that this clears up the question about why it can function for rising. The ideas provided in other answers, such as the tasty crust, are a further reason to try the technique.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.701665 | 2013-08-10T05:17:41 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35905",
"authors": [
"Amber Ouillette",
"Brahmputra",
"Cascabel",
"Chuckie Lowe",
"GdD",
"NzDeb",
"Paige Jamieson",
"Pandya",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sadie Mae",
"Suryakant Sangolage",
"The Widow Flanagan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84187",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84189",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84261",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84315",
"tribonacci"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
67904 | How to get the most chili flavour out of a chili pepper?
I always find myself enjoying someone else's chili dish whether its curry, Mexicana pizza etc, more than my own. It's not the burning sensation that's lacking but more the chili flavour.
What are the guidelines to getting the most flavour out of a chili pepper in any spicy dish?
Edited, the question is very different than the original (which wasn't so bad as to deserve a hold) but has the advantage of being unquestionably fair game for this place.
Thank you. I did feel a bit hard done by. But edited it any why instead of complaining.
This shouldn't be on hold. It's not opinion based, there are techniques used to waken up a chili pepper depending on how it's being used, but that is technique based, not opinion based. In my wok cooking that includes a chili or two, I always drop the pepper pods into the hot oil before all other ingredients. It wakes up the chili and infuses the cooking oil with the pepper oils. When making chili sauces, you generally use vinegar and oil to extract the heat from the pepper.
Found a duplicate anywhy. http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66014/how-do-you-get-the-flavor-out-of-dried-peppers .
One technique, especially in Mexican foods, for recipes that use dried chilies, is to toast the pods before using them.
Toast them over medium heat until the pod blisters, but don't blacken too much. They are very thin, so going from done to ruined takes only a few seconds of in attention. Be careful!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.702240 | 2016-03-31T11:34:11 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67904",
"authors": [
"Escoce",
"Pork Chop",
"RI Swamp Yankee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37267"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
73180 | Irish cream left in hot car
I recently left a new unopened bottle of Irish cream in my vehicle for 24 hours. It probably reached temps of over 100F. How do I know if it's bad?
In shipping 100F is not uncommon.
It's fine. There's enough alcohol to prevent anything from growing in it. The worst that will happen is that it could get clumpy, which would be unpleasant and obvious.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.702387 | 2016-08-15T23:20:08 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73180",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
71232 | How to properly cook basmati rice in a rice cooker
I do have a kind of problem with cooking basmati rice in my rice cooker.
I am following the cooker instructions - for two cups (the cooker one, not the measurement unit) I use 200 ml of water. As far as rice goes, I am washing it multiple times - about 5 times every time, until the water is more or less clean and even let it soak for a few hours sometimes. But there are two problems :
Sometimes there is some kind of white foam coming from the rice which will somehow alter the cooking and eventually ruin the rice. There's a lot of foam and the rice has got a really bad taste afterwards and some weird texture.
Even when the foam is not present the rice is burned on the bottom of the cooker - I know I shouldn't trust ads, but the cooker was said not to be sticky one :(
Any help will be appreciated, thanks
I don't know what market region you are purchasing your rice from. Some markets (the US for example) have rices that don't require washing. Consider not washing your rice at all. It works for me. Also consider using water from a Brita, Pur or similar pitcher--you may have some funky chlorinated city water upsetting the works.
It's pretty normal for a bit of foam to come up out of rice cookers; it's just starchy water. Is there something that makes you think specifically that the foam is ruining the rice? Or is it just ruined by being burned onto the bottom of the rice cooker?
@Paulb well these two things may actually be true, the tap water is not so good, so we are using Brita. As for the rice, I am from Czech Republic, but I think the rice package says we should wash it, but I'll try it
@Jefromi It is a lot of foam and the rice has got a really bad taste afterwards and some weird texture.
And also should I rinse it with hot or cold water?
Basmati rice will not cook well in rice cookers made in China. I've had success with Basmati rice in a Black and Decker rice cooker but solely if I soak for 35+ minutes and add a tbsp of olive oil and a 1/4 tsp of salt to it. But the Walmart rice cooker I used to have which was made in China had the foam issue you describe. I believe the foam is due to rice starch and water and air mixing and the "dum" method required for achieving proper cooked Basmati rice is impossible to do when the rice cooker does not trap steam fully.
I would suggest purchasing Jasmine or other short grain rices instead of using Basmati with the type of rice cooker you seem to have.
Have you tried changing the rice-to-water ratio? Two parts water to 1 part rice is the norm.
This isn't always the case with rice cookers or with certain types of rice.
Will try it next time
Try to soak the rice for 5 - 10 minutes and then wash the rice well. At least wash the rice three times nicely rubbing them to remove the foaming starch.
cook with just a bit less water than you would normally cook the rice in the rice cooker, as the rice is been soaking.
Turn off the rice cooker as soon as the rice is cooked and remove the rice container from the cooker(to avoid the heat plate ).
Open the lid and fluff it up with a fork.
This is what I try. Hope this helps.
200ml is too little water, assuming your rice measuring cups are ~180ml (as is common. you are using two so ~360ml fill of rice). 300-400ml (including any rinse water left in!) would be a sensible range to try. A good ratio for 2 rice cooker cups of basmati is somewhere between 0.9-1.2 w:r by volume.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.702462 | 2016-07-05T21:11:35 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71232",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Jesse_Pinkman",
"Paulb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47866"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
66776 | What are the key differences between lemons and meyer lemons?
"Meyer lemons" are advertised as a cross between a lemon and a mandarin orange. The flavor is basically what you'd expect from that cross.
Is it reasonable to use them as direct substitutes? What are the important differences to keep in mind when substituting one for the other? How will those differences affect the recipe?
Maybe it'd be more useful to just ask how the flavor differs, and then you can make up your own mind about what dishes sound good with each?
@Jefromi The flavor is basically what you'd expect for a lemon crossed with a mandarin orange. Flavor is not the only difference, though; pH or some compounds etc. might lead to different reactions and interactions with other foods. I thought about adding the tag molecular-gastronomy, but decided the question wasn't specifically enough in that field to do so.
I'm not asking what the difference (flavor or otherwise) is. I was suggesting that you ask that instead of what you asked, because I thought it'd answer your question and be a lot more answerable. The pros and cons are pretty much just going to be that the difference is a good idea sometimes and a bad idea sometimes, I assume.
I don't want to ask about the flavor differences between the raw ingredients, because I already know that or can find out directly without having to deal with the issue that flavors are not all that well communicated in English. And yes, I presume that the difference will sometimes be a good idea (but when/in what situations is that) and sometimes a bad idea (again, when/in what situations?).
Do you consider replacing lemons with meyer lemons and drastically reducing the sugar to be a direct substitute?
I don't understand your question at all. You say you know what the flavor difference is. Then it is obvious that it is a good idea to substitute if you don't mind your dish tasting differently and it is a bad idea if you want the dish to taste the same. What other criteria are you expecting to hear?
@Jefromi if you drastically reduce the sugar, it's not a direct substitute. An answer to this question might be "if you use meyer lemons instead of regular lemons, you have to drastically reduce the sugar." That would be novel information to me.
@rumtscho knowing the flavor difference is not enough to answer this question or necessarily predict the effects of how that would change interactions with other ingredients, or attributes other than flavor. Also, even if one can predict that a flavor would be "different" that doesn't mean one can predict if it would be an improvement/better blend or not. Your comment seems a little like going over to UX.SE and implying that just because someone knows the difference between the appearances of the colors red & green, it's "obvious" when the use of each is appropriate in a user interface design.
@WBT No, she's not saying it's obvious whether it's good, she's saying it's obvious that it's subjective whether it's good. I don't think people on UX would be any more excited about debating whether your logo should be red or green than we are about debating whether meyer lemon custard sounds better than lemon custard.
Hi WBT! I wonder if you might get more of the answers you need if you add your first comment to Jefromi into your question, especially the part about reactions and interactions with other food. When I read that it felt like I got a better understanding of what you re hoping to learn. Also, comments don't hang around, so a more detailed question might help future users. Please forgive me if it sounds like I'm trying to interfere with your question, or tell you how to write it. That's definitely not my intention!
Hi @Sue or others, if you think there is material in the comment that should be edited in to the question in a way that makes it clearer for people on this site, please go for it in a suggested edit; I'll edit/rollback if need be. Jefromi: There are some ways in which certain uses of red/green are objectively better or worse and/or interact with certain things one might not have considered (e.g. colorblindness or places like China where some of the colors' cultural associations are opposite here.)
Thanks WBT. I had wanted to try to make an edit without hijacking your question! Since you brought it up though, I just put through a suggested edit. If you don't like it, please fix or rollback. If it makes sense to you, then maybe the comments can get cleaned up, as some are out of place since my edit. I hope I've helped. I'd like to learn something too!
Thanks for checking, @Sue. I think the edits might cover the first four comments, but not the part getting into the analogy with red & green.
I disagree with the closing of this question as "primarily opinion-based" and refer to existing answers that are not "oh, it's just personal preference" but instead identify objective facts about differences between the fruits. The follow-on question, "should I used Meyer lemons as a direct substitute for regular lemons," might be opinion based because each person can weigh the pros and cons differently. However, in order to even make an informed opinion, one needs to know the pros and cons, and that's what this question is asking for.
Meta discussion here.
If this edited version is okay with you (possibly with a little tweaking) I can archive all this in a chat and just leave the links to it and meta; it's not anything future readers need to worry too much about.
@Jefromi The original 2nd para. was trying to make the question more objective than "they taste different" & that's largely why I declined the suggestion to focus exclusively on that flavor difference. The original 3rd para. was trying to avoid the criticism (leveled anyway) that it's hard and not useful to try to make blanket statements, especially because lemon is used in a wide variety of settings for different reasons, probably at least one setting for each identifiable attribute of the fruit. If those are useful points to re-include, maybe someone can figure out an acceptable way how.
If you think it'd be helpful for you to have numbers for pH and fructose concentration, feel free to edit them back in as examples of differences. But I suspect that'll be hard data to come by, while sweetness and sourness are pretty commonly known even if somewhat less objective, so it seems more likely useful to just ask about differences in general. (i.e. this is why I mostly removed the second paragraph - I think the subjectivity problem was "pros and cons", not the core question itself.)
As for the third paragraph, I'm just not sure how necessary it is: if it depends on context, people can say so. But again, if you want something of that in the question, go for it - I might try more like "it's fine if it depends on the type of recipe" though, rather than trying to dictate the form of an answer.
Lemons are quite sour, while Meyer lemons are much sweeter and less acidic. If you substitute directly, it'll have a dramatic effect.
For example, suppose you start out with a dessert made with lemons that has enough sugar added (or little enough lemon juice) to make it the right sweet/sour balance for you. If you replace the lemon with Meyer lemon, it'll be way more toward the sweet side, and won't have the sourness to counteract it anymore. So unless you want that big change, you'd probably want to reduce the sugar and/or increase the Meyer lemon; exactly how you decide to do that would depend on the dessert.
If you substitute in the other direction, Meyer lemon to lemon, you'd likely have to reduce the lemon and/or add a bunch of sugar to keep it from tasting more sour.
Either direction, I don't think it really seems like a good direct substitution. It's a big change, so whether it's a good idea totally depends on whether the original recipe suited your preferences and whether you're okay with a broad range of sweet/sour or have something more specific in mind.
The only things where a direct substitution seems like a good idea to me are things where you're only using the zest. At that point citrus is pretty much all interchangeable, just a different flavor.
When I've used Meyer lemons I haven't noticed Mandarin orange flavors.
Meyer lemons are much sweeter and less sour than normal lemons. I use them in recipes that strongly feature lemon fruit, not just juice.
For example, shaker lemon pies are made with thin slices of whole lemons, including the peel. Regular lemons are overwhelming so I use Meyers.
On the other hand, I wouldn't use Meyers in recipes where lemon juice is used for its acid. For example as a condiment in a lentil soup.
It seems like you're kind of dancing around an actual answer that there just aren't actually any times you can make a direct substitution. If you change lemon to Meyer, you'd have to reduce sugar or add acid, and if you change Meyer to lemon you'd have to add a ton of sugar to keep it from being too sour. (but maybe I'm putting words in your mouth there; that was my first impression when I saw the question)
@Jefromi This seems like a decent answer to the question, +1. Your comments about having to reduce sugar or add acid seem like they also could be part of a good answer.
I agree that Meyer lemons don't have any orange-like component to their flavor; they're definitely lemons, and they taste like lemons. I disagree, however, about the "much sweeter and less sour" part. Yes, they're slightly sweeter and slightly less acidic than a regular lemon, but the difference isn't really enough to make much of a difference. With a lemon-based recipe (or really, any fruit-based recipe), you're always gonna have to adjust the sugar in your recipe, because the fruit will differ in ripeness, amount of sun it got, etc. etc.
@Marti Hm, we definitely haven't been eating the same (meyer) lemons. The ones I've had were very noticeably less acidic, not just slightly. Not sure which of our experiences is more common; for what it's worth, Wikipedia says "sweeter, less acidic flavor".
@Jefromi: the difference might be in the normal lemons we've eaten: I grew up in southern California with a so-called "dwarf" lemon tree that was taller than the house. Let's just say, we never purchased lemons. :)
They are harder to juice than regular lemons, at least with reamers or unaided, because the skin breaks apart much more easily (like a plump mandarin orange).
I don't know why you were downvoted ... that sounds like a reasonable 'con' to me. This wouldn't be a problem for a squeeze-style juicers, but would be for a reamer.
@Joe I think it's mostly just that it doesn't have any bearing on the resulting food. It's a little harder to get juice, but you'll get juice anyway.
@Jefromi : yeah, but if something took longer to process or made a mess while doing so, I'd consider that to be a huge 'con' when considering substitutions.
@Joe Sure, makes sense. I just don't think it's that big a deal, more on the scale of saying large potatoes are a bad substitute for giant potatoes when making mashed potatoes, because they'll be more work to peel.
@Jefromi : you say that knowing in advance what the problems are. Imagine you didn't know about that, and were suddenly surprised and hadn't made plans in advance for dealing w/ it, and it screwed up your planning the timing for the whole rest of the meal.
@Joe Sure, it's a reasonable thing to point out, it's just posted as an answer to a question that really appears to be asking about the actual effect on the dish. Just mentioning why it seems like a less useful answer to the question, I agree it's a useful tidbit.
@Jefromi : You mean the question that asked "What are the pros and cons of using them as a direct substitute for lemons in recipes?"
Let us continue this discussion in chat.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.702785 | 2016-02-24T02:06:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66776",
"authors": [
"Bidyananda Kshetrimayum",
"Boz Cranfield",
"Cascabel",
"Cindy Purnell",
"Darlene Lynch",
"Gary Gilbert",
"Jack Ashman",
"Jim VandenHeuvel",
"Joe",
"Josephine DeTar",
"Kimberly Stoddard",
"Marti",
"Robert Light",
"Stephanie Kolb",
"Sue Saddest Farewell TGO GL",
"WBT",
"Water Damage Removal",
"candace johnson",
"harry coleman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160550",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160586",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160594",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37150",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jackie dalton",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
92745 | How do I dehydrate Ganoderma Applanatum?
I'm wanting to turn artist conk into powder. How should I dehydrate it for grinding in my cornmeal grinder? I tried 6 hours at 180 in the oven, and it's still moist to the touch.
A shelf fungus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganoderma_applanatum
I've edited the information from your comment into your question; in the future please do that yourself, or better yet, include it from the beginning. I'm also not sure whether you meant 180C or 180F.
I've found that it makes a tea that tastes kind of like vanilla.
As the generic simple answer that works for most mushrooms:
Cut them in cubes of 1 cm³ (0.061 inch³)
Put them on parchment paper in your oven at 110°C (230°F)
for 1 hour (½ Shí).
doesn't seem to work on this particular mushroom, you'll need special (read: expensive) equipment to be able to dry these before being able to grind them to powder and that is:
Freeze drying
Vacuum drying
Sorry! :-(
Note: Or bring a few six packs to someone owning this equipment already and drink the beers while waiting for the process to finish
Should I use the ax on a wood block, then take it over to the flour grinder then dry it on the plastic dehydrator sheets?
From Wikipedia: "It forms fruiting bodies that are up to 30–100 centimetres (12–39 in) across, hard as leather, woody-textured, and inedible in raw form." -- it sounds cutting them may be nontrivial. Is this intended as generic advice about fungus or specific for this type?
@Cascabel generic for any fungus and I see what a coder's question is now...
@acoder: axe, dry, grind.
Why won't it suck the moisture out of the shrooms? I tried 6 hours at 180 in the oven, and it's still moist to the touch.
@acoder Including what you've tried unsuccessfully is hugely helpful for potential answers -- can you update your original question?
Sorry @acoder , if the generic advice doesn't work, you're going to need some pretty expensive equipment (or pay someone else to dry them for you) If it's for one 'shroom, not worth the effort.
Maybe that fungus has essentially watertight pores that merely expand when heated? Maybe your oven is of the type that keeps moisture inside unless vented?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.703778 | 2018-10-08T18:41:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92745",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Erica",
"Fabby",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"a coder",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
71523 | What do I do with this spice mix?
We've had these spice mixes for a while, one is for "Meat Masala" and one for fish. The ingredients and directions for the meat masala powder can be found here. The instructions are rather cryptic, though. "Required" salt? Curd?
The directions don't look like any recipe for Tikka Masala that I've ever seen, though perhaps this is some other dish? I'm not really familiar with Indian cooking.
I've made this recipe for Chicken Tikka Masala before, but I'd like to be able to use these spices with it. How should I modify that recipe to use these spices?
Doesn't really answer your question how to use spice mixture, but as to your confusion abt its instructions vs. your other chicken tikka masala recipe: The cup of "curds" would be analogous to the cup of "yogurt" in step 1 of your chicken t. masala recipe ["In a large bowl, combine yogurt, lemon juice, 2 teaspoons cumin, cinnamon, cayenne, black pepper, ginger, and 4 teaspoons salt. Stir in chicken, cover, and refrigerate for 1 hour."], curd being an Indian dairy product, like what is also called yogurt. "Required salt" called out on the spice mixture instrux. just means "salt to taste".
1st link is dead...
"Mix with...required salt" is just a kind of awkward way of saying to mix in salt to taste. Might make more sense if you read it as "the salt required to make it taste how you want".
Curd is basically a thick yogurt.
As for how to use it... I certainly might try their recipe and see if you like it (whether it's canonical chicken tikka masala or not).
But if you want to a variation of your existing recipe, just omit all the spices from that recipe and use this spice mix instead, probably starting with the same quantity as the total ground spices from the original recipe. Since the spice mix already contains salt, I might also omit the salt from your recipe and then add salt to taste once you've added enough spice.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.704004 | 2016-07-19T14:42:58 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71523",
"authors": [
"Lorel C.",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201"
],
"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
} |
71565 | Is my wok carbon steel (it is magnetic)and how do I proceed - seems I am ruining it
I found what appears to be a new wok at Goodwill. It came with a lid that is very light with a wooden knob on the top and it seems to be aluminum. The wok however is much heavier, with two side handles of metal that are welded/stuck to the wok. The outside of the wok seems ribbed in texture and the inside shows the rib lines but is smooth. There is absolutely no marking/stamp on the wok or the lid. A magnet does stick to the wok so therefore it is steel of some sort. There is no Teflon at all. I went about the process of boiling water in it to help release the manufacturer's coating as it appeared new and there was a film/residue inside the wok. I then scrubbed with a metal type scrubber (not brillo but similar). The bottom got a duller spot/s on it. I repeated the boiling and scrubbing while hot and I am getting brownish spots all over the inside of the wok that appear black when boiling water in it, and brown when empty and in the sink. This was a new wok for sure. I can still see some of the film and it is spotty and I can't seem to remove any more. Do I go ahead and season it or should I still try to remove more film? Is there an easier/better way to remove the remaining film? Is it possible I ruined this wok because it was not carbon steel? It has a round bottom. Not sure how to proceed but went vegetarian years ago and almost vegan a few months ago and stir fry has become a staple in my diet. Need help please. thank you.
the thin film that was uniformly all over the inside of the wok, and is still there in a multitude of places, was almost sheer. It was not a seasoning like I see described on the web where people use oil and heat to put a colored coating on the wok. Did I ruin this wok? It had no instructions with it, no name on it or label, nothing. I just followed the advice on the web. I also dried it by hand and heated it up dry before leaving it be for the night so it would not rust. I don't see orange-brown rust. I see what appears to be more of a bare metal now.
Welcome Wisconsinite, if you could add pictures of the inside of the wok it may help you get better answers.
When you see brown, think rust - you've scrubbed off any seasoning (very likely what your "film" was) and have plain wet steel in air - it rusts in minutes.
Dollars to doughnuts, the film you have been fighting so valiantly to get off there is polymerized vegetable oil - aka "seasoning." The odds that it was coated with anything else are quite low.
Since you're well into having destroyed whatever seasoning it had, go ahead and burn off whatever is left (place in oven on "self-clean" cycle, or place in a wood fire) or else attack it with abrasives such as steel wool or sandpaper (stick to fairly fine sandpaper or you're going to need to run through several grades of finer sandpaper to get the surface back to usable/smooth if you scratch it up with coarser stuff).
You can also try running it through the dishwasher - harsh dishwasher detergents will often strip seasoning.
I got a wok in '76 when I was going into my senior year of high school. It remains one of my favorite cooking pans.
A true wok has a completely round bottom, not a flat bottom. The roundness of the bottom allows for cooking with considerably less oil than a flat bottom. A flat bottom is nothing more than a frying pan with big rounded sides.
Another quality of a true wok is that it has no non-stick coating, not even polymers created by cooking cooking oil until it turns to plastic. When properly cooking in a wok (on the HIGHEST HEAT POSSIBLE), the foods will stick until they cook just enough to release. This is important because it will allow you to push cooking foods up the sides and not slide back down into the bottom. This means that foods newly added to the wok can cook on the bottom while the foods that have been/started cooking in the wok can be pushed up the sides. This allows the oils & juices to flow back to the rounded bottom of the wok, meaning that new foods are introduced to the liquids, not the dry sides of the hot wok.
I generally clean my wok with just hot water & then wipe it dry with a paper towel and let it air dry upside down before storing it. Occasionally, I have to let some hot water soak the wok to get all the foodstuffs off, and on rare occasion use soap & water with a nylon/plastic bristle scrub brush. None of my cleaning has ever seemed to cause any damage to the wok, and I still make Chinese (style) food in it weekly. By my calculation, I have cooked approximately 2,000 meals in it, and it still is just as good as it was the first time I cooked food in it.
My wok came with a Teflon coating, which I promptly burned off by placing the wok, dry, over a hot flame, and letting it cook until everything inside peeled off and I was able to wipe it out. Woks should not be seasoned like cast-iron cookware, per the reasons mentioned above. I still have a little bit of the Teflon coating along the top edge of my big wok, but my small one has burned it all off. About the only things you do not want to do is to cook over a flame lower than the highest setting as that tends to produce oily foods, or to leave it with water standing in it overnight, tho I have done that once or twice (tho not even once every 10 years).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.704191 | 2016-07-21T00:48:27 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71565",
"authors": [
"Debbie M.",
"Ecnerwal",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
59142 | The right amount of jalapeño
Often when I make soup I add a minced jalapeño (with the seeds) into the soup. I know that the pepper has a (I believed) 1,500-2,500 heat range and so when I add a full pepper on the low end of that scale it's fine and I get that tongue numbing heat sensation. When the pepper is on the higher end I get the throat burning dire-need-of-milk sensation.
If the pepper is on the low end and I only add half then the heat is also undetectable. Though on the high end with only half then it's just the right amount.
How can I use the right amount of jalapeño?
The heat of individual peppers varies. Add a little bit at a time, tasting as you go. You can put more in, you can't take any out!
It can be pretty hard to tell how it's going to taste when served, though, since the flavor doesn't all blend in right away, and while it's on the stove it's hotter than you'd end up eating it so it'll tend to taste hotter too.
@Memj contrary to popular belief, the seeds don't add much heat. In hot peppers, the highest concentration of capsaicin is in the rib. You can really tell in a fresh jalapeno... Taste a little bit of the flesh, then a bit of the rib (the lighter colored part that holds the seeds). You can be pretty generous with the flesh, but take care not to overdo the rib.
How to choose fresh, ripe (hot) jalapeños? http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25695/how-to-choose-fresh-ripe-hot-jalape%C3%B1os Beware the Texas A&M mild (TAM) Jalapeño. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TAM_Mild_Jalape%C3%B1o They're sold in stores as Jalapeños, with no marking as to their lack of heat.
Cut the tiniest amount off the tip of the jalapeño and put it on your tongue: after a few times, you'll get a feel of how hot individual ones are and you'll just know after a few times if you have to add the entire big not-throat-burning one or half a tiny running-around-screaming-hot one.
No, it's safe: the tip contains the least amount of capsicum (If fresh! All bets are off for the pickled ones!) ;-)
I go through quite a lot of chillies, so what I would do is mince a bunch of jalapenos, and add it to your soup a spoonful at a time. Keep the rest in the fridge for later. The law of averages should mean that the chilli blend as a whole is neither too hot nor too mild.
How long will the refrigerated peppers stay fresh for?
@Memj In an airtight container? A few days to a week? You could always freeze them though.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.704625 | 2015-07-18T04:13:21 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59142",
"authors": [
"Alan Lucas",
"Bill Moorman",
"Cascabel",
"Donna Rowe",
"Gladys Sansoucie",
"Jane Marshall",
"Jennifer Addo",
"Jolenealaska",
"Memj",
"TarkaDaal",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"dszc",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141258",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36897",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9255"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
39599 | Can you cook chicken breasts frozen on the George Foreman Grill?
Can you cook chicken breasts frozen on the George Foreman Grill? Is it safe? Will it work well?
The crock pot question has already been asked and answered so I'll remove that from the question, and let people just answer the Foreman grill part.
You can cook chicken breasts from frozen and it is safe, but the quality is arguable.
It would be unsafe if the middle is not fully cooked, or if the cooking process takes over two hours. These two conditions are not hard to meet, but doing so can result that the outer part is dried out. This is no safety concert, but a quality/flavour issue.
To circumvent this, let the breasts thaw in the fridge. Then cook them fully.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.704881 | 2013-11-20T21:42:08 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39599",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Eddy Deschuymer",
"Helly",
"Jim Parker",
"Jonathan Potter",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91934",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91935",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91936",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91953",
"laisabeck",
"user36728"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
88342 | How to make extremely dry pork more palatable?
I cooked a pork shoulder sous-vide for 24h and sadly It came out extremely dry. I think it's due to cooking it in a citrus heavy marinade and removing a bit too much of the fat cap.
So now I have a few pounds of really dry pork and I'd rather avoid losing it.
How could I further process/cook the pork to make it less dry and more palatable?
I was thinking stew or chilli, but I'm not sure if that will dry the meat even more.
I would like to answer but this feels too much like a call for recipe that seems to be frowned upon here. I don't make the rules.
@paparazzo Maybe we could tweak the question to avoid attracting endless lists of recipes, but it seems fine - the OP doesn't actually need recipes, just techniques/types of dishes that would turn dry pork into something more palatable.
related : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/42260/67 ; https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/55464/67 ; https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/42714/67
@Cascabel I don't think we should tweak a question. I don't agree with a lot of stuff on this site. I am just tying to get along and not get banned again.
@paparazzo Er, I'm just saying that I personally think the core question is fine, so it's fine if people answer it, it's probably not too much of a recipe request. (And the concern that it is a bit of a recipe request could be addressed by editing.) So... no need to worry about rules. (And to be clear: "we" in a comment like my first one means "the users of the site" not "you and me personally".)
And we already have two answers that focus on technique, not recipes.
The edit is perfectly fine by me. I'm really looking to techniques and general ideas more than specific recipes.
It's likely too dry because the temperature was too high, not because of the marinade or fat cap.
boil a small piece in slightly salty water (like pasta water) just to see what happens to the texture ... it will give you an idea of what will happen if you make stew from it
@mrog It cooked at 60C, I'm 100% certain temperature wasnt a factor.
60C should be just fine. Have you verified that your equipment is maintaining the set temperature correctly? I ask because I've never had fat amounts or marinade make sous vide meat dry. But a short time at a temperature 5C too high will do it.
@mrog Good point, but yeah, my circulator is working fine. I made eggs this morning and they came out perfect.
I'd use it as barbecue. It should shred fairly easily; if not, I'd gently steam it until it does. If it's so dry that it can't be shredded, it probably can't be saved, though you might be able to get satisfactory results with chopping.
All it needs is to be warmed in the barbecue sauce, requiring no further cooking. Include some of the juices and fat that came off of the pork during the initial cooking. Serve on white bread or soft sandwich rolls.
The same procedure would work with many different sauce profiles. A Mexican-style sauce would make it a great burrito or enchilada filling. An Italian-flavored tomato sauce can be served atop pasta. Mix it with a curry sauce and serve on rice. In each case, it just requires shredding/chopping and heating in the sauce.
I've tried this before and the sauce does mask the dryness and make the meat more palatable, but it will not change the texture of the meat.
Yep. Fixing the texture of the meat is pretty much impossible. A physical-chemical change has occurred: the gel-like web of proteins and moisture has collapsed. The fastest way to really "fix" it would be to feed it to a pig and start over.
If the citrus marinade doesn't interfere too much, You could mince it and roast it even further (to brown the mince), mix it with similarly browned beef mince and use it, on top of a soffrito, as the basis of a Ragu.
My Ragu recipe rehydrates severely browned beef and pork mince and the melted vegetables using tomatoes, white wine and stock, with seasoning tweaks. It's a long slow cook, overnight. I freeze it. When the time comes to serve with pasta, I add milk and fresher aromatics (including mace) and reduce it to give a more custardy, sticky texture.
Since the meat is dry, what you need to do is incorporate more fat. I would try pork confit. Any kind of fat should work.
Does it taste good? If so perhaps just continue and completely dry it out and just have pork jerky? After it's jerkied perhaps you could shred it and put in a chili or stew, but at least you haven't wasted it.
You could slice it very thinly against the grain and use it as sandwich meat.
You could give it a few spins in a food processor and make dumplings ? Dumpling filling could have lots of liquid elements ( depends on the recipe, but things like soy sauce, mirin, sake, sesame oil, vinegar, hot sauce, etc) to try and moisten things up.
I think it would resemble the texture of mince and would lose the texture of dry shredded pork ( which feel very fibrous ).
Main downside: lots of work.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.705003 | 2018-03-14T14:17:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88342",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"JS Lavertu",
"Jason S.",
"Joe",
"Joshua Engel",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jsotola",
"mrog",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
69384 | How should I store sunchokes for 4 months in a hard freeze?
I've seen that sunchokes "just want to grow", so I was wondering how I should store them over a long cold winter.
This is mostly so I can have seed (community garden) in the spring, but I will also be eating some.
Keep them moist and sealed in a bag at around 32F. Treat them a bit like potatoes except that they are resilient to frost and freezing. In fact, they do survive buried in frozen ground over winter.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.705400 | 2016-05-31T20:01:05 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69384",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
37159 | I have an insanely hot pepper: now what?
Someone gave me a Trinidad Scorpion Moruga pepper: according to Wikipedia, it's the hottest one out there. At least, the person who gave me the pepper said it's one of those, and it certainly seems to look like one.
I can take a bit of chili: I've cooked myself meals before with an entire chili pepper in each, and I can take that much without much problem. Having said that, I'm definitely not a pro when it comes to spiciness, so I'm kind of scared to cook with this demon fruit.
What do I do with this pepper? Is there some way I can get the flavor and spice in a meal without upsetting my stomach or searing my mouth (and/or other stuff the morning after)?
edit: I'm suddenly thinking, maybe I could grind it up and make a big chocolate cake out of it? am I right in assuming the oils in the chocolate will dilute the peppery oil in the pepper?
If the hottest you've gone is "an entire chili pepper" (which one?) I suspect one of those peppers is going to introduce you to a new level of pain...
I've tried looking this up before but fell short. Here in The Netherlands the one I've gone for is called Spanish Pepper, but I think in English people simply call them Chili Pepper. They're red and elongated and kind of shiny. They're not sort of dimpled or "creased" or anything. The closest I've come to describing which pepper I've tried is that I'm pretty sure it's a Capsicum Annuum species. It looks like this: http://www.mergenmetz.nl/res/site14/client/c3d30ffbd9c1823edebe20f7ca46ff82.jpg
That looks like a Cayenne pepper. Which is indeed Capsicum Annuum (but so are quite a few peppers, with a huge difference in heat). If that's the case, then your gift is 20–40 times hotter.
The Spanish pepper sold in Central Europe is rather mild in heat. Whatever you do with your new hot pepper, be prepared to have to throw away the whole dish if it turns out to be many times hotter than your tolerance. So, I would stay away from expensive ingredients like good chocolate.
One suggestion: you could look up recipes for hot pepper sauces. You'll wind up with an insanely hot one, but you can then use only a few drops to heat up a dish.
@derobert I like the idea of making a hot sauce, I concur completely. I think that's the best thing to do with it, the sauce would last forever (frozen) and always be fun. It makes me want a pepper like that. You should post it as an answer
I've come across this thread having grown a moruga plant with 2-3 dozen peppers on it. Oh lordy. I didn't know what I was in for. I guess 2-3 dozen bottles of hot sauce.
Have you ever eaten something so hot it made you cry and felt like it'd never stop burning? Given what you've said you've tried, this thing is probably 10-100x as hot as the kind of pepper that would do that to you. Please be careful.
In any case, pretty much the sole point of a pepper like this is to try to be the hottest thing in the world. The amount of capsaicin is incredibly huge compared to the amount of other flavor in it; you're basically never going to taste anything but heat from it. So if you want to actually use it, just assume that the only thing you can do with it is make something hot.
I have a decent heat tolerance and love things with a bit of heat, but I still probably wouldn't bother. There are plenty of ways to add heat with much less risk of creating something completely inedible. If I really wanted to make use of it, I'd probably start with a very small quantity in a dish to try to get a sense for the heat level. This means using it in some kind of soup/stew/sauce where you can incrementally add things as you cook, not in something like a cake where you have to just go for it and possibly end up throwing away a whole cake. (For some peppers I might also try touching it to my tongue first, but I don't think I'd recommend that in this case.)
Finally, you can always try to cover it up by using it in a rich, fatty dish, e.g. a sauce with plenty of cream or coconut milk, but honestly, you'll still be lucky if you can taste anything from the pepper besides the heat.
Very good answer. I'll accept it if I don't get a better one in a few hours. To answer your question: no, I haven't, and I suspect something a LOT less hot than a Trinidad Scorpion Moruga can do that to me. Your question is an eye-opener and no mistake! I am very much leaning towards simply giving this beelzebub-berry back because I probably won't have any use for it. It's probably wasted on me.
The smart advise Jefromi is giving i you is "still probably wouldn't bother." Discard this pepper; no joy will come from it.
@SAJ14SAJ That would be a waste of a perfectly good pepper. Some fiery-hell-fruit-nut might want it! Besides, it was a gift: throwing it away would be impolite.
The hottest part of the pepper is inside the actual fruit, the white veins (aka placenta) contains the highest concentration of capsaicin (the source of the 'heat').
If you carefully clean the pepper, removing the internals, even lightly scrapping the inner walls of the pepper, you will end up with a much more mild pepper. If you will go a step further and roast the cleaned pepper and use a paper towel immediately after roasting to absorb the oils that roasting brings to the surface, you will end up with a very flavorful, but not "too spicy" pepper which can be used in any variety of applications, such as chili or salsa, without overwhelming heat.
By "carefully" clean, I suggest wearing gloves, working a safe distance from anything else being prepared and thoroughly cleaning your work surface afterwards. DO NOT touch yourself (especially your eyes) with your gloved hands. (see http://shine.yahoo.com/shine-food/trinidad-moruga-scorpion-world-8217-hottest-pepper-eat-201500678.html... section "Safely Handling Chiles")
Problem is, this pepper has been completely bred for heat and not flavor, and it's just one, so even if you do manage to get it mild, it's probably not going to be as interesting as any decent flavorful pepper.
Though I have not personally tried a Trinidad Scorpion Moruga pepper, the articles I have read describe a sweet flavor that I believe would be accentuated by removing significant portions of the capsaicin.
Sure, but so do a lot of much more mild peppers, and even if you get rid of 90% of the capsaicin, it's still as hot as a habanero... you can certainly give it a shot but it may not really be worth it.
That article makes this thing look downright dangerous. I mean, if it can blister me or burn my sinuses, maybe I should try a Jalapeno first.
Wikipedia tells me that that is at about 1.2 million Scoville.
Pepper Spray used by law enforcement is generally 0.5-2 million Scovlille, generally to the lower end effectively as it is diluted to 5-10%.
Imagine applying paper spray to your food, instead of pepper.
I've had friends end chicken wings flavoured with sources that hot, to show their "manlyness".
Every one of them ended up crying ("like little girls"), from agony. Describing it as more pain than they could have imagined. After seeing their pain, I felt it would have been a greater mercy have beaten them into unconsciousness, than to have allowed them to consume that food.
There is no flavor, there is only pain.
In short, unless you are a phenomenal chili head, that chili is little most than a novelty.
As such a novelty, your might like to attempt to grow your own from the one your were given. So you can point out to guests that that is a chili that is most dangerous than many controlled substances.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.705595 | 2013-09-27T20:32:27 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37159",
"authors": [
"Bosh",
"Cascabel",
"Cos Callis",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kritika",
"Luke Sawczak",
"Mary Anderson Dearing",
"Pratishta",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Zig Mandel",
"best engineering consulting co",
"darryl yorath",
"derobert",
"grainthinguest",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20463",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58871",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87307",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87308",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87314",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87364",
"rumtscho",
"toon81"
],
"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
} |
37187 | Can I make meatloaf with soy burger meat?
I bought beef burgers only to find out they're not actually beef, they're soy burgers. I don't like them, so I want to try and spice them up and give them flavor. Can I defrost the burgers and make meat loaf with the soy meat? I have a good meat loaf recipe, but I am wondering if I can substitute the meat with the soy meat.
I've removed the complaints about the specific product, because they're not really relevant to your question and because the product you named is most certainly beef; either you bought something else or you're mistaken about what you have.
If you hate the soy burgers, you will probably hate meatloaf made from them. Your best bet might be to defrost 1 or 2 burgers and mix them with ground beef (or whatever meat you use for meatloaf) with no more than 25% of the mix being the soy burgers. If you like your first meatloaf, you can always try a little bit higher percentage of the soy burgers next time. Since they're frozen, you have a bit of the luxury of time to use them up.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.706203 | 2013-09-28T19:59:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37187",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chris",
"Ester Sipes",
"MonaKapoor",
"Prodip Dutta",
"Thomas Matthews",
"cbatus",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87378",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87379",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87380",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87384",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87390"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
69112 | What is better for chilled cheesecake - pectin or gelatin?
I am currently doing my food technology GCSE coursework and need a Lemon Cheesecake recipe for next week.
I was planning on having an enriched shortcrust base, with a chilled lemon cheesecake filling. It will also have raspberry coulis and meringue peaks as a garnish.
I saw a picture on Instagram of a cheesecake with clear, strawberry jelly (I don't know if it was jello [American word for 'jelly' in British English], or jelly [a clear conserve]). I want to know what it was, 'jello' or 'jelly' because jelly requires pectin (thus heat) to set but jello just requires gelatin.
What is my best course of action, because in my eyes, if I make jelly, it would set too quickly, therefore I would need to pour it onto the cheesecake whilst it's hot, thus melting the filling; but jello wouldn't need any heat?
When you say "chilled" you mean a recipe with a filling that is never baked? If that's the case, you might consider looking for the key-words "no-bake cheesecake". Standard cheesecakes are always baked (as far as I know, in the US).
Also, if you can find the image again, you can add it to your question. It might be easier for us to identify that way.
Indeed, the source seems very relevant here, since you're asking about a US vs UK English thing.
I had experimented w/ what temperatures I could pour gelatin and still have it be clear. See http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/54070/67 . What you might be able to do is pour a disk of gelatin, let it cool, then unmold it and set it on top of the cheesecake. If you have to, reserve some to place down as a thickened gel first, then add the disk on top. It might also be possible for a pectin-based gel to cook at the same time as the cheesecake (I think gelatin loses its gelling power if held near boiling for too long, if I remember correctly)
It may have been strawberry glaze you saw in the photo. It is made with a starch thickener, generally corn starch, and either flavored gelatin or fruit/juice.
You also have agar agar, guar gum, locust bean gum, xanthan gum, gellan gum and carrageenan. Depending on the texture and clarity you require. Some of these require very little or no heat to gel and can just be poured over the cheesecake after.
Thanks for all of your answers. I guess I'll use gelatin because it's clear and sets slowly.
Probably the jelly is something like the brand Oetker which comes clear or fruit-flavoured. It is indeed poured warm; cheesecake will survive if it's a cm or less layer.
Alternatively, boil up some apricot jam (or strawberry), take off heat a few minutes and sieve through a tea strainer over cheesecake.
Keep stirring the pot if you are slow.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.706331 | 2016-05-19T17:02:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69112",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Debbie M.",
"Doug",
"Joe",
"adam",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45858",
"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
} |
55920 | What is the emulsification power of 1 egg yolk?
How much oil (fat) can one egg yolk hold safely before you risk the sauce breaking?
Surprisingly high -- something like 6 gallons of oil can be emulsified by a single egg yolk. In addition to the site linked, I've seen similar experiments by Kenji Lopez-Alt and James Petersen.
So if your mayonnaise refuses to emulsify, it's NOT because it doesn't have enough egg yolks.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.706559 | 2015-03-21T22:59:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55920",
"authors": [
"Andreas Gregoriou",
"Brad Pickel",
"Frances Esparza",
"George Bellomo",
"Gregg Home",
"Jake Whitehead",
"Krisly Anne Santos",
"Vickie McKinney",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132922",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132924",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132927"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
67879 | Why is honey heated and filtered for normal markets?
The honey which we get in the markets is of utterly low price as compared to raw honey. As we all know that this honey is heated at great temperatures and filtered.
My question is then why is honey heated and filtered and then sold in the markets?
The price of heating and filtering should make more expensive than raw honey. Why is it of so low cost as compared to raw honey?
From: http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/11/tests-show-most-store-honey-isnt-honey/#.VvuBK3oaabl
It’s no secret to anyone in the business that the only reason all the pollen is filtered out is to hide where it initially came from and the fact is that in almost all cases, that is China,” Adee added.
Why would they want to hide where it came from? In India, big companies like Dabur, Patanjali etc. sell such filtered and heated honey. What and why do they want to hide?
I don't understand what you're asking... In the US, there's a huge difference between the two... usually "Raw honey" is produced locally to where you buy it, often within 20 miles, while filtered honey is sold all over the world and produced in bulk. People often prize raw local honey for its supposed health benefits (discussion of which is off topic here).
@Catija Not sure I understand your comment. The question is why all that honey sold all over, excluding mostly local raw honey, is filtered and heated.
Oh, I think I see. The OP asked "why is raw honey heated..." meaning why do they take the raw honey and heat it (making it non raw honey). Clearer to just not say raw there.
@Jefromi I'm jabbering about it in chat.
Filtering
The filtering reduces crystallization. It also is desirable because most people don't like random bits of wax, bee parts, or really any foreign-looking material in their honey. For better or worse, people like clear, clean-looking honey. The visible particles could be filtered without removing the much smaller pollen, but that'd still leave the crystallization issue. Burleson's has a page explaining filtering, including addressing the claim that it's about hiding the origin of the honey. This NPR article also addresses it pretty well.
Note that some people have made some pretty wild claims about filtered honey not even being honey anymore. This is not true, at least as far as the USDA is concerned:
Filtered. Filtered honey is honey of any type defined in these standards that has been filtered to the extent that all or most of the fine particles, pollen grains, air bubbles, or other materials normally found in suspension, have been removed.
Strained. Strained honey is honey of any type defined in these standards that has been strained to the extent that most of the particles, including comb, propolis, or other defects normally found in honey, have been removed. Grains of pollen, small air bubbles, and very fine particles would not normally be removed.
So if you prefer strained/unfiltered honey for whatever reason, go for it. But filtered honey is still honey.
Pasteurization (heating)
The heating is better known as pasteurization, and it serves to kill yeast (reducing chances of fermentation) and prevent crystallization/granulation. Pasteurization does kill bacteria too, but bacteria can't generally survive in honey so that's not one of the reasons for it here.
It's pretty easy to find more information about this by searching for honey pasteurization. For example, BeeMaid has a page about pasteurization.
I'm not really sure about the disguising origin theory, given that there are real reasons for this processing that don't sound like a conspiracy theory. I'm sure the processing does disguise the origin, but that doesn't mean that's why they do it. Besides, if you told the whole US that all their honey was from China, I doubt they'd stop buying it.
You also asked about cost difference. That doesn't really have an interesting answer; it's just that raw honey is not as widely sold and tends to be locally produced so it ends up more expensive, while non-raw honey is mass-produced and sold everywhere and ends up cheaper. Sure, it costs more to process than to not process, but mass-production is cheap. This isn't an unusual occurence; white flour is often cheaper than whole wheat, white bread is often cheaper than whole wheat, and so on.
you know I have something to say about this. I know all the big players in the US honey business personally. There is a lot more going on than customer expectations. A great deal of this question and its answers are very much the same as the GMO argument.
@Escoce Can you elaborate? "The GMO argument" makes it sound like it's an issue about whether you have to label certain kinds of processing, which doesn't seem to address the question of why they do those kinds of processing.
No, I don't think it would end up being a healthy discussion. Just understand it's the same kind of discussion with just as much pressure from big money to sit down and shut up.
@Escoce If you know a better answer, we'd all really love for you to actually tell us (whether as a comment here or as an answer of your own).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.706650 | 2016-03-30T07:22:13 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67879",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Escoce",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
68362 | Is it safe to use non-sashimi grade fish to make gravlax?
Background: I am trying to make gravlax, but some recipes I see use sashimi quality fish, and others do not, see:
Recipe without sashimi quality fish:
http://www.jamieoliver.com/recipes/fish-recipes/super-quick-salmon-gravadlax/#zYOgHzcRRMYwGDTe.97
Recipe with sashimi quality fish:
http://www.seriouseats.com/2015/04/how-to-make-gravlax-cured-salmon.html
So my questions are:
Is it safe to use non sashimi grade fish to make gravlax, as in that first recipe?
Was it safe to eat traditional gravlax before people knew about parasites and freezing?
What does Ikea do to its gravlax to make it safe? Or is Ikea gravlax not the same as the ones produced by the above recipes?
The first question was my original main question, but subsequent discussion has led me to think questions 2 and 3 are related and relevant as well.
I do know that salmon can have parasites and sashimi quality means it has been frozen to kill the parasites.
Edited the question to avoid referring to the history (future readers don't need to know about it), and cleaning up comments since it appears to be all resolved.
IMO.
Gravlax is not technically "raw" it is cooked (cured) with salt and sugar, both of which have been used to preserve food for eons.
In any case, use as fresh as possible fish you can find from a reputable fish monger.
Yes; as long as you properly cure the fish and properly store the fish in the fridge.
Was it safe before ? The "traditional" gravlax, was fermented salmon buried in sand. don't know, there are still Scandinavian people, so I assume it did have such an impact.
They so it the same way we do it, with salt and sugar, and vacuum pack it. (I cannot find the ingredients list for it online); maybe they add a little bit of preservative, but I would be surprised.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.707016 | 2016-04-18T12:00:49 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68362",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
54561 | Making chocolate covered strawberries without parchment paper
What can I use to set the strawberries on to cool if I don't have parchment paper or a cooling rack?
Cling film/saran wrap, tinfoil/aluminum foil... any sort of layer will work.
If you are glazing only a few strawberries you can pick up the strawberries with a (wooden) skewer (toothpicks might be too short) and then poke the other end into styrofoam, a sponge or anything similar or put these into a tall and heavy glass.
Source
Just put a dinner plate in the fridge, then set the strawbs on that... Make sure the strawberries are drained off well after you dip 'em, and then the chill of the plate will set the chocolate.
If you have stone countertops you could set them straight on to them as well...
I'd be strictly against a chilled plate, see this answer as an explanation.
But the cool plate would only be "disfiguring" the underside of the strawberry - the cool plate would just help to avoid sticking. I'd go with the other alternatives, nonetheless.
Wax paper or aluminum foil should substitute well for parchment in this case.
Aluminum foil is a terrible idea with chocolate, in my personal experience. It sticks something terrible.
Chill them for a few minutes in the freezer. Take them out and put the plate over a boiling pot of water for a few minutes and they should wiggle off. Worked perfectly!!!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.707174 | 2015-02-09T18:25:54 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54561",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Charlene Marvin",
"Green Apple Roofing",
"GrumpyOldMarine",
"Helen Shields -Harrison",
"Jeff Scott",
"Sabaa Halwawala",
"Sanam",
"Serena Tasker",
"Stephie",
"Susan",
"Werede Medhin",
"dave pagor",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128424",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128425",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128427",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128433",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128441",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho",
"user141592"
],
"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
} |
57134 | Why would mussels be gritty?
I've made my first attempt at cooking moules frites however I'm a bit disappointed with the results.
The batch of mussels were purchased from an online fishmonger specialising in Cornish seafood in the UK. Two thirds of the batch had already opened so following advice online I discarded them. The remaining ones I thoroughly washed in cold running water and removed any beards visible. On cooking, they all opened however they all tasted gritty and in the shells I could see black sludge.
Have I done something wrong? Is there an additional preparation step I missed? Or is it a bad batch?
Any help or advice is much appreciated. I haven't cooked fresh mussels before so it's a bit of a learning experience for me!
I was under the impression that, as long as open mussels close when you tap on them, they're perfectly fine to cook and eat, so you likely threw away many perfectly fine mussels. If they're dead, they won't close again, and should be discarded. Regardless, you seem to have followed all of the steps... did you scrub them or just wash them?
Research where the mussels originate from, there are disctinct sources, spanish mussels and fremch mussels, atlantic and mediterranean, they have different farming conditions and different reputations.
With regards to the grit, if they aren't farmed mussels (which generally are fairly clean) you may want to give them a soak for a while. This will give them the chance to expel any further sand/grid they may contain. There are varying theories of whether to use tap water, salt water, sea water or various other concoctions. And admittedly there are those who say any form of soaking will do all sorts of harm to the flavour. But if the alternative is disappointing gritty mussels, why not give it a try.
And as always, ask your fishmonger for advice. They will know the origin of the product, and whether or not you need to take extra steps in preparing them.
As for discarding opened mussels, don't just discard them when they seem open on arrival. If the shell is not cracked, give them a light tap (on the counter or with a knife) and see whether or not they will close in response. If they close in response, they are fine. If they don't close or tell you to stop it, then discard them.
And if two thirds of the batch really are dead ... I personally would not necessarily trust the other third to be in great shape.
Great answer, just to add, here's a great Serious Eats article that touches on these same points as a source, including information on soaking wild-caught mussels.
I've heard that they will eat flour and help clean themselves: http://www.cookstr.com/recipes/fresh-mussels-steamed-open-in-wine-and-flavorings one to add to the "various concoctions" list.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.707354 | 2015-05-02T21:37:05 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57134",
"authors": [
"Alexander Normann",
"Catija",
"Christine Cullerton",
"Dispatch",
"Mateo",
"Neva Noe Nev",
"Vaishali Mahale",
"bandybabboon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135911",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135914",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35290",
"steve aland"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
66597 | How to reproduce meat flavor
Recently I have become a vegetarian.
I have always loved hamburgers, but the taste of vegetarian hamburgers isn't anywhewre close. I would like to know if there is any way to reproduce the flavor of meat, using no meat in the process.
I know this is a duplicate because I created one of the answers but I can't find it
@Escoce : I found one specifically on pork, but you didn't answer it, so there's likely another one : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/60283/67
A few more : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/15475/67 ; http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/12351/67 ; http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/13086/67
Oh ... and the bad news ... you probably can't 100% duplicate the flavor ... but you can probably make it taste better.
You definitely can't reproduce exactly the taste of meat, but generally what you want is probably a combination of Maillard reaction and umami flavor (tomatoes, mushrooms, soy sauce, seaweed, spinach, nutritional yeast, etc.).
@eckes I genuinely enjoy Tofurky brand vegetarian sausages. Sure it's not really that similar to meat sausage, and it's highly processed, but some people happen like it anyway. It's not for everyone, of course. De gustibus non est disputandum.
Add a pinch of MSG ;)
I am definitely not a vegetarian, but I do love vegetables. The flavor of meat cannot be reduplicated by vegetables, but there are definitely certain things you can do to help.
Smoke Seasoning
Two common varieties are liquid and powdered. Usually, when I think hamburger, I think char-grilled. Liquid smoke can be incorporated with certain things to enhance the flavor. I suggest to use liquid smoke sparingly as it is quite concentrated. Also, grill seasonings often contain smokey elements of flavor.. for example, mesquite seasoning and a plethora of other of other grill like seasonings are very common in your traditional American grocery store spice aisles (including liquid smoke). Alternatively, grilling your veggies and using good wood (mesquite, hickory, etc.) will impart a nice flavor.
Veggies and vegetable products
Of course, with any non-meat entree choices, it may be hard to feel 'full' after eating a meal. I'd recommend vegetables with a relatively high protein content to offset this. Garbanzo Beans (chick peas), and really any derivative of a bean are good choices. If you can acquire a taste for tofu, it is an excellent medium of absorbing flavors. Zucchini, asparagus, string beans are also great additions to any vegetarian meal.
Texture
When I think of something meaty without the meat, go with fungus! Mushrooms are excellent options, provided you have a taste for them. I sometimes make sandwiches with thick cut slices of portabello mushrooms that are stir fried with a savory sauce. Mushrooms provide a meaty/chewy consistency and are also great conduits of absorbing flavors. There's always much room for mushroom in my cooking repotoire!
Dairy
Provided you are not going "vegan", using cheese as you would with meat is excellent in providing that extra "oomph", especially in sandwiches. I do not know many people who dislike a grilled cheese with tomato soup. Mozarella paired with basil, tomato, and other herbs is also great on sandwiches. Also, think of mac & cheese and alfredo sauces for pastas. Throw in some versatile veggies you like and you have a full meal right there.
I'm not opposed to vegetarians, but I do feel that meat has played a huge part in the evolution of the human species. I believe it is your freedom to choose whatever you want to eat. In the end, my advice is to really expand your horizons for flavor and adapt to all the wonderful veggies this world has to offer. Indian, Middle Eastern, and Asian cuisines usually have great choices for vegetarian options. Also, if you are philosophically okay with being a pescatarian, seafood options are plentiful.
Contrary to what others might tell you, you can, at least partially, replicate characteristics that make meat taste "meaty." There are specific chemical compounds that create this flavor profile. The question is can you find vegetable sources where those compounds are in abundance, but don't otherwise completely alter or spoil the base flavor of the dish you are making?
I'd recommend looking at Cook's Illustrated/America's Test Kitchen recipes that have the words "best" and "vegetarian" in them.
Basically, what is usually missing from tofu or other meat substitutes is the savory and unami characteristics that meat has.
What they say, in their articles, is that there are some specific compounds that impart that unami, and that there seems to be synergy where if you combine some of them, the effect is greater than the sum of the parts, or if you just added more of one.
Some of the specific ones they often use are: tomato paste, soy sauce, ground dried shittake mushrooms, ground dried porcini mushrooms, walnuts.
Here's their vegetarian chili, where they also use bulgur wheat for texture to make it seem more "meaty." It's a subscription site, but if you sign up for a free two-week trial, you can go nuts and search through all their recipe archives and download what you need within that timeframe. Just make sure you cancel it before it auto-charges at the end, if you don't want to pay for the full service.
Both vegetarians and meat-eaters I know have stated that this is an excellent chili.
Cooks Illustrated: Best Vegetarian Chili
Thanks for this answer, which saves me the trouble of writing almost the exact same thing. One or two specifics to add:
--Bragg's Liquid Amino's is good esp. as part of a substitute for fish sauce
--Adding some sugars (e.g. vinegars, tomato pastes, honeys) and having them caramelize with the other salty stuff adds to the depth of flavor and umami
--Miso!!!
@kevins - Thanks! That's info I didn't have, but will definitely use.
You cannot. Meat tastes "like" meat because it is meat. What you are sensing through taste is the physical and chemical structure of the stuff you're eating. It is absolutely impossible to replicate meat without it being meat.
The best you can do is to go through the questions Joe linked and use the suggestions from them to get food which tastes umami. It is a taste most people get to know through meat. Nobody will mistake your food for meat just because it's umami, but you might find that a non-meat umami taste is good enough for you. But if you really need the taste of meat, then you have to give up vegetarianism.
You could make something vegetarian that tastes like hot dogs, but hot dogs don't taste like meat, so that wouldn't be very helpful. :-)
I think you're underselling this a bit - it's definitely not possible to get a perfect substitute, but you can do a bit more than just umami. All the fake meat products are a decent demonstration of this.
@jefromi The OP already indicated that a fake meat product ("all vegetarian hamburgers") is not sufficient for his situation, and requested a replication of the taste. I felt that the appropriate answer is that there is no such replication. The umami suggestion was meant as an alternative.
@rumtscho Hm, could be. I said that because in my experience, some of the dedicated fake meat products have a lot more meat flavor than any veggie burger I've ever had.
fundamentally not true. There are vegetarian meat flavourings in much of what we eat. Mainly containing glutamates like yeast extract and MSG. Beef flavouring is one of the most used and is in many instant gravy recipes. It has other stuff too like onion and garlic to give you the "gravy" taste but take that away you have something that tastes like beef. It's not commercially available on its own because a lot of money rides on other products not having the recipe.
@davbren we might be more in agreement than you think :) Sure, some of the aromas which make up a meat/beef aroma are known (as well as the flavors such as umami) and when a specialist mixes some of them up, it becomes an aroma reminiscent of beef. The food industry uses it a lot, indeed. Nevertheless, this is not a method which will have anybody believe they are eating a chunk of beef when they are actually eating processed vegetables combined with these aromas - and this is what my answer is focusing on. For home cooks, the closest they can practically come to these industry practices is...
... to use any source of umami they have available, especially the glutamates you mention - and this is what I suggest in the answer too.
@rumtscho, beef is a tough one because it is so distinctive but we will get there. I have eaten chicken replacements that tasted and felt like great chicken. To the point where I have asked 'why would I choose chicken over this?' We're not there with red meat yet but it will happen.
...as far as my own personal experience goes, the best substitute for beef flavor that I've yet found is, admittedly, not vegetarian. What I like is a 5:4:1:2 ratio of cricket flour, red miso powder, spirulina powder, and bladderwrack powder. The cricket flour gives that earthy-meaty taste that I've only ever found in animal proteins; red miso gives the needed umami taste; spirulina powder gives it the sharp-meaty taste like what you find in a good beef roast; and bladderwrack gives it a nice fatty mouthfeel.
The one trouble I've found with this is that, as a broth, the end product contains a large amount of suspended particles; it doesn't have the liquid textural clarity of a good beef broth. For burgers, that doesn't matter too much, but for soups, I'm planning on experimenting with Moringa oleifera seed powder to see if that can clarify the broth without sacrificing flavor (moringaseed is well-established to work as a water-clarifier, but if the beef flavor of my broth is in the particulates, clarifying them out would be less-than-helpful).
To use this in a no-beef beef-tasting burger, I usually just take tvp or tofu, mush it up into a ground-beef-like mixture with a little whole-wheat flour (the gluten helps it all stick together) and/or an egg (don't know whether eggs are acceptable to you), and then marinade the mixture in the broth overnight. Then the next day I use this exactly like ground beef; I either fry 'em up for tacos or hand form 'em into patties and stick 'em on the ole George Foreman.
To avoid using cricket flour, my recommendation would be to try some variety of mushroom powder; they're the closest culinary replicates of cricket flavor that I can think of. Porcinis and shiitakes are the mushrooms I find meatiest in flavor, so I'd recommend powders of those if money is no object, or if this is a special-treat meal that you don't plan to have often; but a quick google search has informed me that those powders are quite expensive, so portabella or other mushroom powders might be more-reasonable alternatives overall. Pumpernickel (whole rye) flour or nut flour (esp. walnut) may also work, or perhaps some combination of any of these.
As far as general principles go, the Maillard reaction that gives meat its flavor is a very general reaction-type between proteins and reducing sugars, responsible for browning in bread crusts, french fries, and so on; so you will be best-served in your meat-flavor-reproducing endeavors if you focus on trying to produce a broth/food-product that has the same protein/fat/sugar profile as meat, and then cooking it in oil as one would meat.
It is worth noting, however, that the flavor of meat does arise in part from animal-specific compounds, including heme, creatine, and certain xanthines. Thus, if the reason you became vegetarian is to cut animal chemicals out of your diet for health reasons, you should realize that finding plant-based sources of those same chemicals would rather defeat the purpose of avoiding them.
If the reason you became vegetarian was to avoid suffering in animals... you should probably do a bit of soul-searching as to how you're going to consistently avoid suffering in all living things, whether they're an animal or not.
There are "animals" such as sponges that categorically cannot feel pain; physiologically, they're essentially colonial bacteria, without the tissue differentiation necessary for neurology. At the same time, we know that corn plants communicate with each other through clicking sounds emitted from their roots, and that the smell of cut grass is the biochemical plant equivalent of a scream; it's a warning signal to tell other plants that there are herbivores nearby, and that they should prepare their defenses for predation. Some plants are sufficiently-aware of their surroundings to release this chemical scream when audio recordings of caterpillars eating leaves are played back for them to hear.
But I am not telling you that you should feel okay with eating crickets! I do, but how you live is your ethical concern, not mine.
Adjunct to the answers here:
Determine what "qualities" of meat are actually salient in the finished dish you are aiming for, and concentrate on replicating these. For example, the shape will be important when trying to make a steak but not a burger. Texture will matter for a burger (hint: A texture that you would consider a total fail if served bare will often work out between buns!) but not a broth. Most six-taste aspects can come from other places in the dish. For aromas, it is important to look at which missing aromas would be masked by other ingredients in the intended dish anyway - and concentrate on those that aren't masked.
Example: Chili con carne was invented as a dish to use unaged meat quickly that was missing some of the flavor aspects of aged meat, building around that limitation.
The secret is a molecule called heme. In plants you can find it in legume roots as leghemoglobin. Don't know if you can buy it there but if you can... try it.
You can read about it at Impossible Foods. It's due to biochemist Dr Patrick Brown.
I myself am not a vegetarian, and could never be a vegan. In spite of that, I have found myself trying multiple brands of vegetarian/vegan meat and burger substitutes over the years. In my personal experience, I will say that there are a few good substitutes, but most are quite bad. All of the items I can suggest have been created by companies, rather than a person, but they are praiseworthy substitutes that you could potentially draw inspiration from, if your goal is to make your own.
In particular, the products from Quorn, MorningStar Farms, and Beyond Meat have been found to be more often good than not. The textures do not perfectly match up to real meat, but if I had to pick the best from a texture and taste balance, it would be Quorn, then MorningStar Farms, with Beyond Meat coming in last. All of them are quite decent, but Quorn has been my favorite for some time.
As well, a good number of restaurants have created fantastic dishes using seitan, beet juice, smoke/smoke seasoning, umami flavors, and cheeses, paired with pickled vegetable toppings, such as kimchi and sauerkraut. Their aim is to replicate, as closely as they can, the meat dishes they are imitating.
I suggest researching some highly acclaimed vegetarian/vegan restaurants, especially those who have been reviewed by those who do not follow those specific lifestyles. As we are already critical of the dishes, those that blow us away must be given their due respect; they are obviously doing something amazing. For starters, I suggest look into the reviews and offerings of The Chicago Diner
There is a way to replicate a meaty flavor and texture when making vegetarian and vegan food items. Animals and plants both have amino acids and other natural chemical components that are similar or the same. The components are in different quantities and in different combinations generally in plants than in animals, though there are a few exceptions, such as certain mushrooms having an umami flavor (part of the meaty flavor found in animals), and meaty texture. There are those who have found ways to replicate meat in other ways, though with some manipulation, such as cooking in a different way, shaping the plant product to look like a meat product, etc. There are many of these ingredients, cooking techniques and other processes found in many books, online and in certain magazines. And btw, some vegans don't want to have any plant-based food to remind them of animal foods, but others do since they used to eat them and enjoy the taste but don't want to have animals hurt or killed.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.707635 | 2016-02-17T14:07:49 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66597",
"authors": [
"Abdullahi Zakari",
"Barb Bonnett",
"Cascabel",
"Era",
"Escoce",
"Joe",
"Kathleen Lunn",
"Kirstine Hunnisett",
"Linda Anderson",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Shona Wilcock",
"davbren",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159536",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84926",
"kevins",
"mrog",
"roetnig",
"rumtscho",
"wumpus D'00m"
],
"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
} |
50334 | Are there cheeses with less saturated fat?
I like cheese, but I'd like to find ones with better fat ratios.
Do all cheeses have high amounts of saturated fat? More importantly, are there any natural cheeses that have a high mono- and polyunsaturated fat to saturated fat ratio?
I know for instance that nuts can vary in this regard. Some nuts can be high in saturated fat while others aren't. I'm looking for something similar with cheeses.
Finally, if such cheeses exist, are any of them suitable for pizza?
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! I've removed the parts about good/bad, since we're a cooking site not a nutrition site, and really don't want to start any discussions about that side of things. But the rest of the question is great and clear, so I'm sure you'll get some helpful answers.
Thanks for actively clarifying. It makes it easier to participate. I got shot down in my first post in the math exchange and learned nothing. Just downgraded and deleted. Cant improve without feedback!
On any stackexchange site, if drastic things (like deletion of a question) happen without explanation, flag it. That shouldn't be happening. Questions should generally get closed (which always requires an explanation); only really ridiculously bad things should get immediately deleted outright. If on the other hand you mean that people downvoted your question without explanation and you deleted it, that's unfortunate but acceptable - explanations are friendly and helpful but not required, and if you delete your question you definitely won't get one!
Huh. I'll keep that in mind. Yeah, I thought it seemed very odd because I gladly would have modified or moved the question if I had been asked to do so or told it was inappropriate. It was also my first post too so I was very confused. However, I tried posting again in the math exchange and was successful. But a good lesson to keep in mind for future.
Low fat cheese is a contradiction in terms.
No, there aren't such cheeses. All cheeses are made from the same basic product - milk - and there are no changes to the fat happening in the cheesemaking process. Whatever ratio of saturated to unsaturated fats goes in, the same ratio goes out.
There are cheeses made from milk of different animals, and they do have a different ratio of saturated to unsaturated fat:
cow: 55% saturated
sheep: 65% saturated
goat: 65% saturated
As you see, the difference is very small. Besides, the majority of cheeses you get in the West are made with cow's milk, which has the lowest saturation of the three. If this is too much for your dietary goals, then you don't have alternatives with less saturated fat.
Though you can buy low fat cheese of course. The ratio of saturated to non saturated is the same, but there is less overall fat.
As previously answered, yes cheese is made of milk, and milk's fat can't really be broken out into saturated and non saturated. The ratio is fixed, but you can lower the total volume of it in a cheese. (or eat less cheese for the same effect)
However, vegans have been innovating the the non-milk cheese category for some time. Cashew cheese is a pretty good replicant of soft spreading cheese, or can be pressed into firm blocks to go on crackers and such.
There are commercially available non-dairy cheeses too. Daiya is a vegan cheese that even gets melty. It has a 1:3 ratio of saturated to non-saturated fats. They have a mozzarella flavor, and I think this would be your best bet for pizza.
Not all cheeses run the same fat content. Generally harder cheeses have less water, more protein, and lower fat than soft cheeses. (Compare parmesan to brie) This is influenced with the starting milk. Fatter milk = fatter cheese.
Fat is what nature puts in food to make it taste good. There are low fat cheeses. There are low fat cheese flavoured products. They do not do well cooking, and are acceptable in sandwiches only of you also find acceptable Kraft Singles.
I may get shot down by not answering the question. You are asking (IMHO) the wrong question. You aren't really interested in low fat cheese, you are interested in becoming healthy. If this is true, then you may want to ask a somewhat different question on a health/nutrition/fitness board, such as,
"What is the current consensus on the health aspects of saturated fats?" There is a lot of comment going on about this. Eggs are no longer evil. Butter is better than margarine.
Meanwhile, enjoy your cheese.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.709158 | 2014-12-05T03:25:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50334",
"authors": [
"Al Ciano",
"Cascabel",
"D Meredith",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Mick Fox",
"Neil Meyer",
"Paula Jilk",
"Sandra Swimming",
"Stan Shunpike",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120420",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120421",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29736",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"ian gasson",
"qmkcentralaolcom",
"user120514"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
50396 | What else can rid the fishy smell of fish besides Casein?
ATK says TMAO binds to casein but is there a dairy-free alternative that can bind to TMA?
Cauliflower smells fishy?
I'm also surprised by your cauliflower reference. If you are tasting something common to both fish and cauliflower, it's possible that it's not TMAO and thus casein won't help. For example, to me fishy smell is as much about the omega-3 oils as TMAO, and flax oil smells like fish to me.
I'm just taking it out since none of us have any idea what you're talking about, and we can at least potentially have a useful answer to the rest of the question.
I was referring to the TMA and sulfur content in cauliflower which causes the same "fishy" odor in fish.
I haven't been able to find anything else that binds with TMA other than from dairy products, thus no substitutes.
I have found several suggestions for getting rid of the fishy smell and taste. These include:
• Soaking fish in water with lemon juice added
• Soaking fish in water with salt added
• Soaking fish in soda such as Mountain Dew or Sprite (look here )
As per the comments above, I don't get the cauliflower thing.
Cauliflower has TMA which fish equally does
@Peet Please provide a link to your source.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.709536 | 2014-12-07T07:27:53 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50396",
"authors": [
"B Physical Therapy",
"Breanna Bennett",
"Cascabel",
"Cindy",
"Noreen Shazreen",
"Peet",
"Sarie Gouws",
"Tim Arnold",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120607",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120822",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120825",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho",
"thabang motsepe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
28293 | What are these dark green spots inside raw eggs?
I bought a tray of eggs recently. They aren't old, I have them in the fridge, and the date stamped on the egg says they are good for another month.
In two eggs that I cracked open today, there were dark green spots inside the shell (looked like mold maybe?), and floating around the egg white.
Any idea what that is? Is it a sign that the whole tray may be contaminated with something??
I only noticed the green on the shell after I mixed one of the eggs into a bread dough, and now I need to know if I should throw the dough out or not (it's a huge batch of dough).
According to The Egg Safety Center site, black or green spots inside the egg are the result of bacterial or fungal contamination of the egg.
The use by date is only an estimate, so if your eggs are moldy, I'd dispose them.
sounds like mold... but i wonder if it will make me sick to eat bread baked with it. it was just one egg with about 5lbs of flour. it's a real waste to throw that all out...
Some molds are harmless. Some can make you really sick. Some molds can kill you. Is it worth the risk of 5lbs of flour to find out if you'll still be around next year?
no, of course not. but perhaps someone would know if egg mold is the harmless type or not?
maybe they didn't live to contribute to this site again. (bad joke - sorry!) But seriously, @estherh - barring any new insight to egg mold, I hope we hear that you threw away the dough and started again with fresh eggs! :-)
This is why I usually crack eggs into 2 bowls so one bad one won't contaminate whatever I'm making. I didn't do that tonight and had to throw out a batch of cornbread. I always go by the rule "When in doubt, throw it out!"
There was no obvious crack in the egg. When I opened it I noticed a brown discoloration in the yolk. Then I looked in the shell and saw mold or bacteria colonies or whatever. Never have seen anything like that before. Have found a few rotten ones but I've been cooking a long time. Anyway, just very curious and wondering if I should report it to someone or not.
I think you mean "When in doubt, throw it out!"
I just found green mold in the shell of the egg shell and a large black dot on the yolk; the date says good until Sept 1. I throughout the rest of the eggs, kept the one in question and contacted the egg farm to report it. Not worth getting sick over a dollar or two, or worse dying.
I'd definitely go with the when in doubt throw it out. Fs
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.709694 | 2012-11-08T08:12:53 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28293",
"authors": [
"Ben Zabat",
"Beo",
"Catija",
"Emre Erkan",
"James Tidwell",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Len Smith",
"Marilyn Truex",
"Michael Karas",
"Mrs_R",
"RhinoWalrus",
"Richard Dodd",
"esther h",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144337",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154352",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154353",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65165",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65166",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65171",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65173",
"stephen martin"
],
"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
} |
64719 | How long should I cook herbal ghee?
How long do you simmer the ghee with the herbs? Does it depend on what herbs I'm using?
Welcome! I've edited out the bit of the question about favorites, because we don't do questions about "what goes with X?" or "what do you like best?" here -they're subjective and have a lot of possible answers. The rest of the question is great, though!
Dried herbs take less time than fresh (dried herbs are usually more concentrated than the fresh). That said, I can't say that I stick to any certain time, just simmer until the ghee begins to smell aromatic.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.709956 | 2015-12-23T06:14:02 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64719",
"authors": [
"Autris Healthcare",
"Cascabel",
"Jacqui Straughan",
"Maternity Photographer DC",
"Patricia",
"Sam Lawrence",
"Sharon Davies",
"divya nataraj",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154472",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154473",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154492",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154493",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154494",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154495",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154530",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"yad yazachew"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
63853 | What is the term for simmering something in sauce?
What is the term called for when something, generally meat, is cooked in a large amount of sauce such that the meat is completely submerged.
It is similar to boiling or simmering but instead of water it would be some sort of sauce.
This is one of my favorite ways to cook chicken so that it doesn't end up dry and was wondering the name of this technique so I could look up how other people have done it.
I think you're referring to braising.
Is it still braising if the meat is completely submerging? It sounds a bit like poaching to me.
As Tall said, that can be referred to as braising, but generally braising is with liquid that doesn't quite submerge the meat. If the meat is fully submerged, another term is "stewing". Whatever you call it, it is best done at a simmer, not a full boil.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.710064 | 2015-11-25T21:38:14 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63853",
"authors": [
"Cielda Pereira",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Karen Jones",
"NRaf",
"Rentals To Go",
"Zouhair El Fatouaki",
"carvalho",
"grainne mcdonnell",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152072",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152075",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
27887 | How to turn sugar syrup into sugaring wax?
I would like to know how I can make sugar syrup of 1-2 tar consistency and when it cools, it is neither crystallized nor too thin syrup?
What quantity of citric acid or liquid glucose should I use in 1KG of sugar? How much water?
I have tried at least 5 times, but the result is either crystallized or too thin. I need a syrup which is sticky, so as to be used as wax as well.
If I understand correctly, 1 tar is just syrup and 2 tar is soft ball (going by http://www.mamtaskitchen.com/recipe_display.php?id=13000) - the two are different. Which are you trying to achieve? (Sounds more like soft ball, or maybe a bit short of it.) Do you have a candy thermometer? This is about temperatures, not just quantities.
Are you talking about this kind of "sugaring wax"? http://tipnut.com/body-sugaring/
I think if you start with regular sugar syrup, you have too much liquid. I make sugaring wax by putting 8 parts sugar, 1 part water and 1 part lemon juice in a sauce pan and let that simmer for about 10-15 minutes until you have an amber colour.
It will take a couple of times to judge the mixture on thickness and colour. Once it's set, you should be able to push a finger in it and that mark should stay there for a couple of minutes.
If your mixture is too pale, it's going to be too liquid and the finger mark will disappear too quickly. You can just put it back on the stove and let it boil for a bit longer.
If your mixture is too dark, it's going to be too hard. You will be able to make the finger mark, but it's gonna be hard to do. You can reheat the mixture in the microwave and use it warm.
Depending on how you want to use it, cooking times are more or less forgiving.
can u simplyfy 10-15 minutes time thing becoz with more quantity of wax, we need to observe other features as colour, texture, stirring, ratio and at best temperature. pls elaborate
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.710286 | 2012-10-18T12:41:16 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27887",
"authors": [
"Brian Page",
"Cascabel",
"Cheryl Poletynski",
"Danny DiPietrantonio",
"Denise Rachal Baatz Tromblay",
"Didgeridrew",
"Guarge",
"J.D. Pace",
"Janeen Theresa Schubach",
"MariusM",
"Susan",
"Yubraj Mainali",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64042",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64044",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64341",
"mahashakti"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
63800 | How much minced garlic is one clove?
I have a recipe that calls for 2 cloves of garlic, but all I have is minced garlic. How much minced garlic do I use per clove?
Out of curiosity: How did the garlic become minced? Can you but it (serious question, never seen it here, but perhaps in other countries they do), did you do the mincing, or do you mean garlic powder?
@WillemvanRumpt : You can buy jars of pre-minced garlic, but not in all areas. (when I was living in Kentucky, Kroger and the other local supermarkets didn't have it, so I'd get a jar or two for my boss when I was visiting family back east)
@WillemvanRumpt: Where I am (UK) I would assume this to mean "Very Lazy Garlic" which can be seen here: http://www.verylazy.com/products/chopped-ingredients/very-lazy-chopped-garlic/ . It may not be the same as the OP is using but gives an example.
@Lilienthal: Maybe I missed it, never seen it. Ginger-garlic paste: Yes. But plain, minced garlic? No. I also never actively looked for it of course, so it might well be there, just that I never noticed.
Well, it depends on the size of the clove. A heaped teaspoon will probably be about equivalent to two cloves of garlic, but it's cooking, not particle physics. Remember you can always add an ingredient, but you can't take it away - so taste your food and adjust as necessary.
Most store-purchased minced garlic will have conversions on the label. I believe mine says 1/2 tsp = 1 clove.
So my 1tsp/2 cloves is about right. It's almost like I know what I'm talking about :)
There is bottled minced Garlic and freeze-dried minced Garlic.
1 medium-size clove Garlic equals 1 to 1 1/2 teaspoons bottled minced garlic, this is around 5 g / .18 oz. So for 2 cloves you should add 2-3 teaspoons.
You need about 50% less for freeze-dried minced Garlic.
Amazing. Googled for "bottled minced garlic", and it actually exists. When would you use this (apart from not having to mince your own, i.e.: flavor, added flavor, texture, anything)(and again: Serious question, no judgement)?
@WillemvanRumpt : some people really don't like peeling garlic. And they don't know about the two-bowls trick.
@Joe: You've already achieved God status with that one over here ;)
@WillemvanRumpt It is mostly for convenience sake. There is citric acid or something acidic in there for preservation.
@Joe and NadjaCS: Cheers! I'll try to locate a bottle around here. The curiosity demands feeding :)
@WillemvanRumpt My favorite pizza is garlic, hot pepper and onions, like a spaghetti aglio e olio version. I've found that it is very difficult to get an evenly distributed taste of garlic over the whole pizza, when using regular fresh thinly sliced garlic. Garlic oil is the best for this...but well, adds a lot of oil. In theory you could add the Garlic to the tomato sauce, but the result is not the same, maybe due to the cooking times. But yes, I assume it is mostly used as convenience product. It does have a better shelf life than fresh Garlic.
@WillemvanRumpt three reasons for me: Constant availabilty (the one I get is in vinegar and keeps indefinitely); Speed (cooking after work I use a lot of time-saving ingredients); Ability to add just a little evenly. If I'm making something properly planned and properly garlicky I'll buy real. There's also a puree but that has oil and salt in it.
There is also the garlic paste that comes in a little bucket, much like yogurt. It's used in restaurants and cantinas and looks like this. don't reuse the bucket, it will smell even after a hundred rides in the dishwasher.
As even with garlic directly from the bulb, you need to taste, as @ElendilTheTall says. Adding is easy...
All other things being equal (clove size), garlic can easily range in tastes from stronger to weaker. And, the tastes of your target audience will be different as well.
Its no different, and arguably more so, with chopped garlic, presumably in a glass container. You also have the luxury of easily adding a little bit, tasting, adding more if necessary. Then again, getting your own from your local farmer's market (or growing!), smash/chop, is not really very difficult for many.
Good luck!
Good advice as it'll vary, being an agricultural product, but it'd be more useful if you could advise on a starting amount to try to give people some clue to go on. Also, tasting might not work if it's something that goes in early and is then slow cooked for a while, as you can't easily taste & adjust without knowing what it would have tasted like in the mostly uncooked state.
It hasn't been established whether you have dry minced garlic, which is basically just dehydrated garlic, or the wet kind, which is minced in a liquid. I've used them both, but prefer the latter. To me, it acts and tastes more like fresh.
Since there's some curiousity expressed in the comments, I'll answer this based on the assumption that you're asking about the minced in a jar with liquid. I apologize if it's the other.
Where I live in Massachusetts, in the northeast region of the United States, jars of minced garlic in liquid are available in almost every major grocery store. They're generally found in the produce section, but not always. I use it because I don't cook very often and fresh things tend to go bad in my house. It's also perfect for times like you're experiencing, when I want to make something and have run out of fresh garlic. I usually buy this brand, because they offer an organic version, and I use organic products whenever I can. (I just noticed on that site that they sell a version in a squeeze bottle. It looks interesting!)
The jar says 1/2 teaspoon equals approximately 1 clove of garlic, so if you want to stick directly to your recipe, I'd go with that, meaning 1 teaspoon for your total recipe. I agree with the heaping teaspoon advice you've already received, as I find it easy to underestimate. In my experience, it tastes very much like fresh, so that substitution should give you the same level of garlic flavor. However, if you use it in other recipes, or just want to experiment, there's nothing wrong with adding more. As you've been told, you can add ingredients but can't subtract them, so be careful. I advise tasting the product before adding it, to give you a sense of what to expect.
The way you measure it can be important too. If you're doing an exact substitution, it's best to spoon out mostly just the garlic pieces, being careful not to use much of the liquid in the jar. However, the garlic imparts flavor into the water and citric acid in which it's generally packed, so if I have a recipe where the liquid content is adjustable, I always add some of the yummy "garlic juice." An example of that is mashed potatoes.
Minced garlic works quite well as a substitute in many recipes, so I hope you'll enjoy the recipe that prompted this question!
There is also a third way - a frozen crushed garlic product that can come in handy for those who can't get fresh, don't go through it quickly enough or just don't want to deal with it. I've used the cubes from http://www.mydorot.com/ and found them to be pretty good.
@TonyAdams That looks awesome! I like that it has no preservatives, but still a long shelf life. The portion size is already measured too. Their whole product line looks great. A major grocery chain carries it, one of which is about 2 miles from here. I'll definitely try it. Thanks!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.710511 | 2015-11-24T16:29:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63800",
"authors": [
"Aliscia Kemennu",
"Ann Scoggins",
"Bob Porzio",
"Chris",
"Chris H",
"David K",
"David Stainton",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Joe",
"John Hammond",
"Kimberly Canales",
"Mayra Alamo",
"Mieke Peters",
"NadjaCS",
"Sharon Martinez",
"Sue Saddest Farewell TGO GL",
"Taclibon Evelyn",
"Todd Mashburn",
"Tony Adams",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151928",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151936",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151940",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151967",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151969",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36746",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39427",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41072",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"kathy poland",
"simbabque"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
25677 | Can you premake mojitos?
I work at a busy bar and every Thursday we have mojitos for $5. I am curious if there is some sort of way that we can pre make some of the drink to make the preparation easier and faster.
Thanks!!!
See also http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12560/what-is-the-most-effective-way-to-extract-mint-flavor-for-a-mojito
I don't know if having them pre-mixed would affect the flavor or not. One thing that could speed you up is having the limes already juiced. According to Dave Arnold at Cooking Issues people generally prefer lime juice after it has "aged" at least 4 hours. Maybe this changes with mojitos, it's hard to say.
This is assuming you are using fresh lime juice. Are you muddling fresh mint and sugar, or do you use simple syrup? You could perhaps make a mint syrup, then just throw a mint leaf on top as a garnish, that would save you some time.
You can definitely infuse mint into either syrup or alcohol and make mojitos from it, but you do have to be careful to get it right - it's definitely possible to extract components of the flavor besides what you get by muddling it.
A friend of mine worked at a midtown NYC bar where they went through a lot of mojitos during happy hour. They would keep a large beverage dispenser (like these) full of all the ingredients already mixed up.
I think the key was that they would go through a lot of them quickly, so it was always pretty fresh. They would garnish with mint leaves, but I don't think they actually muddled each one separately. Many bars also sell pitchers of mojitos.
That said, I don't know if I would endorse this idea. Part of the experience of drinking a cocktail is watching a skilled bartender make it for you to order. That said, if you are muddling the mint and sugar in the same way, just in a larger volume, maybe using a large container and a large grinding tool, it might taste the same. Maybe use a set up like they use for making fufu in West & Central Africa.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.711084 | 2012-08-15T21:31:02 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25677",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Gregory Avery-Weir",
"Jonathan Rogers",
"Luke Sawczak",
"Safdar Iqbal",
"Sandi",
"Timhub",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58869",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58871",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58878",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58880",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58918",
"tuskiomi"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
37016 | Cooked beef roast covered with red coloring
After cooking a beef bottom round rump roast, a red coloring is covering, and penetrating, the meat.
The roast was purchased at a reputable grocery chain and properly refrigerated for two days before use. The raw meat appeared normal, was placed in a seasoned, 10-year-old, cast-iron pan, and cooked four hours au jus.
When the cooked roast was cut, the inside of the meat was the correct color and smelled appropriately. However, covering the outside was a strange red coloring penetrating 1/2" into the entire roast; top, sides, and bottom. The coloring did not affect the flavor.
Could someone please tell me what this coloring is? I have never experienced anything like this in my 50 years in the kitchen.
You don't happen to have a picture, do you? There are situations in which meat will turn pink (like corned beef or smoked brisket), but I'm not sure if that's what you mean by red.
Can you elaborate on the cooking method? According to Harold McGee's "On Food and Cooking", when meat is cooked for an extended time below 120˚F or brought up to temperature slowly the myoglobin remains intact and there will be a distinct red color throughout the meat.
If you ever manage to do this again PLEASE take a picture. I'd love to see it.
To quote a comment:
According to Harold McGee's "On Food and Cooking", when meat is cooked for an extended time below 120˚F or brought up to temperature slowly the myoglobin remains intact and there will be a distinct red color throughout the meat. – Didgeridrew Sep 23 '13 at 16:39
Here is the Science of Cooking article @Digdgeridrew mentioned
To quote from there:
When dark meat is cooked, myoglobin's color changes depending on what the meat's interior temperature is. Rare beef is cooked to 140° F, and myoglobin's red color remains unchanged. Above 140° F, myoglobin loses its ability to bind oxygen, and the iron atom at the center of its molecular structure loses an electron. This process forms a tan-colored compound called hemichrome, which gives medium-done meat its color. When the interior of the meat reaches 170° F, hemichrome levels rise, and the myoglobin becomes metmyoglobin, which gives well-done meat its brown-gray shade.
Now to address why it was on the outside I'm going to make an educated guess. Per Wikipedia:
Myoglobin is an iron- and oxygen-binding protein found in the muscle tissue of vertebrates in general and in almost all mammals. It is related to hemoglobin, which is the iron- and oxygen-binding protein in blood, specifically in the red blood cells.
I have personally experienced this same phenomenon slow-cooking stews, roasts and even chili in the crock pot. All perfectly normal. Have you noticed when you cook red meat over high heat, like grilling a steak for example, the blood remains inside the muscle? I have noticed slow-cooking tends to "release" more of the blood content from inside the meat, likely due to more even cooking. This in my view would explain also why myoglobin would be found on the outside, rather than inside, of the meat.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.711277 | 2013-09-23T00:50:35 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37016",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Didgeridrew",
"Doug",
"Graham Monkman",
"Laser Tech Restoration",
"Randall Martin",
"Roy Bailey",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122196",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
56502 | vanilla sugar substitution
I have a recipe for an apple-strawberry crumble that calls for "1 vanilla sugar." I don't have any, so I'm looking for advice on how to substitute vanilla and sugar for the vanilla sugar - as well as estimates on appropriate amount, since the recipe left that out! For estimating guidance, it's supposed to be a 9x13 pan.
You do not have sugar? IMO, you really need sugar for a crumble; vanilla is optional.
"1 vanilla sugar" doesn't make much sense in the US - are you (or the recipe) from somewhere where it's sold in packets?
@Max I read it as "how to substitute vanilla and sugar [for vanilla sugar]"
If it's not a one packet thing, then you might be better off just looking at another recipe, but if you want people to try and guess how much it might be, we'd need to know if it's for the fruit part or the crumble topping, and what the other quantities in the recipe are.
Related, especially the comments: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54521/what-are-the-advantages-of-vanilla-sugar?rq=1
Sarah, welcome to the site! We could start a few wild guesses, but to attempt a qualified answer, we need the full recipe. Please either type it here or give a link if you got it from the internet. You may always edit your post by simply clicking on "edit" underneath your question.
My best guess would be what Stephie already hinted at: "1 vanilla sugar" means "one sachet of vanilla sugar". I have seen these in different European countries, and they normally contain the "standard" amount of synthetic vanillin to flavor a recipe of up to 500 g of flour, and just a little bit of sugar, not to make it sweet, but to make it easier to handle, because that amount of pure synthetic vanillin is so small, you'd have trouble getting it all out of a sachet if it were there by itself.
You can recognize that this is the case if your recipe calls for what seems like a normal amount of sugar, and separately says "1 vanilla sugar". If this is it, you don't need to add sugar at all. Just take vanilla extract (or whatever your preferred form of vanilla flavoring) and add an amount which seems appropriate to you for the batch size you are making. Your main flavors are apple and strawberry, so if in doubt, stay on the low side and add a bit less vanilla.
The order of mixing can change as well. Vanilla sugar is added with the dry ingredients, but if you are using a liquid form of vanilla, it goes into the wet ingredients. If you want a vanilla bean, the best thing to do is to boil the seeds in one of the liquids (usually milk, if your recipe has it), then cool it down to room temperature. If you add them unboiled, they don't really release the flavor.
"Vanilla sugar" can also have another meaning. Sometimes people leave vanilla pods in a container of sugar for months and then use this subtly flavored sugar as the main sugar in the baked good. If this is the case, then the recipe needs to specify exactly how much sugar is needed, there is no good way to guess. As this kind of vanilla sugar does not come in packages but is made at home in whatever amount you want, "1 vanilla sugar" makes no sense in this context, and you should assume that whoever wrote down the recipe forgot to add the unit.
You can recognize this if you either have no other sugar in the recipe, or have a sugar alternative (such as corn syrup) in what looks like a low amount for the recipe. If this happened, the best thing is to throw out this recipe and choose one of the hundreds of other crumble recipes floating around the Internet. Re-engineering a faulty recipe to a decent state is hard to do and requires trial and error, so it's normally not worth the effort.
If you are sure you need this type of vanilla sugar and are very determined to try this recipe, the best way to go is to try it out with the most common unit in the recipe's culture and see if it works. In a US recipe, this would be one cup of sugar plus as much vanilla as you think is suitable for the recipe. Here you'll have to rely on baking experience, and depending on the recipe source and having worked with similar recipes before, see which unit is likely to have been meant.
I have a packet of vanilla sugar (Dr. Oetker) brand. It contains 10 gr of vanilla sugar. The package says it's good for 500 g of flour (4 cups) or half liter of liquid. Hope that helps!
The recipe is clearly deficient if it does not provide a unit for "1 vanilla sugar" - teaspoon, gram, cup, pound, kilo... Extract plus sugar will not be much like actual vanilla sugar, IME.
I might guess a cup and a tablespoon of extract, but that's all it would be, a guess. A better guess might or might not come with the rest of the recipe to look at (i.e., is it in cups, or grams/kilos...? How much butter/shortening is there? Is this the only sugar?)
Well, in Germany "1 Vanilla Sugar" is a unit - vanilla / vanillin sugar is often sold in little sachets of about 8g.
It's hard to put in too little vanilla, it is much easier to put in too much.
Many fruity recipes call for vanilla and it enhances the fruitiness in much the same way salt enhances savory dishes. Obviously it's not the sugar being added that counts in this recipe. A packet of sugar in a recipe going into a 9x13 would have no effect at all.
The vanilla sugar packet has very little vanilla in it, so I would probably go with something as little as. 1/8th or 1/4 teaspoon of pure vanilla extract and try the recipe out on a practice run. It will probably be just right, but if it's too little it will still probably be good. If you out too much in, it might become too potent to enjoy.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.711529 | 2015-04-09T00:05:06 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56502",
"authors": [
"Andrew Neglia",
"Cascabel",
"Erica",
"Jessica Coomber",
"Karen Roger",
"Max",
"Roberta Bunger",
"Shelly Minard",
"Stephie",
"Valerie Moore",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134315",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134316",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134331",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134340",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"rohit ahirwar"
],
"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
} |
73819 | Cooking farro in a rice steamer
Can farro be cooked using a rice steamer?
Would it need to be soaked in water for a period of time first?
It should work, since both are made in a similar manner, rinsed and simmered. If you're using whole grain farro, it does need soaking and longer cooking. I dry-toast the grain in a hot pan before adding the liquid, but that's not required.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.711938 | 2016-09-08T20:17:16 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73819",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
64481 | How can I cool tea quickly?
Imagine you're making someone a tea, but for whatever reason they have to leave soon. How can I cool the tea so that they don't have to choose between leaving it unfinished or burning their mouth? Ideally the method should not only be fast, but also let me reliably reach about the same temperature every time.
I've thought of the following:
Add additional milk - cools tea, but affects taste.
Heat the water less - won't make tea as hot, but might affect how well the tea infuses.
Add cool water to boiled water - would cool down a fully-infused tea, but hard to control resulting temperature.
Put it in the fridge for 30 seconds or so - would cool tea, but seems like a bad idea.
Con: Inexact science on the contrary, thermodynamics is a very exact and well understood science. In a nutshell, the final temperature is the weighted mean of the temperatures of both liquids (assuming nothing else influences the temperature, which on very short period is close enough). e.g. to cool 250ml of 70* tea to 60*, simply add 50ml of 10* water to it.
@njzk2 If you keep chilled water in the fridge it'll work, but otherwise the water temperature won't be very controlled, so it's hard to make it reliable.
I doubt putting a hot mug of tea in the fridge would cool it all that quickly, especially if the mug was prewarmed and ceramic. But someone with a thermometer and some freshly brewed tea can probably take measurements of all these methods fairly easily and report back.
Some types of tea (green for example) are supposed to be brewed with less-than-boiling water anyway, so you could use correctly tempered water in the first place.
I am just curious... Are you using boiling water to make tea? (i.e. 210-220F) ... Tea is best made with water between 175F and 195F not boiling water... Or am I being a tea snob?
Semirelated question http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25510/how-can-i-chill-ice-coffee-quickly
@AdrianHum Huh. I've always tried my best to use boiling water, since both George Orwell and Douglas Adams emphasize that this is important.
@AdrianHum 175F to 195F is still pretty hot to drink, even if not actually boiling. I've edited slightly to avoid boiling vs not being as much of an issue in the question; we can just take it as given that the tea is too hot, I think.
There's an ISO standard for brewing, FWIW. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3103
What is wrong with a regular ice cube? As you state that the tea is not yet ready, you just use slightly less water and then add the ice cube, which has a fixed temperature.
I use this for large scale ice tea production. As I use 1:1 hot water : ice cubes I simply brew a double strong tea.
I think this is a perfectly reasonable suggestion. This is exactly what I do when I make tea for my kids.
Ice cubes are also pretty consistent in size if you're getting them at home from an ice maker in your freezer, so you can easily get the number of ice cubes down quickly after making a few cups of tea.
Please discuss in chat if you want to discuss any further about the constant (or not) ice cube temperature. I'm cleaning up all comments about that since they're all in chat now.
Put in a tight container and shake for quicker cooling
To improve this method, I suggest stirring the ice cube in so it melts a bit faster, then fishing it out with your spoon once the tea is at the desired temperature to avoid further cooling.
Well, I can't answer this question even with 100 reputation. So I will add a comment here because it's the closest to my asnwer:
-Instead of using a regular ice cube, try having in fridge a customed ice tray. How? Easy, wait for a tea to cool, and then dump it in the tray and fridge it. That way you have tea flavoured ice cubes to cool faster your tea with and 100% tea flavour.
@AleOtero93 You do know that tea is not a flavor, right?
@Lars Friedric I do, my "tea flavor" makes refference to the tea the user is making
@LarsFriedrich If I understand right, AleOtero93 is just suggesting using frozen tea cubes instead of frozen water cubes, so that adding them doesn't dilute the flavor of the hot tea you just made. (Tea does have flavor.) That is, it's an alternative to brewing extra strength tea before adding ice cubes. Would be a pain if you don't drink the same kind of tea all the time, but otherwise seems reasonable enough.
@Jefromi It is an alternative without any advantages, only disadvantages. Filling the cup with a little less water is simple and efficient and you do not dilute the tea as in 'reduce the taste' that way. I don't see how providing an inferior alternative would improve my answer. Not to mention that tea ice cubes already exist as answer.
You're adding water, so you do dilute it a bit, it's just not enough to matter, right? I wasn't telling you had to add it, just explaining, since that comment was a little hard to read you seemed to be focusing on "is tea a flavor" rather than the actual content of the comment.
To answer your question, I am here looking for the best cooling methods without ice, because ice isn't always readily available. At work I could brew various hot beverages, but I can't make ice nor can I keep ice in a freezer without it being used by the whole office. Other rapid cooling methods are appreciated.
I can't stand how it tastes with ice cubes. The thing is that for a 420ml cup of tea that's 100 C° you'll need to heat up around 200ml of water up to 100 C° and then drop there 220 ml of ice.
One solution would be to use Whiskey Stones. These are essentially stone (or metal) cubes that you normally use for whiskey to chill it without diluting it. This will also work for your tea
However, if this is a problem you run into regularly, you can freeze an ice tray with tea to make tea ice cubes and use that to cool down your tea. The main downside is, you would need to use the ice cubes on the same type of tea or it will affect the taste of the tea.
Alternative: put regular ice cubes in a plastic bag and submerge it in the tea (or pour the tea over the back).
@JoeBlow Surface area is only part of the equation; heat dissipation and amount of material are relevant, too. A thin metal cup may very well have less material than a couple of cubes and thus may take less heat. A case can be made against stones when you want quick cooling (not what they are made for, stone usually dissipate heat slowly); metal cubes should not have any problem with that.
The specific heat of the material doesn't really matter. The specific heat of ice is 2.03 Joules per gram per degree Kelvin. It's the enthalpy of fusion of water that is the big deal: 334 Joules to melt 1 gram of ice. Dave Arnold goes into detail about this, and he declares that the cardinal rule of cocktails is there is no chilling without dilution, and there is no dilution without chilling. Here's post on the cooking issues blog that goes into a lot of detail on it: http://www.cookingissues.com/index.html%3Fp=4585.html
@cantido - This is a valid point, but it's a bigger deal regarding tea than with cocktails, because the temperature differential between room temperature (or ice or freezer or whatever) and the tea is much greater, making the specific heat more relevant. For example, the specific heat of water is about 4.2 J/g-K. For a cocktail, the water might only rise 5-10C after melting until the drink reaches equilibrium, making specific heat only about 10% of the total cooling. But for hot tea, the raising the water temp from freezing to tea temp is likely more than 40% of the total cooling effect.
@Athanasius good point!
These cubes are cute! I love the silver ones.
Possibly even easier than using ice or fridges or anything... pour it repeatedly from one container to another. Constant exposure to the air will rapidly cool the drink, you can get it to drinking temperature in less than a minute.
(Just make sure you pour accurately, or use larger containers. Spilling hot tea is no fun.)
Here's an example of a street vendor, who likes to be a show-off with this kind of thing. You can see him cool tea to drinking temperature in 10 seconds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-surEvJXj34
This is kinda obvious in India, it gives a nice froth to chai, cooling it is the secondary purpose.
You can put the containers in the fridge beforehand -- if they are metal.
@Raphael No point, if they're metal. Metals have such a low specific heat capacity that it takes almost no energy for the cup to come to the temperature of its contents. Indeed, drinks actually cool slightly more slowly in thin metal cups than, say, ceramic cups: the reason is that bringing a metal cup up to the temperature of the drink takes almost no energy from it and then the only cooling is by convection; a ceramic cup removes much more energy from the drink as the cup warms.
It is also very helpful to let the tea sit in these two different containers. Two mugs have twice the air contact as one. I use this technique often.
@DavidRicherby wrong. Metals have a much higher thermal conductivity than ceramic. That's why all heatsinks are metal. You don't have to go far: your PC and laptop have heatsinks made of metals(copper and aluminum) not ceramic. Same with the tea: the cup works as a heatsink. The bigger the area of contact between the tea and the heatsink, and the bigger thermal conductivity the heatsink has, the faster the will cool down. If ceramic allowed it to cool down faster(and implying more efficient), then we'd have ceramic heatsinks in our cars, not aluminum and copper.
I do this everyday before I leave for work. I can't have really hot tea. So once my tea is ready:
I put it in a tea pan (a deep pan used to make tea). You can substitute with any other clean deep pan.
Add cold water to the kitchen sink
Stand the tea pan in the kitchen sink for 2-4 minutes
And I have the perfect temperature for my tea that suits me :)
You can always stand it in cold water for more or less time to suit you. And it does not affect the taste of the tea. I have tried to put the tea in the fridge before but it hasn't worked for me.
I've never heard of a tea pan... what is that?
@Catija: I've edited the answer for more detail. But essentially, its just a pan that is used to make tea by boiling the water and tea together. Nothing special, just a deep pan :)
Oh... so that's a completely different method for making tea than I've ever used. I would never boil tea leaves. I boil the water, let it cool slightly and add the tea afterwards, once it's in the cup or in a teapot... then let it sit for a couple of minutes to brew.
@Catija: I think it's more an Indian way of making tea, to boil water, tea leaves, sugar and milk together
Pour the tea back and forth between two cups until the desired temperature.
Adjusting the height of pouring is fun to play with to get faster results but try it over a kitchen sink.
+1 - this is by far the easiest and most effective answer.
Exactly as Matt says. The amount of surface area (with all the air, when in a "column" is enormous).
Not very efficient, sloshing water will also cause it to warm (that's why it has to be much below 32° for a river to freeze)
@bjb568 The warming effects of friction within the hot tea are pretty negligible compared to the cooling effects of being poured through and mixed with room-temperature air. Specifically, if you pour the tea back and forth for a long time, your tea will reach a temperature slightly above room temp -- but that's massively cooler than the temperature the tea started at!
If you'd love to bring a gadget into play:
Many parents use a "Cool Twister" to quickly bring the water for baby bottles from boiling to a choosen temperature in less than 90 seconds. You could also run your tea through it and cool it down - or parts of it.
The manufacturer suggests the use for tea and coffee on his website as well:
Can the Cool Twister also cool down coffee or tea?
Basically yes. The temperature can be chosen individually between approx. 40 and 80° C. [...]
Boring but effective:
brew, pour and sugar/cream as usual; when teacup/mug is hot to the touch, transfer to fresh cup.
make a concentrated infusion (same amount of tea less (boiling) water). When finished fill up with cold water.
This is exactly how I do it every morning. Make strong tea, put half an inch of cold water in the bottom of the mug, poor tea into mug. Done. This is also fantastically simple.
Do you need to adjust steep times to do this method?
I don't, I just use the same amount of tee with only half as much of water and top up with cold water after steeping
I put a silver spoon in the tea. It makes the spoon extremely hot very quickly, but the silver spoon will take the heat. Careful when removing the spoon as it will be hotter than you imagine!
This is my preferred method too. I don't have silver, so I just stick 3-4 stainless steel tablespoons in the tea. Their conduction is not as good as that of silver, but the greater thermal mass and greater area makes up for it.
The spoon will attain the same temperature as the tea, now slightly below the starting temperature; it can't cool it down more. If you want to really cool it down, you need to remove the spoon, wait for it to cool down (happens quite quickly) and then put it back in.
@Raphael actually, the spoon's "stem" conducts heat to the air. It's not perfect, but with sufficient spoon-to-tea mass, it delivers results reasonably quickly.
I was thinking of a big cup and a table spoon, so there would be not much spoon above the surface. If the size ratio is more favorable, it may work well, agreed.
The system I use at my office desk is this:
I have a small aluminum soda can (7.5 oz size) that I keep about an inch and a half of water in. I leave about 1.75" of empty space from the top of my mug. Once the tea is made and infused, I simply float the can in the tea for a bit. This pulls out just enough heat to make the tea pleasantly hot with no mouth burning.
(Note: Don't forget to clean the can and change the water so the water doesn't get nasty.)
A saucer was invented for that purpose (to accompany cups with a handle). Pour hot tea into saucer using the handle provided and slowly drink off from a point on its edge while raising the diametrically opposite point.
Stirring with any metal spoon will rapidly cool the tea, as the metal will absorb the heat. Silver, as suggested, is a good conductor, but any metal will do.
According to Physics.SE (and graciously cited by XKCD What-If), dipping the spoon in and out is slightly faster, though not by a highly significant value, and stirring or simply doing nothing will still get similar results.
Note that while you could use the results of that first link to time your own tea-cooling, I would recommend timing it yourself in your own environment, since the temperature and air pressure is likely to be different for you wherever you drink tea.
To be fair though, the Physics post was restricting itself to only using a spoon to cool the coffee. The current question is asking for the general case when several (more viable) alternatives are available.
If you like to sugar your tea, you can replace the sugar by honey.
It's better to me (but it also depends on your taste ^^).
Enjoy your tea !
How much of a difference would a teaspoon of honey vs. a teaspoon of sugar make?
You can put a big spoon of honey instead a little spoon of sugar. It won't cool your tea instantly, but a little bit faster. When a hot fluid encounter a cold fluid, there is a heat transfert. The cold fluid will "absorb" the heat, according to heat transfert principle. Like your honey is colder than your tea, it will decrease the heat.
Shake it up (in a cocktail shaker?) with ice cubes then pour it out again through a strainer. This is how I make iced tea in summer. Obviously you shake it a bit longer for iced tea!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.712064 | 2015-12-16T20:25:25 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64481",
"authors": [
"Adrian Hum",
"AleOtero93",
"Athanasius",
"Balaji R",
"Batman",
"Bob Tway",
"Brad",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Christina Patrick",
"Corporate Catering LtdCorporat",
"D.F.F",
"Danielle Hamilton",
"David Richerby",
"Digital Trauma",
"Divi",
"Doug Myers",
"Elisa Fink",
"Fattie",
"Florence Pennant",
"Gail Albiston",
"Gary Ashurst",
"Happy Gupta",
"Hardyman M",
"Jason",
"Jason Weik",
"Jesvin Jose",
"John Hammond",
"KulaGGin",
"Kyle Kanos",
"Kyle Strand",
"Lam Nguyen",
"Leslie Jordan",
"Lisa at Teasenz.com",
"Matthew Reid",
"Mishka Makani",
"Nola B",
"Noor Noor",
"Pamela Green",
"Patti Abbott",
"Paul Brennan",
"Peter Gammie",
"Pranab",
"RETROTOGEL OFFICIAL GRATIS APK",
"Raphael",
"Raymond St. Laurent",
"Rick",
"Rosa",
"Shelby Killam",
"Stacy Wing",
"Stephie",
"Susan Rolfe",
"Tofuw",
"Umaymah Saeed",
"Viktor Mellgren",
"Will Gavia",
"Zibbobz",
"abligh",
"barb yattaw",
"bjb568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153783",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153784",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153785",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153788",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153789",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153793",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153794",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153861",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153878",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153881",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153886",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153889",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153914",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153995",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154032",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21659",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34737",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39427",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41740",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41760",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41799",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94752",
"njzk2",
"rackandboneman",
"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
} |
66362 | Difference between brown sugar and white sugar?
While visiting a coffee shop with coffee I was offered these two kind of sugar. But don't know about differences between them. And why does brown sugar absorb moisture quickly compared to white one? And can we use brown sugar instead of white sugar or vice versa?
As for preference: that is purely a question of taste as far as the offerings in a coffee shop are concerned.
It's also off-topic here since it's purely subjective. The "preferable" one is whichever you personally prefer.
I removed your edit to add the question about which one is preferable, as that is subjective and would require opinion-based answers. Also removed 'Raw' from the title as white sugar is not raw.
Brown sugar is just white granulated sugar with molasses added. Dark brown sugar just has more molasses than light brown sugar.
Coffee shops often have turbinado sugar, a common brand is Sugar in the Raw. Turbinado sugar is brown because it is less refined than white sugar.
The turbinado sugar is less "wet" than brown sugar, so it will dissolve somewhat faster than brown sugar. The molasses inhibits the sugar from dissolving quite as quickly, but will also contribute to the sugar drying in hard clumps.
Given a choice in a coffee shop, I would choose the turbinado or the white sugar. The molasses in brown sugar doesn't add anything that I want. Honestly, I can't really tell the difference in coffee between turbinado and white sugar, but I use turbinado anyway - for no particular reason.
Thank you for your response. but do you know, Which one is more sweeter ?
@RonakBhatt To the best of my knowledge and from what I have experienced, they are all equally sweet.
@RonakBhatt More refined sugar tends to be more "purely" sweet, as in it does not taste of anything but sweetness. Less refined sugar can have subtle flavors of caramel (or molasses, obviously) in with the sweetness. Technically, if you're going by mass the less refined sugar will slightly be less sweet, but that effect won't be noticeable with the approximate amounts used in coffee (not to mention all the other factors that affect the flavor of the coffee itself).
Brown sugar hasn't necessarily had molasses added, molasses is the byproduct produced from refining raw (brown) sugar into white sugar. Brown sugars can be either unrefined (no molasses removed), partially refined (some molasses removed), or reconstituted (molasses added back into refined white sugar).
Actually turbinado sugar dissolves the slowest of all the three mentioned sugars. Although it tastes good it's much harder to get it all to dissolve. Brown sugar dissolves more quickly because it is already compromised with moisture so it doesn't take much for it to dissolve. Both white sugar and brown sugar barely need to be stirred if you out the sugar in first and pour hot coffee over it turbinado always needs to be coerced with stirring.
@J... Although brown sugar used to be less refined, that's not so anymore. It's cheaper to refine it all, then add back in some molasses than it is to have two completely different production cycles and processes.
@Escoce That goes against what I think I know, but it will make a good and easy experiment!
@Jolenealaska it's just from experience, no real experimentation, just age and lots of coffee drank over the last few decades :-)
@Escoce i use both brown and white with my coffee.. which one you prefer more?
It depends on my mood. I usually use white sugar, as little as I can get away with and still taste it, but I prefer the taste of brown sugar in my coffee, at least the coffee I make at home. Not all coffee tastes good with brown sugar, some is just horrible no matter what you do to it. I like light roast coffee that has been brewed strong.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.713505 | 2016-02-09T10:44:34 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66362",
"authors": [
"Alyxandria Doodnauth",
"Cindy",
"Cl Charles",
"Cynthia Barlow",
"Dawn Alexander",
"Escoce",
"J...",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kelly Mckee",
"Melva Carter",
"Norma Loughlin",
"Stephie",
"Susan Odriscoll",
"Susanne Bradley",
"The Hungry Dictator",
"Vicki Morrissey",
"Wayne Gilham",
"brian warson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158889",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158892",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158894",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158900",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158911",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
40657 | Sous vide timing for prime rib
I'm looking to sous vide a boneless, 6 lb rib roast, for New Year's Eve. If I set the temp for 136F, how long should I leave this to cook?
My thought was 6 hours, but that's just based on experience and not any actual calculations.
There is nothing wrong with experience being your guide.
No, just a little uneasy ;)
Surveying the top search results for sous vide prime rib, the consensus appears to be about 7 hours, with some leeway on either side.
Cooking Sous vide - 5-10 hours at 137 F.
Big Wayner BBQ - 7 hours at 135 F.
Modernist Cuisine - 5-10 hours at 137 F.
Cave Man Keto - 10 hours at 136.5 F
Sous Vide Recipes - range of temperatures depending on desired donenness, "couple hours"
Note that you don't want to hold prime rib for extended periods (such as overnight) in its bath, as enzymatic action will make it mushy.
Yes, extended hours what I was afraid of too, I really don't want to over do it. Since this is my first, I'll probably probe it when I pull it out to make sure the temperature is safe in the middle. Thank you for the references!
I edited back to F, which is what's explicitly stated in all those links (except one) so it's pretty clear it's what's meant. It's not actually dangerous; the cooking time matters too, not just the temperature, and 135F is safe for beef up to 6.5-7cm thick.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.713842 | 2013-12-29T11:18:21 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40657",
"authors": [
"Bradley Hurshman",
"Cascabel",
"Christine Myerscough",
"Evelyn Piush",
"Jameelah Ra'oof",
"John Flack",
"Mr. Boy",
"Nimisha C Babu",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SébastienC",
"dezkev",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154687",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155044",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94634",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94642",
"justin"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
76994 | Truffles: how do I pick between buying truffle or truffle oil?
I'm interested in buying truffles in one form or another to be used as a seasoning for omelettes and pastas and such.
The main two truffle products available are fresh truffles and truffle oil. Truffle oil sometimes contains no real truffle, but some kind of synthetic aroma that imitates the truffle aroma (however, I'm interested in oils that have real truffle).
Price-wise, should I be looking at oils or buy straight fresh truffle and use it as I wish? I've heard a claim that truffle oils should be a more inexpensive way to get the truffle aroma, but upon comparing the prices of truffle oils with real truffle and fresh truffle, I'm not sure.
E.g. I can purchase truffle for £45 for 15g or 250ml of truffle oil for £12.50. Which one is affordable should depend on how much 250ml of truffle oil might have actual truffle and whether one would get more truffle by buying fresh truffle instead.
So should I look into purchasing and using truffle or truffle oil, if I want the most (real) truffle aroma per buck?
Sorry, it is up to you to decide which one you want to have. We cannot make shopping recommendations - both products have their fans. There is no way for us, of for you, to predict what you will like and what will appear "worth it" relative to your personal financial situation. The only way to be sure is to try both and compare, and decide for yourself.
I think mavavilj is trying to ascertain whether the truffle flavor concentration in truffle oil makes the price of the oil more or less economical (in terms of price per unit "truffliness") than purchasing straight truffles. I imagine the spoiling properties of the two products would also enter into his decision, along with maybe other considerations, but this seems like a pretty objective question for someone knowledgeable about this topic, and not solely a matter of opinion.
Reopening (with a tweaked title) because of pretty much what Lorel C. said here - seems like there's a fairly objective question here, it's not just about which is "better".
Agreed that the new wording is better. A hint: if you edit a closed question to improve it towards being on-topic again, please also click on "reopen", so it gets on the queue and people see it and vote on reopening.
As 'truffle oil' stores for longer ... maybe you could buy a fresh truffle, use some, and then infuse your own oil for later?
If you want "the most (real) truffle aroma", as you write, there is no question that it will come from real truffles. With a bit of Internet searching you can see that truffle oil is generally a chemically derived product. While we can debate whether or not any flavor or aroma that is created in the "lab" is the same as the real thing, you specifically want to experience "real" truffle. The only way to do that is with the authentic item. The challenge is that truffle aroma/flavor is fleeting. So, the closer to unearthing and the closer to the source the better. To me, truffle is a unique and special item. So, when you want to experience it, get the best and most real truffle you can afford. Have fun using it in dishes that highlight its aroma and flavor, then wait for the next special occasion.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.714016 | 2017-01-01T17:46:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76994",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Joe",
"Lorel C.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
76453 | Burger without patty?
So I ordered a hamburger at a new restaurant and they brought me the burger but without a patty, with two slices of square salami in it.
When I asked them where the patty was, they said I should've asked them to put it specifically, otherwise the default is just salami.
Since burgers aren't something I eat all the time and not many restaurants have it around my place/country, I was wondering if that is even a thing? Is it true that the patty is optional in a burger?
Even if it is - if you feel they are trying to be clever at your expense, don't go there again.
What was it actually called on the menu? Where are you? There's many kinds of burgers.
Again: where are you? This feels like a very locale-specific thing.
If you're in a non-english speaking area, or if it's a new restaurant run by non-native english speakers, it's possible that 'hamburger' was the best they could do to describe it. (either not knowing a better word, like 'sandwich' or thinking 'ham' was a reference to a pork product) Also likely not knowing that it's a 'hamburger sandwich', as hamburgers can be served without the roll (although it's assumed to be a sandwich in the US)
Can you find a link to the restaurant? Would be interesting to see this on a menu.
I'm from Nepal. The menu just said "hamburger - price 150", nothing specific.
If you order a burger, it should definitely come with a patty made up of ground beef. In some cases, the burger could be made of chicken, turkey, bison, etc. But, in that case the type of meat is generally specified. In the case of beef, the type of meat is generally ommitted from the details, and assumed the patty will be beef. Here is a picture of what you can expect to get if you order a "burger" in America.
I have never heard of a burger that comes with squares of salami instead of a ground patty of some kind. It's possible to have a ground pork burger, but not salami. It seems to me what you were serves is best considered a "salami sandwhich".
The wikipedia article you linked describes "a sandwich consisting of one or more cooked patties of ground meat, usually beef, placed inside a sliced bread roll or bun." right at the beginning.
Unless regional differences apply, if there is a definition of a dish that is undisputed enough to be publicly documented in this way, one can assume that it is a restaurant's duty to clearly tell you about their different interpretation (on the menu or by telling you upon ordering).
It was someone else who suggested the edit to include link to Wiki article. Nevertheless, good point about the wiki article definition. +1.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.714607 | 2016-12-14T06:22:07 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76453",
"authors": [
"Caleb",
"Catija",
"Daniel Griscom",
"Joe",
"Tom",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
73443 | What is the name of this style of knife?
Several years ago I found this knife at a thrift store:
I like this knife a lot because it is very effective at transmitting force to the food I am cutting. But I am anxious because I do not know how to find a replacement if this one breaks or is lost. Does this style of knife (where the handle is directly above the blade so you can transmit force vertically) have a name I can type into a search engine?
It's not the same, but if you like that knife, you might like an ulu.
I've seen a wavy knife with a handle like that (not serrated, but for cutting wavy slices like crinkle cut chips). In that case you can't slice, only push, so it makes sense.
@Jolenealaska: I agree that it's not the same, but this gives me something to type into a search engine. Thanks!
Pardon me for stating the obvious. Maybe you could google 'antique knife expert' and find someone who is interested in sourcing that knife. I tried various searches and could find nothing quite like it. Perhaps some museum has an expert who can give you some leads in your search?
I think this ice skate is beyond repair :) But jokes aside, it looks like there is something printed on the blade but illegible in the photo?
Are you sure it was produced as a kitchen knife? For all we know, it could be a crafting or woodworking instrument.
@rackandboneman: It says "Stainless Steel. Japan Pat."
@rumtscho: I have no idea! Maybe I have been abusing it all these years. Its blade is serrated, which makes it good for the kitchen, however.
@goldengrain: If this knife belongs in a museum I am in real trouble!
Ha! No, I'm not thinking that it belongs in a museum, but if there are experts who specialize in knives they might be able to track this one down for you. Such a person may be in some museum in the country. I think the Museum of Natural History has one day a year in which people can bring in objects for some kind of analysis for free.
It's too bad they didn't put the patent number on it (which I assume is what Japan Pat. means). There's a higher resolution pic at http://pnijjar.freeshell.org/2012/knife/.
Gotta say, though: it looks incredibly dangerous. You're not supposed to put a lot of force on a knife: the edge is supposed to do the work. If you have to force it, then you don't have control, and if it slips, you get hurt. Especially with the serrated edge, which is only effective when you draw, not push.(A mezzaluna designed to rock, not force.) So it doesn't surprise me that there aren't a lot of these around.
I believe it is a frozen food saw. The serration is very small like you would need to saw through frozen fish for example. Given that it was made in Japan, I believe it is a YAX brand knife/saw. While I couldn't find that exact style from them, they did make some that were very similar.
Google Image Search "yax frozen food saw" and you'll see several.
The images I saw all had a much longer nose (so to speak) but they are very similar. Nice find :)
Yes, I see the resemblance. This one looks as if it could be a cousin.
While that knife is not one I'm familiar with (as interesting as it looks), there are a few knives I do know of that have the handle directly above the blade. It transmits force very cleanly, you're right, it makes it much easier to leverage for cutting. The ones I've seen are curved, for a rocking rather than slicing method of cutting - but you might find it interesting to look into them anyway, either as well as your knife, or if you can't find the same.
You might look for "Ulu" knives, which are found in Alaska (and nowadays, online, of course). It is an all purpose knife, its actually the first knife of this type that I found. There are a couple variations, including slightly different curves or handle types, but the standard one is shown below.
Another type of knife is the "mezzaluna", out of Italy. Many of these tend to be two-handled (although ones similar to the ulu in shape do exist), which will give the option of more force, instead of trying to two-hand the little handle of the ulu (center of force is your whole torso), or more control over the rocking motion. Others, will have more than one blade mounted next to each other, the set of two or three blades meant to quickly cut finely - often for herbs, but no real reason you couldn't use it to cut anything else if you wanted, twice as much slicing per cut. And finally, there exist much larger versions (where the two-hand grip really works), which might be used for long, controlled cuts (like a pizza cutter or something).
And finally, you might look up "vertical grip" knives (also vertical force, or vertical handle) - this will get you to some odder knife shapes, maybe from modern day re-imagining or re-engineering for ease of use, or maybe intended for assistive use (for those with reduced abilities or the like) - but if you like them, no reason not to go ahead and look. one site which has a few is here.
+1 As I commented above, the suggestion of an Ulu is helpful even though it is not exactly what I am looking for. The vertical grip suggestion is helpful as well.
@PaulNijjar - yeah, I'm actually interested in your knife for the same reasons I like these knives, the easier to control leverage and force. I actually do hope someone comes up with the better answer, because I wanna know, too! But until then, I hoped that this answer might be better than nothing even if it isn't exactly right - though the comment about ulu posted first because my pics were being evil. Thanks for your comment :)
This is a frozen food knife or a bone saw. It is made by YAX. It is very similar to the knife you are asking about. At times you can find one on EBay. Hope this helps and good luck.
If you like knives that have this similar grip, you can look at menkiri knives:
It is not exactly the same as what you are asking for but has similar control leverage and force that you described.
Furthermore, I am actually searching for the name of a similar type of knife, which I post here: Does anyone know the name of the knife this ice cream seller is using?
Hope someone can answer it too!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.714970 | 2016-08-25T21:18:58 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73443",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Jolenealaska",
"Joshua Engel",
"Megha",
"Paul Nijjar",
"goldengrain",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51614",
"rackandboneman",
"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
} |
77686 | What is queso (the sauce/dip)? Is it short for Chile con Queso?
Queso is the Spanish word for cheese but (in the US) it is often used to refer to a cheese-based dip or sauce for tortilla chips.
When I google "what is queso?", Google says "short for chile con queso". Looking it up on Wikipedia leads to a disambiguation page where the page for Chile con Queso looks like the relevant result. That page says chile con queso is "sometimes described simply as queso".
However I'm also finding a lot of people who think that it is just a cheese sauce that doesn't have anything to do with chile.
So is queso short for chile con queso or are they distinct dishes?
The two choices you gave aren't mutually exclusive: the term can be ambiguous.
This is queso.
Hey, there've been a lot of people answering about the literal "cheese" Spanish meaning even though you're pretty clearly aware of that and asking about the sauce, so I've tweaked the title - hopefully that helps.
Google is correct, in that it can be a shortening of 'chile con queso' (most typically in the US to non-spanish speakers). But 'chile' is not the same as 'chili'.
'Chile' refers to peppers, so the dip is 'peppers with cheese'.
'Chili' is either an alternate spelling for the peppers, but more commonly in the US, it's a dish made from meat, tomatoes and chile peppers (chili con carne, literally 'peppers with meat')
And as Cindy pointed out, 'queso' may simply mean cheese and not a cheese dip. (typically of a central or south american variety of cheese; in the US typically queso blanco, queso seca or queso fresca). As best I can tell in the US, this is the more likely meaning when used by Spanish speakers.
update: and to make things even more confusing from an entomology standpoint: it's quite possible that 'chile con queso' led to 'queso dip' and shortly after lost its 'chile' ... and it's actually 'queso dip' that's been shortened to 'queso' by Americans.
'Chile' might also be a country.
When I said chilli I meant the peppers. I've changed the spelling in my question to remove the ambiguity.
I think the missing piece here for the OP is that the chiles are optional. Once people think of "queso" as meaning a cheese dip with chiles in it, it's very easy for them to give the same name to the same thing without the chiles. So the answer to the OP's "which is it?" question is both.
+1 for the update. I think you're onto something. From the wikipedia article: Although chile con queso is commonly called "queso", it should not be confused with "cheese dip," which is specifically cheese without the peppers. (End quote.) Also I looked at several menus from Tex-Mex restaurants. All specify what type of dip, e.g. Chile Con Queso, Queso Dip, etc., but I didn't find any that only said 'Queso'.
@Cindy : that might be due to formal vs. informal speech. It could also be due to the people writing the menus being spanish speakers. A restaurant also wouldn't want ambiguity as it could end up having food sent back and upset customers. (I was once in Italy, and ordered the Ragù Bolognese. As I was an english speaker, the waiter made sure that I understood it was not the British 'spag bol')
Also, for what it's worth, if your chile con queso requires any entomology, you have a whole other problem on your hands
Translated to English, queso means cheese. There are many kinds of Mexican cheeses and most are widely available.
The popular cheese dip, chile con queso, is melted cheese with chile peppers. Some where along the way, it became a 'thing' to simply call it queso.
From Bon appétit :
Get your mind out of the bowl of gooey Tex-Mex dip. When we say queso, we’re talking the many varieties of fresh white Mexican cheeses, which are distinctly salty and springy. They tend to taste more of milk than butter or cream, and range from melty to crumbly—you can even grill some of them. To go deep on Mexican cheese, you don't need to shell out at the fancy dairy counter. Seek out these inexpensive favorites (and their rad retro packaging) at your local Latin grocery.
A few popular types of Mexican cheeses are queso fresco, queso blanco, queso chihuahua, cotija, and asadero.
My question is about the cheese dip known as 'queso', I'm not asking about varieties of mexican cheese. You suggest that when referring to a cheese dip, 'queso' is a shortening of 'chile con queso'. Do you have a source to back up that claim?
Richard, you provided a source in your question. As per my answer, queso is not a 'dish', it is cheese.
@Cindy Well, it's both, depending on who's speaking and the context. Most English-only Americans use it to mean the dip/dish, while Spanish speakers use it to mean cheese, with some blurring in the middle.
It depends on the region and the context.
If my wife sends me to store for hamburger I know she means packaged ground beef. At a restaurant if I order hamburger I will get a cooked patty with a bun.
Queso is the Spanish word for cheese. At the grocery store I would (typically) buy the cheese. At a bar if I order queso I will get chile con queso. Chile con queso is a dish often shortened to queso.
I think most people would consider the dish queso to have chilies but it is going to depend on the person.
Some people don't serve beans with chili.
Yup - though note that the question is entirely in the context of the dip, so the issue is really just what a dip called "queso" might be, e.g. as the OP asked, is it still called queso if it doesn't have chiles?
Yup, for sure. Thanks for amending your answer to address it though!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.715469 | 2017-01-22T11:53:09 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77686",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Cindy",
"DanM",
"David Richerby",
"Joe",
"Richard",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53927",
"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
} |
73281 | Reasons for separating eggs in ice cream
There are a lot of recipes requiring the eggs in the ingredients to be separated. And I know that whipping whole eggs cannot foam up as much as just whipping egg whites.
But why separate eggs in making of the custard for ice cream? Egg whites can foam up better than egg yolks, so it seems counter-intuitive to remove egg whites from the recipe because you would want to incorporate more air into the ice cream, right? :/ I can simply use 1 whole egg for every 2 egg yolks required in the recipe.
I don't think I need to taste egg in ice cream. Can I assume the reason to add egg is just for the color?
Referring to the Wikipedia articles: Yolk, egg yolk is nearly 1/4 fat and 1/3 protein; Egg as food, whole egg is nearly 10% fat and 10% protein. If we ignore the protein and through some clever maths, can I adjust the amount of cream and use whole eggs without separating eggs?
P.S. I'm sorry for being a sciency person and not just follow recipes but I am curious.
I don't know why... but you do understand that yolks are nearly all fat while whites are nearly all protein... which means they serve very different purposes... plus, yolks have most of the flavor.
@Catija Yeah, I searched on Google but no one seemed to ask this question :/ However, I don't think I can taste egg in ice cream, right? In my mind, I think I can just add butter/margarine to substitute for the fat? Sorry, I don't cook much :P
I'm pretty sure we have some people here who can explain it to you :D Give them some time to discover this question.
Milk and cream are essentially made up of water, fat, and protein molecules. Within milk and cream, the fat globules are already emulsified in the surrounding water by casein (one of the proteins found in milk and cream). This means that casein molecules surround each fat globule and prevent them from coming together. This is why milk doesn't separate into fat and water, even though it's made up of two substances that don't naturally mix.
However, casein is a little too good at emulsifying the fat. When we add egg yolks, the lecithin in the yolk displaces some of the casein surrounding each fat globule. This partially destabilizes the emulsion of the milkfat by casein and allows some of the fat globules to partially coalesce when the ice cream base is chilled and aged overnight.
Partially coalesced fat forms a network that traps and stabilizes the air that is incorporated into ice cream while churning, leading to slower melting, better shape retention, and overall improved texture. Lecithin is why we need egg yolks.
Egg whites, however, are mostly water and don't contain lecithin. Adding water to your ice cream base leads to an unfavorable icy texture in the final product and doesn't contribute to partial coalescence of fat. Water is why egg whites are typically left out.
Further reading:
Chart demonstrating fat interactions with and without an emulsifier
More on factors affecting partial coalescence in ice cream
In-depth overview of ice-cream emulsifiers
Wow, thanks for the in depth explanation. This is what I've been looking for.
No problem! I've added a third link with a great overview of emulsifiers.
Great explanation, but the milk analogy isn't the best, raw milk does separate. The majority of milk these days has been homogenized, which stops the separating.
Egg yolks make ice cream richer, smoother, creamier, and softer. (They are definitely not just for the color.) The whites don't provide the nice textural benefits, so you definitely can't replace two yolks with one whole egg. You also don't need extra ingredients to get air into the ice cream; air is added to ice cream by churning it. So there's no need to include the egg whites at all.
Specifically, egg yolks contain fat, protein, and emulsifiers (lecithin). By keeping the custard emulsified, i.e. avoiding separation even on a small scale into water and fat, they prevent larger ice crystals from forming. Cooking the custard also thickens it, helping give the desired texture.
I think you could add whole eggs to ice cream, but the egg whites don't really provide anything beneficial, so you'd have to for example replace 3 egg yolks with 3 whole eggs. You'd also need to strain it after cooking to avoid bits of cooked whites. (This is a good idea anyway, just with the little bits of white that tend to come with the separated yolks, but with whole eggs it'd be way worse.) And perhaps worst, you'd get a much stronger eggy flavor than you do from the yolks alone.
Note that it's also possible to make ice cream without eggs at all. Ice cream made with egg yolks, milk, and cream is called French-style, while ice cream made with more cream and no eggs is called Philadelphia-style. The Philadelpha-style keeps it soft enough by increasing the cream to milk ratio, i.e. adding fat. It's not a direct substitution, though: French-style is always going to be richer and creamier.
So you can make something good but different by reducing (or omitting) egg yolks and increasing fat in the form of cream, but the yolks are absolutely necessary in order to obtain the desired results in the recipes that use them. You could also add pure emulsifiers (e.g. soy lecithin) to make a smoother ice cream without eggs, but I think that's getting a bit beyond the scope of the question.
And it's no accident that fat is added in the form of cream, not something like butter or margarine. If you add pure fat like that, you won't be able to get it fully emulsified, even if you do have egg yolks. You'll end up with little bits of hard frozen butter/margarine in your ice cream.
So are you saying egg whites makes a yukky texture in ice cream? Sorry, I haven't tried before asking.
Americans call ice cream without eggs Philadelphia-style? I find that a bit funny, because AFAIK most ice creams do not contain eggs. Certainly the classical Italian gelato varieties don't, which predate French recipes (and even those don't, I believe, generally contain eggs).
@leftaroundabout Gelato is not Philadelphia-style, only ice cream that's just cream-based, no eggs, no starch, but still with air churned into it. (I guess gelato in general is a broader term, but it more commonly is thickened with starch and more commonly has less air churned into it, making it pretty different from Philadelphia-style ice cream.)
Good question, and great answers from Jefromi and Josh. I just wanted to add that in the UK, most recipes for ice cream that I've seen make a "custard" ice cream, using egg yolks and effectively cooking them to make a custard before freezing. However, when I bought the Ben and Jerry's ice cream book, their recipe does call for whole eggs (not just yolks), which are whipped for a couple of minutes to make them foamy (obviously, whipping whole eggs doesn't make them peak in the way that whipping just whites does, but it clearly adds air) and no cooking is involved.
Some time ago I made a batch of "custard" style vanilla ice cream, and the whole-egg-no-cooking style ice cream and did a taste test with my friends. Most preferred the whole egg version, so it's certainly possible (and much easier) to use this method.
In terms of difference, the custard style ice cream is a little "chewier", which some people prefer and some don't, and it does taste a little richer. I think the chewiness was both from it being just yolks, and also that it was denser than adding whipped eggs (so even though it was churned, whipping the eggs did add even more air). And, as Josh said, the whole egg method did lead to a slight crunchiness (ice crystals) when I took the ice cream out of the freezer a week or two later.
For years I have used both whole and yolks combined. Never a problem. For half lte cream, half ltr milk I use 4 yolks and 2 whole eggs plus some invert sugar ( which I make ) Faulous ice cream. The above just as vanilla or coffee or equal parts fruit purée and base.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.715881 | 2016-08-20T16:47:13 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73281",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Daniel Cheung",
"Debbie M.",
"Josh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55038",
"leftaroundabout"
],
"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
} |
79302 | How do I coat puffed rice with chocolate or cocoa?
How do I apply a thin chocolate coating to puffed rice? I want to make chocolate puffed rice cereal.
Considering a coating of milk chocolate vs dusting of cocoa powder, I prefer whichever method is least messy, easier for a novice cook and has a longer shelf life.
I want the end product to be dry and crispy, ideally with no oil or salt as I want to eat it with milk as cereal.
Is the process likely to remain the same (more or less) if I replace rice with other grains like wheat or bajara (Indian grain)?
What sort of chocolate coating? Can't you just buy chocolate puffed rice cereal?
seconding @Catija's comment. A thin coating of milk chocolate is a different effect than a dusting of cocoa powder, but both are "chocolate coated". Knowing what you're looking to do, exactly, is sort of essential in figuring out how.
Ok, so dusting with cocoa powder is easier to do, and has a longer shelf life, but its also messier and the results are more limited. You would just toss some cocoa powder in a bag with the puffed rice (if you're puffing your own, best done before cooling), and shake it up. The surface of the puffed rice would hold a thin layer of cocoa powder, and since both ingredients are shelf stable, they should last a long time.
Downsides are, while cocoa powder has an intense taste, it isn't sweet without diluting it with sugar, how much you can add is strictly limited by the surface texture of your puffed rice (and sugar will compete for space), and milk will lift it right off your rice (though puffed rice in chocolate milk could be nice, too). A fine application of oil, water, or milk could help the powder adhere better, but at the sacrifice of some crispiness.
A thin chocolate coating, on the other hand, gives a more familiar product, is less messy, and more variable, but it also has a more limited shelf life (oil can go rancid, the chocolate can bloom, it is simply moister even if the moistness is cocoa butter) and is a bit harder to do. You would gently melt your plain chocolate (with a double boiler, preferably), and mix into a reasonably large quantity of puffed rice, then keep mixing as it cools so that the rice will separate or at least make small clumps, then spread it out (say, on a cookie sheet) to finish cooling and drying. Further dehydrating with heat, sunshine, or air circulation, can be done to preference.
Since chocolate is oil-based, your rice should remain fairly crisp, unlike water based sauces. You may find it easier to make larger clumps with this method, depending on ratio of chocolate and amount of space to spread out and dry on, or make a solid block of chocolate and puffed rice and cut to cereal size, or to coat a batch quite heavily and mix it into a plain batch, or drizzle the chocolate into your cereal rather than try to mix to an even coating, to tweak your preferred ratio, texture, and appearance.
Another thing you might try, depending on your puffed rice product, is comfiting, or sugar-coating, your puffed rice. You would want to create a fairly dry sugar syrup, since moisture will soften your rice, mix in some chocolate (cocoa powder would be best), and drizzle the hot mix into the puffed rice a little (tbs or less) at a time, mixing until dry to form a veerry thin layer, and periodically setting aside to cool and dry more before proceeding with more layers. This method will give many, many thin coatings of chocolate syrup to your puffed rice, and a fair amount of control how thick the coating will be, though it takes a lot more time and patience. Additionally, some extra time drying out and possibly other measures (fan, dehydrator, sunshine, warm oven) can be used to drive off any extra moisture once the rice is coated to your liking, to maximize crispiness and shelf life.
Or, you might try making a rice cereal, if you want - making a chocolate rice dough, probably chilling and grating to make right-sized pellets, and frying them to make your cereal. I would suggest you find a more precise recipe, I can make a basic guess how such cereals are made but I haven't tried to make any.
Instead of pure cocoa powder you could use something like chocolate milk mix (like Quik).
@Catija - yeah, but it isn't functionally different from the example cocoa powder and sugar - that is, it doesn't increase the amount of powder, or its adhesion, so more other-stuff means less chocolate taste.
If you can find sugar in the store that's as finely ground as what's in Quik, I'd be surprised.
Powdered sugar plus cocoa powder would be the closest approximation, but I agree, something pre-mixed will probably be easier.
Thank you Megha. I think I will go for thin (chocolate + sugar) coating. What is best way to make thin/liquid chocolate syrup which hardens at room temperature. What if I mix powdered sugar, cocoa powder, and butter and heat that mixture so it melts and turns into syrup. Please suggest ratio for three items.
Would that be a good idea to dust thin coated puffed rice with cocoa powder when mixture is warm?
@EzBoy - I would strongly suggest against adding butter, it will soften the mixture (will not dry hard) and will also reduce shelf life considerably as butter can go rancid. It would probably be best to add cocoa powder once the syrup is off the heat so that it won't burn - candy making temps can get high, I think cocoa powder will be affected somewhere between hard ball and soft crack but better to be careful. Ratio of water to sugar is about one to three, heated to soft ball or a little more. Ratio of cocoa to sugar is "to taste"... taste a pinch dry, there should be no surprises.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.716457 | 2017-03-21T11:13:05 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79302",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"EzBoy",
"Megha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55448"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
37416 | Pork butt roast: slicing temp vs pulling temp
At internal temp of 170F, will the pork butt slices be very tender and moist or should one continue to higher temp closer to pulled of 195F to achieve?
It really isn't that simple. It turns out this question is like "how long does it take to drive 100 miles?" Well, part of the answer is dependent on how fast the car goes!
The pork will be fully cooked, and almost certainly palatable to your taste (in terms of doneness which is always well done at these temperatures), if it reaches 165 - 170 F in any case.
The key question is how long has it been at temperatures that convert collagen to gelatin? Collagen converts to gelatin at a temperature dependent rate, faster at warmer temperatures (within limits). It is not an instantaneous process.
The key difference between the slicable roast and the pullable roast is the relative amount of converted gelatin. That is the 100 miles you want to go... having enough converted to be sumptuous and delicious.
Unfortunately, that is a tricky question to answer, since the conversion reaction starts (at a glacially slow pacing) as low as 140 F if you are willing to wait literally days, and proceeds relatively rapidly at 200 F, with varying speeds in between. This is the speed of the car.
On the other hand, the internal temperature of the roast cannot really exceed the external temperature, since heat moves to the center from outside (I know, it sounds trivial, and it is). But the key thing is, the outside is cooled by the evaporation of water (technically the term is enthalpy of vaporization is, but that sounds complicated): it takes a relatively large amount of energy to convert liquid water at 100 C to steam at 100 C.
Because of this, every time a water molecule evaporates from the surface of the roast, it actually cools the roast compared to the instant before. Overall, the temperature of the outside cannot climb substantially above a certain level until it is fairly dry (and your bark is formed). This implies the center cannot get too hot until then either.
However, the entire time the surface temperature of your meat is stalled as it dries out (and more water migrates from the center, to certain extent), the inside is hot and collagen to gelatin conversion is ongoing.
Saying your roast is done at 170 F or pullable at 190 F (a common recommendation) is an over simplification of a complicated, non-linear process. Sometimes it is better to just recognize when you reach your destination.
The final target temperature required to allow sufficient conversion time is dependent on the size of the roast, the temperature of the oven or barbecue, the rate at which the temperature rises in the specific roast, and so on. This is very hard to predict.
Fortunately, pork butts and other cuts used for this type of cooking are remarkably forgiving.
So as much as it pains me to say this, in this case, put aside the thermometer, guestimate based on time, and learn to test your meat by poking at it (literally, the tenderness is the goal and the test) until you have enough experience to just know.
If you take the roast out early, and find some is not pullablle, you can always wrap the un-pullable part in foil (to inhibit additional moisture loss), and stick it right back in. Or just slice that part!
Even the failures will be delicious.
See also:
Huffington Post article on The Stall
What makes a moist steak (or roast)? (The answer is more general...)
If I'm slicing, I pull it at 190, then wrap and let it rest for at least an hour or more. The internal temp will continue to rise a bit, but usually stays below 203.
The result is pork that is juicy and super tender, but not quite at the 203+ range of pulled.
Actually it's very simple. Slice between 170-180, and pull at 203-207. 203 is the magic fat rendering temp.
This isn’t strictly true just because tenderness for a big cut like this depends on time at temperature and not just reaching a particular temperature. So you’re right in so much as those numbers check out... but there’s more to it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.716902 | 2013-10-07T21:51:03 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37416",
"authors": [
"A B",
"Dhvanika",
"Oddvar Eikli",
"Penjelasan Bioglass MCI Bohong",
"Preston",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87981",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87984",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89296"
],
"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
} |
78201 | Do I need to worry about differences in produce in foreign recipes?
I am from Egypt and so I think some produce is different from the ones in Europe or the US where most of the recipes found online are written. Should I stick to a regional cook book or is the variation in things like garlic, onions and tomatoes unnoticeable?
Can you be a little more specific? The title makes it sound like you're worried about actually missing ingredients (e.g. you can't find some foreign spice or cheese), but the body asks about just differences in globally available produce. I'm guessing the title just needs tweaking?
I meant to ask about how different can American garlic be from Egyptian garlic
The question will likely be better received if you word the whole thing more like your edit.
I went ahead and tweaked it. I think it's a little broad, since some ingredients will be a little more varied than others, but hopefully it's a good enough starting place to get you good answers.
Thanks everyone I will take more time in writing the body next time.
Don't worry so much about difference between egyptian and american garlic. Your headaches begin when you need to find filé powder, or tapioca, or garam masala, or pandan extract, or a ripe papaya, or tandoori curry paste... That's the challenge of foreign cooking!
tl;dr: Yes, there are significant differences ... but use them as guidelines, don't just blindly follow recipes. (Jacques Pépin agrees)
Part of the size issue that Jefromi mentioned is not only growing conditions (hotter/dryer/morning sun/in a greenhouse/etc), but there are typically different varietals of things.
Eggplant is one of the most significant -- In the US, we have in some shops 'japanese' or 'chinese' eggplant, which is a long slender thing ... but the typical US eggplant is the 'globe eggplant', a bulbous dark purple variety. Indian eggplants tend to be smaller in size, firmer, more egg-shaped, and are much more difficult to find in the US unless you're growing your own.
For cucumbers, the ones we used to have in the shops were about 8 inches (20cm) long, thick skinned with rather significant seeds. These days, I mostly find the 'English' cucumbers that are longer (over 12"/30 cm), skinnier, with thin skin and smaller seeds. But some shops will also carry 'Persian' cucumbers, which are much smaller (under 6"/15cm). Where and when the recipe was written will greatly affect what is meant if they don't qualify the cucumber.
There's also significant variation in hot peppers. In your area, 'crushed red pepper' might be Allepo pepper, which is much fruitier than the variety used in the US. (I'm not even sure what variety it is -- it might be cayenne)
We also have things like 'oregano'. Mediteranian oregano (origanum vulgare) is a member of the mint family, while Mexican oregano (lippia graveolens) is in the verbena family.
Although flat leaf parsley is often the only 'parsley' in US shops these days, for years curly parsley was unqualified (just 'parsley'), while flat leaf was called 'chinese parsley'
Apples are another item with significant regional differences -- in part because they're typically bred for thrive in a specific growing condition, so many American varieties aren't available in Europe and visa-versa. When I lived in the Netherlands 30 years ago, the typical apples in the shops were tart green apples, similar to the Granny Smith in the US.
Carrots have also changed rather significantly in the US. 'Baby carrots' were originally a way to sell broken carrots that would otherwise go to animal fodder, but as they could sell for a higher price, many farmers started growing more slender varieties where the majority of the carrot could be turned into the pre-processed "baby carrots". In my area, the only places that I know to get decent sized carrots (as large as the old 'winter carrots') are in international grocery stores or Restaurant Depot (if I need 50lbs).
... I'm sure that I could go on, but unless you're baking, you can taste as you go and adjust however you like. If you've never tried the dish you're trying to make, it just looked interesting, you can always use it as guidelines ... if you think it looks dry as you had smaller tomatoes, go ahead and add some more. If you've had the dish before, you have more of a target of what you're aiming for ... but that still doesn't mean that you have to strictly stick to a recipe.
One thing to consider is not only taste, but also size. If you are told to use 3 potatoes and your potatoes are significantly smaller or larger than the ones meant in the recipe that could change the result. It is even worse with typical packaging sizes in different countries (but the question was about produce, so I will not get into my unhappy attempts of baking with out-of-country recipes any further).
That is incredibly informative, is there a site/book where I can learn more about specific differences in certain countries ?
@AhmadHani : I'm not aware of anything. I know all of those from my own experience. Maybe we should start trying to collect them, like the false friends and translation between english dialects wikis. I'm not sure which is the better format -- keeping it in an answer like false friends, or like the translation english terms (wiki in the question, w/ specific items called out in answers). Might even be better to keep an index in the question, and each ingredient gets its own answer.
In general, things should be quite similar, and the biggest thing you'll have to worry about is size. There can be really drastic differences in the "normal" size of a given thing from country to country; a large onion in Egypt might be half the size of a large onion in the US.
So if you can find recipes that specify actual quantities, whether weight or volume, you'll be a lot safer than with recipes that just say "one large onion". European recipes are more likely to specify ingredients by weight than American ones, but that may not always extend to things like onions.
You'll also have an easier time with recipes that have some wiggle room. It doesn't matter that all that much if you have 30% more tomato in your salad than you meant to, but if you're making a sauce with the tomatoes providing a lot of liquid, the texture might end up off if the quantities are off.
Beyond that, I'm sure there are some specific ingredients where you'll run into local differences, e.g. maybe your "normal" onions are similar to US onions, maybe they're a little sharper, maybe they're a little sweeter. But it's going to be really hard to predict exactly which things will differ, and hard for anyone to answer unless they've lived both places.
I'm not sure if you're saying that European recipes more often state a number of onions or an amount of onion, compared to American recipes. My own experience is that European recipes normally give a number of onions -- I always notice when American recipes call for, say, a cup of diced onion because, being European, I have no intuition for how many onions that's going to be. (And, frankly, the exact quantity of onion in a recipe is rarely that important.)
All recipes require some amount of adaptation to your own conditions. Even if the author of the recipe lives next door to you and buys exactly the same ingredients as you, you'll need to make some adaptations because, e.g., your oven might be hotter than theirs, or your wider pan might cause things to evaporate more quickly and require more liquid to compensate. Cooking isn't a process of robotically following instructions.
So, yes, you'll probably need to adapt recipes slightly. Differences in produce may mean you need slightly different cooking times and slightly different quantities – for example, if your local onions are bigger than my local onions, you might only need half an onion when my recipe says to use a whole one. If you're baking, fairly exact quantities tend to be quite important but, for most other things it doesn't matter. If you use more onion than the recipe writer intended, your food will have a bit more onion flavour; if you use less, it'll have less onion flavour and the sauce might not thicken quite as much. Neither of these things is wrong or bad.
While there is certainly a difference in what is known as terrior (the environmental influences on the characteristics of a crop) for a variety of products, I doubt that this difference would impact your recipes. In other words, you would likely taste a difference if you were able to compare American garlic and Egyptian garlic side by side, but for most recipes you can replace with local ingredients without worry.
There are several varieties of garlic and are suitable for different uses (raw, cooked, vinaigrettes, sauces, etc) as they are very distinct in flavour. There are around 5.000 potato varieties in Peru (they even have a "national potato day" in Peru). But yes, in most cases, for most of the recipes where they are just an ingredient, you may use the common local variety. Anyway every recipe should be adjusted to personal taste.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.717371 | 2017-02-07T17:34:10 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78201",
"authors": [
"Ahmad Hani",
"Cascabel",
"David Richerby",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"SF.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22744",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"roetnig",
"skymningen"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
46353 | Is there a difference between tepid water and lukewarm water?
Is there a difference between tepid water and lukewarm water? Are the terms interchangeable?
The terms are interchangeable.
Synonymous, equivalent, same thing, equal - and when in doubt, body temperature works.
There is no difference, thus the terms are interchangeable.
Tepid water consists of two parts cold water and one part boiling water, which renders a temperature of about 40 degrees Celsius, which is round about 105 degrees Fahrenheit.
Luke warm water is also considered in the same temperature range, which concludes that both are the same.
A quick test would be that the water to the touch should just be a bit warmer that normal body temperature and should not burn you
That's waaaaaaaaay more precise than the actual usage of these terms.
In my experience "tepid" means "room temperature" whereas "lukewarm" means "just barely warm". So I'd rate tepid as just slightly cooler. But that's splitting hairs. In practical terms -- ie in recipes -- they're interchangeable.
While today using “luke” to mean “warm” has gone out of fashion, possibly due to the popularity of the name “Luke”, at one time that’s what the word meant. This came from the fact that “luke” derived from “lew” or “lewk” or “leuk”, in Middle English, which meant “tepid” (slightly warm).
According to dictionary.com, tepid means:
adjective
1. moderately warm; lukewarm: tepid water.
2. characterized by a lack of force or enthusiasm: tepid prose; the critics' tepid reception for the new play.
There is no guarantee that a generic dictionary will reflect specialized use from a given domain, in this case cooking.
Well, if you don't want your resulting dish to be characterized by a lack of enthusiasm, then you should use lukewarm water, not tepid.
Tepid water by definition (medically speaking) is between 24 degrees(c) and 33 degrees(c). Not 40c as stated in an earlier comment. That comment is way off and could be dangerous if used as a guide to bath babies!!
This is a cooking forum, not a medical terminology or parenting one. Regardless, do you have a citation for your temperature range?
Actually teped water in cooking is 105 degrees Fahrenheit if you were around 86 that’s probably not hot enough to actually activate yeast so it’s important to follow directions. And if you go too hot up can kill yeast when baking so yeah ummm do some research first. Source: my dads an executive chef for over 30 years I texted him to verify I had the info correct :) verified
While the second-hand anecdotal information provided to you by your father is likely relevant to this question, it would be much better if you could cite an authoritative source that others can see and use, without having rely on your word.
Teped water in COOKING is in fact 30-40 degrees Celsius, 86 to 90 degrees Farenhight.
What's lukewarm water?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.718064 | 2014-08-13T11:41:26 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46353",
"authors": [
"Daniel Griscom",
"Deborah ",
"Emily Gray",
"Erica",
"Joe Shmo",
"Jolenealaska",
"Marti",
"Mcgoo",
"Monica Sanchez",
"Xander Henderson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110687",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89259",
"ned ok",
"nicholas silvers",
"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
} |
71317 | Kimchi not very fermented, did not expand or get juicy
I just made some kimchi for the first time. Three heads of Napa cabbage. I put it in glass jars and left lots of room. It has been a day and and a half at room temp. and I still don't think it has expanded very much. It has a little liquid but it is just covering the cabbage and it is not bubbling.
I used all fresh ingredients except the garlic. The garlic was from a jar. It was the minced kind. I pureed an onion and ginger in a blender and added the garlic with those at the same time.
Do you think the preservatives in the store-bought minced garlic could have stopped the fermentation? It was only about three tablespoons of the garlic in a three head of cabbage batch.
Patience. Unless the weather is quite warm, a week is a more typical minimum fermentation time; three weeks if you use a refrigerator method.
I figured out the problem myself. I used iodized salt. I was suppose to use sea salt or kosher. The fermentation prosess was inhibited by the iodine. I missed this tip the first time but when I looked at more recipes, I found it was a common practice. It took an extra day to show any activity but it is now going strong. Next time I will use sea salt or kosher salt. Many recipes state that the flavor is better too. I'm just happy it still worked.
The same grocers that carry the chili flakes usually also carry an inexpensive good quality salt especially for kimchi making.
A day and a half is much too short for fermentation. It'll take 1-2 weeks and longer the better. It'll become sour when properly done.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice. I edited your answer as we do not address health or nutrition here.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.718347 | 2016-07-10T16:47:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71317",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
87135 | Can I use whole milk instead of powdered milk?
I just received a bread machine and I wanted to make a loaf of bread but I don't have powdered milk. Can I use whole milk instead of powdered milk?
Can you? Yes. But you will need to offset a liquid (water?) and powdered milk. You will need to work backwards from something like this: http://www.hillbillyhousewife.com/reconstituting.htm to remove X powdered milk and Y water to use Z milk.
Say your recipe called for 1 cup water and 1 1/2 tablespoon of powdered milk. Because one would normally use 1 1/2 tablespoons of powder with 1/4 cup water to get 1/4 cup milk (this may depend on the brand of powder, but this is a good general rule), working backwards you would remove 1/4 cup of water and replace that with whole milk, and then add 3/4 cup water.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.718507 | 2018-01-16T18:37:53 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87135",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
73526 | Does frying a lot of oil out of Twice-Cooked Pork leave it with much less fat?
Family had a small dispute about twice-cooked pork. Our grand chef said that she fried out a lot of the oil from the pork so there wouldn't be much fat left. However, if the oil that comes out from the fat (I think that's where it comes from at least) gets rid of all of the fat, then what is the "fatty part" left behind after this frying? Wouldn't it still be fat?
Asking about how much fat might be left, what the remaining pork is made of, and so on is fine. We just don't want to get into judging what's healthy and what's not.
You might find this informative http://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/the-truth-about-fats-bad-and-good
If you render out fat, there will be less fat in the final product...it figures. Getting rid of all of the fat, is probably not possible, or desirable.
USDA's pork belly nutrition data says it starts out 53% fat, 37% water, and 9% protein. Rendering will release some of the fat and water, and leave pretty much all the protein. So yeah, unless you're getting it down to a really small fraction of the original weight, there's going to be plenty of fat left.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.718590 | 2016-08-28T18:32:58 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73526",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Debbie M.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
71668 | Is there a frosting similar to whipped cream but without cream?
Can I use butter or margarine for frosting instead of whipping cream in cakes?
I tried frosting cake with butter and icing sugar but I did not like the outcome.
Is there something else that'd come out similar to whipped cream without using cream?
What did you do with the butter to turn it into a frostig?
I added icing sugar to margarine and then beat for some time @stephie
Can you tell us what you didn't like about the outcome? And perhaps some specifics about the amounts you used? It would help to know what didn't work (and why) before trying to figure out what will work. Frosting from butter and sugar is going to be different from whipped cream - that difference might be the problem, or it might be that you need to improve your frosting recipe.
Important to note, also, that butter and margarine are different.
What kind of frosting texture are you looking for? Something like whipped cream, but without cream? Or do you just not like whipped cream as frosting so you want something different? There are a lot of frosting recipes out there, not much point trying to fix a failed buttercream frosting if that's not what you want anyway.
Yes, something like whipped cream but without cream. That kind of texture.
If what you're looking for is a close substitute for whipped cream frosting, that narrows the possibilities down.
Boiled frosting is made with a sugar syrup (with cream of tartar and other flavorings) which is boiled and added to whipped egg whites which set with the residual heat. It is a light and fluffy frosting which contains no fats.
Meringue style frosting is made with whipped egg whites and sugar (and other flavorings) which is then heated over a double boiler to set the egg whites. This frosting is thick and fluffy, though it will deflate over time unless baked. French style meringue frosting is supposedly left uncooked, which may change the flavors.
You might also want to look at Royal icing, made with meringue powder or egg white and powdered sugar, which does not require cooking, and will have a similar flavor profile to boiled or meringue style frosting. However, the texture is not fluffy but smooth, and it tends to be dried hard, and used for structure or decoration.
For textural purposes, you won't find a better match for whipped cream style frosting than whipped egg white based frosting.
If you're looking for flavor profile rather than texture, you might try a simple powdered sugar icing that's thinned with milk instead of water (possibly with a small amount of butter for flavor). Something like this might work well, with both butter and milk in the mix, though you can certainly tweak your proportions to your taste. Or something like this recipe which includes flour and egg white along with butter, milk and sugar for a complex frosting recipe that might be less sweet.
And, finally, you might look at marshmallow creme frosting, which includes butter, marshmallow fluff, sugar and milk, and which should be light, fluffy, and sweet. There are also variations which include actual marshmallows instead of fluff, melting them into something like a boiled icing recipe, or into a cream and sugar mix.
Other frosting recipes might not be a good match for your preferences - the recipe you didn't like, of margarine and powdered sugar, seems very similar to a buttercream frosting recipe, which is thicker, sweeter and richer than whipped cream frosting. Likewise, cream cheese frosting (similar to buttercream with butter, sugar and milk in addition to the actual cream cheese) is less sweet, but tends towards creamy, dense and smooth rather than light and fluffy. And ganache frosting, made with chocolate and cream, is flavored, denser, and requires the missing ingredient (cream) itself.
You might check out the European style buttercream frostings, though, as they are lighter, fluffier, and less sweet than the American version - both the swiss and italian are close to a mix of meringue and boiled style frosting (respectively) and buttercream. The french version, on the other hand, uses egg yolks with the sugar syrup and butter for a richer flavor.
There are dozens of different types of frosting.
Whipped cream frosting is one of them. It's made very simply by whipping heavy whipping cream until it reaches stiff peaks and then adding a tablespoon or two of sugar to help stabilize it. It is light, airy, and not particularly stable for long periods of time unless it is kept in the refrigerator.
Another very common type of icing is "buttercream" frosting. There are several different kinds of buttercream but the most simple kind is made out of butter whipped together with lots of powdered sugar and a small amount (a tablespoon or two) of liquid - either milk or even various types of alcohol if you want your icing to be boozy. It can be made with most solid fats including margarine or shortening.
Buttercream is pretty stable without being refrigerated but it will not have the same texture (it's more dense and "fatty"). It sounds like you're used to the former but you tried out the latter and you weren't happy with the results - which I understand - it is generally significantly sweeter because you're using cups of sugar instead of a few tablespoons as with whipped cream icing.
If you want to try something that's a bit in between these two products - that has the light, airy texture of whipped cream but is sweeter and doesn't use cream, you might consider trying a "seven-minute icing". It's a cooked, egg-white based icing that is similar to meringue. It's made with egg whites, sugar and cream of tartar (as a stabilizer). Done correctly, it makes lovely fluffy peaks with a shiny gloss.
There are products specifically created to imitate whipped cream. They consist of modified starch with added sugar and flavoring, sometimes also color. You mix them with cold milk and whip. The texture is the same as whipped cream, the taste is rather close.
Anything else that you try is simply another frosting - it can be tasty, but nobody would mistake it for whipped cream. It would be up to you to decide if a frosting is sufficiently "like" whipped cream or not.
Do you mind giving a list of these products that imitate whipped cream?@rumtscho
I don't have such a list.
Chilled, full fat coconut milk can sometimes be whipped (with sugar and the kind of stabilizers that are also used with cream); how well it works will be very dependent on the brand used and your exact method, so experimentation will be required.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.718719 | 2016-07-26T07:32:05 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71668",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Cindy",
"Megha",
"Quiygee",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48299",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
36246 | Why would I turn canning jars upside down for 15 minutes after removing from the water bath?
I am planning to can a plum chutney and have ordered the Stagioni 10 1/2 oz jars. Having only used Ball jars, I am not sure I understand why their website says to remove from water and place upside down for 15 minutes:
For preparations that require cooking (e.g. jams, marmalades, sauces, etc..) it’s possible to create the vacuum without boiling the jars in water, proceeding as follows: preheat the jars with hot water, fill them with the hot preparation, seal with the cap and immediately turn upside down (taking care not to handle them with bare hands to prevent burns). Avoid placing them on cold surfaces (metal, marble, etc..) and keep them upside down for at least 15 minutes. Subsequently put them back with the capsule facing upwards and let them cool down in a cool place. It is not advisable to use the 0.15 l jar for the above described heat potting due to the reduced content within which employs a much shorter time for the cooling that may not be sufficient for the vacuum formation process.
Does anyone know?
What canning method are you planning to use?
Okay, I've made it more clear in the title what you're asking here, and found (I think) the relevant quote from the website. Feel free to edit your answer further if I've done anything you don't like.(Also, welcome to Seasoned Advice, and good question!)
This technique goes by the name 'inversion canning'. There are questions of if it's safe, or safe for some foods but not othes.
KatieK, Hot water bath. Recipe calls for 15 minutes then removal and cool. I've done that for years with Ball.
That passage is suggesting an entire canning/processing method, one that may not be safe. It will generally work to create a seal, as they say, but it may not fully sterilize the contents and the seal will not be as likely to hold. I would not follow their instructions, and instead process your chutney according to a trusted canning recipe you find elsewhere.
See for example this USDA source, which says:
Some other methods of sealing jars call for inverting a closed, filled jar of hot product for anywhere from thirty seconds to one hour. (Inverting is turning the filled jar upside down on its lid.) While this inversion process can be successful in producing a sealed jar, it works best with very hot product. Individual variation in practicing this procedure or unexpected interruptions can result in delays between filling jars, getting lids screwed on, and inverting the jars. If the product cools down too much, the temperature of the product can become low enough to no longer be effective in sealing jars or preventing spoilage.
When the inversion process does work, the vacuum seals of filled jars still tend to be
weaker than those produced by a short boiling water canning process. A larger amount of
retained oxygen in the headspace may allow some mold growth if airborne molds contaminated
the surface of the product as the jar was filled and closed. More complete removal of oxygen
from the headspace also offers some longer protection from undesirable color and flavor changes with some types of fruit products. A weak seal may be more likely to fail during storage.
If you sterilize the cans in boiling water after filling the cans and closing the lid, it is often not possible to cover the cans with water, since the cans may have a lower density than the surrounding water and therefore float.
This may cause that the top of can is not heated enough to be sterilized properly. If you place the cans upside down after removing them from the boiling water, the (near) boiling content of the jars will come in contact with the upper part of the jar and the lid and continue the sterilization even after the jar has been removed from the boiling water.
They're definitely not supposed to float. If they did, it wouldn't be just the lid you'd be worried about - some of the glass and even the contents of the jar may not reach the proper temperature and be held there for long enough. Simply tipping them upside down at that point won't sterilize them. (But I don't think floating is generally a problem, either. The density of whatever you're canning will be at least similar to that of water, and possibly significantly higher if it has a lot of sugar; there should be very little air at the top, and the glass is heavier than water.)
See http://nchfp.uga.edu/how/general/cannedfoodproblems.html (the bottom of the table) if you are having trouble with floating. See also http://nchfp.uga.edu/publications/uga/using_bw_canners.html which mentions in a few places that it's necessary for the jars to be covered the whole time.
Please indulge me a moment more: I thought that I could hot water process a as usual but, that Stagioni lids still required inversion. The information provided here is quite helpful. The 8 oz Ball jars didn't float so I don't expect the volume sized jars from Stagioni to float.
@Bubbeskitchen My point was that no, this is not helpful advice. It's encouraging bad processing. Inverting jars doesn't help sterilize them. If it does anything, it helps them seal - but it's not even reliable for that.
@Jefromi: It is peculiar that food safety requirements and recommendations are much more strict when they come from US institutes compared to what is actually practiced or considered acceptable elsewhere in the world. I am not sure why, but I suspect that the US institutes may be held liable for any consequences. If not following US food safety requirements had been unsafe, humans had probably been extinct a long time ago.
@Tor-EinarJarnbjo Safety is a matter of degrees. Not following those guidelines may only give you a small chance of spoiled canned goods, and a fair amount of the time it may be obvious that they've spoiled. It wouldn't make the species go extinct, but if you're the one unlucky guy who dies from botulism because your seal was iffy and your preserves got recontaminated with botulinum, you (well, your family) are going to wish you'd just done it right. You can advocate the practices you like; I err on the side of caution when posting things for potentially zillions of people online.
@Jefromi: Most canned food cannot be affected by botulinum since acidity or salt content prevent botulinum growth independent of any sterilization. Exposing e.g. fruit preservatives to high temperatures for a longer period is not only unnecessary to prevent botulinum growth, but may also have negative impact on the resulting quality.
@Tor-EinarJarnbjo Okay, then in that case, whatever other nasty contamination you like. Canning methods do try to seal jars well for a reason, and a method that is less likely to create a good seal is at the very best a way to end up throwing out some spoiled jam, and at worst a way to get sick somehow.
The statement that canned food cannot be affected by botulism is patently false. Canned food, especially low acid canned food like green beans, is specifically at risk for botulism if improperly processed.
@SAJ14SAJ: Did I write that canned food cannot be affected by botulism?
@Tor-EinarJarnbjo Three comments up: "Most canned food cannot be affected by botulinum ...".
@SAJ14SAJ: And what is difficult to understand with "most"? If you want to critizise my comments, please read them entirely and don't leave out the words not suiting you. I even explained which additional critera (low acidity or higher salt content) is required to prevent boutlinum growth. What's the point in leaving out half the statement and claim it to be false?
@Tor-EinarJarnbjo Because it is a critical issue of food safety, and that is why managing the acidity and salinity are so important--especially given that pH can change over time in the jar. Don't be casual with this stuff.
@Tor-EinarJarnbjo Assuming you have somehow been able to determine that it's safe enough (not just "it's never made me sick"), as my answer says, a lot of these methods do make it a bit more likely to have the seals fail, or even to have a bit of mold growth. Sure, you can just throw it out if that happens, but it's really easy to do it right. Why risk it?
@Jefromi: Even if it's easy to do what you think is right, as I also already wrote, excessive heat exposure may just as well degrade the canned product. For example jams and marmelades are with few exceptions not affected by botulinum due to the acidity and not affected by mold due to the high sugar content. Cooking fruit or berries too long when making jams degrades IMHO the texture of the product and definitely has a bad influence on taste.
@Tor-EinarJarnbjo Good thing proper processing (at least for half-pints) of hot pack fruit preserves only takes five minutes, then!
I just received a new box of the Stagioni 10.5 oz jars and the "Pasteurizing" instructions have clarified my question and may help others:
Fill jars with room temperature product, 1.5" from top. Put jars in pot, not touching, and add lukewarm water to cover by 2.5" Boil according to time on recipe. Allow to cool in water.
There is no mention of inversion on this size jar.
I don't think I'd follow this advice either. If the recipe's expecting hot pack, filling them at room temperature is dangerous. (Or is the idea that you can only use raw pack recipes??) Also, wow, 1.5" is a lot of headroom.
And if you meant to be revising your question, you should do so by editing it. But replacing your question with this would completely change it. It sounds like this company just is inconsistent about what instructions they provide for their jars, and with something like canning where doing it wrong means getting people sick, the right thing to do in that case is to ignore the company and use trusted recipes.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.719201 | 2013-08-23T15:32:09 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36246",
"authors": [
"ANURAJ",
"Ark Lomas",
"Bubbeskitchen",
"Cascabel",
"Edgar Guevara Codina",
"Jim Flake",
"Joe",
"Jose Fernando Lopez Fernandez",
"KatieK",
"Klausette",
"Lars",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Toni Toland",
"Tor-Einar Jarnbjo",
"dodekja",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19821",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85027",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85028",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85030",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85031",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85039",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85042",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85287",
"pickleboy",
"user85039"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
36385 | Is marinade safe if it has had incidental contact with meat?
I just made a batch of soy based marinade, I then used a spoon to pour said marinade over some chicken, swirled it about, and mistakenly double dipped (put it back in the marinade). The marinade was going to be kept in the fridge.
Can I feasibly keep the marinade for future use or is this unsafe?
Cross contamination is a huge culprit in foodborne illness, so that marinade is definitely suspect and shouldn't be used on any ready-to-eat food. Depending on what you're saving it for, you could probably bring it to a boil and re-chill it, but I'd always err on the side of safety.
Not completely clear on what you've done. If you used the spoon just to pour over the chicken, from a few inches or more above, then the spoon wasn't actually contaminated (provided you didn't get splashes of chicken juice on it). If you used it to stir the chicken in the marinade, or to rub the marinade on the chicken, or it otherwise came into contact, then yes its considered contaminated.
Assuming it is contaminated, it is safe provided you treat it as you would chicken: store it in the fridge, not for more than a day or two; cook it thoroughly before consuming; don't let come into contact with other food (or that food will be potentially contaminated as well), etc.
You could also go ahead and cook it now; you can then store it like you would leftovers.
If you need to store it longer, freezing it will keep it safe. Most marinades will handle freezing fine, though you may need to re-mix it upon thawing.
I suggest labeling it—especially if you freeze it—so you don't forget that its potentially contaminated.
I deliberately left the original phrasing in when I edited, but I believe "swirled it about" refers to stirring the meat and marinade together in some way.
@Jefromi I'm guessing so, but I figure its worth the extra two sentences to be clear.
I assumed the spoon was used to spread the marinade over the meat. So the spoon briefly touched the surface of the meat and then went back into the marinade.
You should now treat the marinade as if it is carrying pathogens; use it only in a context where it will be fully cooked before being eaten and any food it is used on will also be full cooked before being eaten. Hold it (refrigerated) no more than 2 or 3 days. In essence, you are now treating it as you would chicken or another potentially hazardous food.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.720073 | 2013-08-28T19:44:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36385",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Colin D",
"DoubleNegative",
"Fraser Keen",
"SP812",
"Sobachatina",
"SourDoh",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85372",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85375",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85384",
"lottie capon",
"user1007074",
"user1068636"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.