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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
71372 | Preserving vegetables in the fridge
I have a very challenging task every time I buy vegetables in preserving them even though I have a refrigerator at home. Tomatoes, carrots, beets, and bottle gourd always collect moisture in the plastic in which I store them. How do I avoid this?
How long are you storing them? What do you mean by "moisture"? Is the moisture detrimental to your produce somehow?
see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9612/, also http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22992/, http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23117/ and of course it is important to know if you are just hitting the maximum storage time, best found on sites like stilltasty.com but we also have a short list: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21068.
I'll buy vegetables once in a week and use them for at least 5-6 days, so I keep them in a refrigerator. Moisture, I meant to say the process of condensation, which happens and degrade the vegetables.
I tend to be kind of lazy and store my vegetables in plastic produce bags from the supermarket. I have found two things that help the produce keep longer:
Put a dry paper towel in the bag to absorb moisture.
Leave some air in the bag when you tie it, so the plastic is not resting right up against the vegetables.
Also, I'll sometimes put the produce right in the crisper drawer without a bag or container.
I do the paper towel thing, but I specifically wrap herbs and lettuce in the towel, so the plastic bag isn't touching the leaves.
Yes, for lettuces especially! They wilt so easily; wrapping them in a paper towel really helps.
Do not store vegetables in plastic bags; it will create condensation and accelerate the degradation. At worse leave the bags open or pick some holes in the bags, the vegetables need breathing room.
Tomatoes do not need to be refrigerated (at least for 3, 4 days)
You could just pop them in the fridge as-is with no real problems or you could wrap them in a damp paper towel (need to change it at regular intervals.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.720321 | 2016-07-12T14:58:01 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71372",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Harish Kumar",
"Joe",
"Kathleen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47995",
"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
} |
71595 | Can anyone identify this type of green tea?
My house mate brought back from green tea from either China or Malaysia that was dark green balls that unrolled to large, thick leaves when steeped and I'm struggling to find anything similar!
It didn't have the same young/grassy taste like some of the jasmine tea I've had and instead tasted quite earthy and ... green! (Sound stupid I know)
Does anyone have any pointers to what I should be looking for? When I've searched for whole leaf green tea it comes back with Jasmine Pearls which are a lot longer and thinner when steeped but these were more substantial
Welcome to Seasoned Advice. The pic in your question is from the Internet and comes up when doing a search for oolong tea.
In general, your description - dark green balls which unroll to full tea leaves, sounds like some variety of gunpowder green tea. It is a quite common Chinese technique, as I recall. Each pellet (also sometimes called "pearls") is a rolled and dried tea leaf, which unfurls when steeped.
However, it is difficult to get more specific than that without more information. There are several types of green tea that can be rolled into "gunpowder" form, with differing grades of tea, amount of aging, and years or growing locations (given growing conditions) all contributing to somewhat different flavor profiles. You might be able to use the terms and look to see how the information about which varieties of gunpowder green match your house mate's tea or your experiences (or your own preferences) - but without more knowledge I don't know how to pin down the same kind of tea.
... just make sure you mark over the "gunpowder" label before going through airport security ...
To answer the question, it would be better if you could also upload a picture of the dry leaves before steeping. Gundpowder tea could be possible, but looking at your image it seems that the edges of the leaves slightly yellowish. This could also point to an Tieguanyin oolong.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.720502 | 2016-07-22T09:25:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71595",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37981",
"thrig"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
41833 | How to select a good non-stick pan, price point wise?
I already have cast iron skillet but I can't find a decent "normal" pan, for eggs and stuff, sometimes steaks, more or less general purpose.
Here are some more features: high quality, durable, non stick, oven safe, dish washer safe, extremely flat surface - not to be higher in the middle, this is very important.
Of course pricier usually means better quality, but is it worth it based on the criteria I'm after? Is it likely to be worth going from pans below $60, to pans from $60 to $130, or to pans over $130?
Removed comments - you want to debate policy, do it on [meta].
Instead of endless comment discussions, I decided to post an answer.
First of all, I totally agree with Jefromi. Nobody in the world knows how to produce durable non-stick pans (if we form our expectations of durability similar to expectations of regular pans, so several years or a few decades). If you invest into the most expensive non-stick pan in the world, it will still lose its non-stickiness after some time. The non-stick surface is like a bar of soap, it gets destroyed with use.
But this doesn't mean that buying the cheapest pans is the best decision, because the cheapest pans 1) have other flaws besides lack of durability, and 2) can wear out quicker.
What is the relation between pan quality and price? I took a look at test results from Stiftung Warentest, a very thorough consumer research organisation in Germany. It is independent of all manufacturers and has strict quality control of its measuring methods. I looked at results from three tests: a non-stick pan test from 2007, a "budget" non-stick pan test from 2004, and a PTFE- and ceramic pan test from 2011. (The tests are in German. To see a table with numeric results, click at the "Testergebnisse: Pfannen" tab in the left-side menu of each article. The first numeric column, Qualitaetsurteil, is a weighted score calculated from the numbers in the columns to the right. The numbers are in the German school grade system, 1.0 for best and 5.0 for worst. All brands are widely available in Germany and may not be available internationally. I didn't bother to account for inflation in the following conclusions.)
What the first test shows: There is not a strong correlation between price and quality within the mid-price segment. Most pans are in the 30-80 Euro range, and most of them get a grade between 2.0 and 3.0.
Strangely, the second test also has pans up to 119 Euro, despite its title promising budget pans. But it includes more cheap pans than the first test. Again, we see that there is not much correlation between price and grade. Also, not all pans have the same strengths: for example the Ikea pan has a great score at non-stickiness, but it is mediocre in frying result quality, and its handle gets too hot. The 119 Euro pan gets a rather bad grade, but the best four pans are expensive, in the 68-99 Euro range.
The third test is hard to interpret. They compared ceramic and PTFE in the same test and pronounced ceramic the clear winner. 2011, ceramic pans were way too new on the market, so they probably didn't know about their weakness: the ceramic fails after a few months of use, much more spectacular than PTFE, without a correlation to mechanical damage (unlike PTFE). So they used a testing procedure geared at mechanical damage to calculate the test score (they filled the pan with ball bearings and moved it, and also used sandpaper on it). On the main page of the article, as well as on the Amazon reivews of these pans, there are multiple people saying that the non-stick fails quite early.
Beside this methodological fault, we can see that there isn't all that much difference between the pans measured. The best gets a 2.0 and there is only one below 2.5.
An America's test kitchen test which Jefromi linked in the comments also evaluated pans. The results are behind a paywall, but the methodology is free to read. They say that they tested durability by repeatedly frying an egg, until the egg started sticking. Most of them failed after 30 to 40 eggs, a single one kept going after 76, but there were ones which failed almost immediately. Luckily, you don't have to throw out the pan the first time an egg sticks, but this confirms that, beside a few outliers, nonstick pans have a very similar lifetime.
My advice is to go to a physical store and buy a nice heavy-bottomed pan, without splurging on the most expensive ones. Choose one which feels heavy enough to give you a good heat distribution and has visibly good production quality. It will probably last a couple of years. The actual life can vary a lot depending on how frequently you fry and how good you are at controlling temperature and treating it gently (no dishwasher!). It is personal preference how much you are willing to spend for this kind of lifetime.
To be honest, decent non-stick pans are a dime a dozen. I'd never put a non-stick pan in the dishwasher no matter what the label says, so I wouldn't even consider that a factor.
Oven-safe is a major consideration. The higher the temperature you want to bake at the less non-stick you coating will be. I have a high-temperature "non-stick" pan that I can't fry eggs on because they adhere like epoxy resin. So, if you do really need to bake them at high temperature save a bit of your budget and get 2 sets, one a nice set of high-temperature non-stick pans and the other an inexpensive run of the mill set of teflon pans. If you don't need high-temperature than save some money and get an inexpensive set of teflon pans, you can throw a load of money down on them and get very little extra benefit.
As for steaks, use your cast-iron, you won't get a better result on an non-stick pan that's for sure.
@GdD Not sure if I'm allowed to ask, but I see some non-sticks in the range of $30, some in the range of $60, and then $130, even over $200. What would you consider mid-range, which I'm after, 60 or 130? Again it's really hard to ask without showing concrete examples. Couldn't a cast iron also serve as high temp oven pan?
@Ska The reason that the moderators are so strict about asking about brands is to prevent the forum from being used by advertisers to plug their wares, as other forums have become. Also, this is a worldwide forum, and brands are often to be too localized to be of use. Although originally from NYC I live in the UK, I couldn't tell you what brands to buy in Kalamazoo, or Timbuktu. It's not personal, so just chill!
@Ska, your question about price is very relevant, happy to answer. Cast iron makes a great high-temperature pan, I don't bother to use my high-temp non-stick, instead I use that. For stovetop operations I have a fairly basic and inexpensive (say $40) 2 pan set of store-brand (Linea, like I said it's the UK) non-stick pans. I don't see the point in spending more.
@GdD Interesting, I'm looking at $50 vs $115, the one at $115 does seem to have much better ratings and reviews on Am***.com, goes up to 500F, versus 400F, more established brand, both are hard anodized. Usually for the cheaper, I always see reviews like "didn't last long", "got chipped", etc. For $115 one, almost none. It's a French brand that usually makes nice cast irons, but they have some non-sticks which is this one for $115.
Nonstick coatings can only be so good; you can keep spending more and more money and it's still just going to wear out over time. For that reason, the expensive nonstick pans are often worse in the end, unless you have infinite money or want to accumulate a collection of non-nonstick pans over your lifetime. You're paying a premium for the features of the pan besides the nonstick, and you're going to end up wanting to replace it to get a fresh new nonstick coating, wasting your investment.
So really, you only want to worry about durability up to a point. The durability of the coating is going to pretty much max out, and it doesn't matter as much if the rest of the pan is durable beyond that. If the pan warps slowly over time, but it's still flat after the nonstick coating has worn off, it's done its job.
In any case, the qualities you mention of a good skillet are only somewhat correlated with price. Generally the really expensive ones will be high quality all around, but some of the cheaper ones will be too, and the coatings on some of the expensive pans may not be as durable as some of the cheaper ones. (Many manufacturers buy the coatings, so a cheaper brand might've bought a good coating, and an expensive one might've skimped.) You'll probably be best served by finding a the best cheaper pan you can, so you won't mind replacing it once the coating's worn off. Generally there should be some good options in the $40-60 range.
You may also want to just forget about oven safety, at least at high temperatures. Things will probably be safe up to 350-400F, but going higher, I'd suggest just using a cast iron skillet (which can be fairly nonstick) so you know you can heat it as much as you want. And you can get a cheaper nonstick skillet and a cast iron skillet for less than the price of a fancy nonstick skillet, anyway.
You should probably also ignore whether they're marked dishwasher safe. Even if the manufacturer says they are, putting it in the dishwasher is likely to reduce the lifetime of the coating.
As for specific brands, the answer's going to change over time, especially since you'll be looking at more numerous cheaper brands, not big established brands. If you're buying in the US, America's Test Kitchen will usually have reviews of recent pans (behind a paywall, unfortunately) - here are their current ratings.
This seems to be a consensus here, but the rating page you posted is under login banner, not sure if the site is free to use. I checked other similar rating sites and found quite a few brands I wasn't aware of, and seem to be well rated on Internet shopping sites too. Checking now.
@Ska I did say it was behind a paywall. I don't know of anyone else who does comprehensive tests like that, though - they're way more reliable than even aggregated reviews, in my experience.
You did yes, but I see they have 14 day trial. So I'll make sure I get all the info I'll ever need for my kitchen purchases in that period.
@Ska Go for it, but unfortunately, a lot of these products cycle in and out over time, and in a couple years you might have trouble with the old recommendations. That's one of the reasons so many StackExchange sites avoid specific product review questions; we want our posts to stay relevant.
What I miss on most review sites is the durability factor, which I hope the one you posted will have. Most review sites focus on how it works now, right after the purchase. I'm ready to pay premium for any product based on the durability factor.
@Ska the durability factor is available to very few test organizations, who can afford speeded-up aging cycles. For example, Stiftung Warentest (a German organisation) has washing machines running day and night for years, in order to assess the behavior expected after the amount of washes done in a household for decades. Almost nobody has the money for personnel and room needed to conduct such tests. (If you read German, you can see if SW's site has pans, you can pay a small amount for a single test result, but not all brands will be available internetionally)
@Ska Yes, America's Test Kitchen does give durability ratings for the coatings (not for the pans themselves).
I checked SW. This time they did it wrong. They did a mechanical durability test (scratched the pan) and measured the results. The winners were ceramic coated pans. Now the article has comments how these pans failed after a few months. This is a known problem with ceramic pans and happens due to heat and chemistry, not mechanical damage, and they did not test that. Which shows that it is very hard to get reliable results of how a pan will perform 10 years from now if you don't have 10 years to publish a result. Free results: http://www.test.de/Pfannen-Frohe-Kunde-fuer-Koeche-4186853-4186861/
On test.de the prices do indeed vary a lot for the similar quality rating. There are a number of those over $120, which is a bit terrifying, considering they weren't much more rated than the one from $40 range. I'm yet to go through America's Test Kitchen.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.720676 | 2014-02-07T16:53:19 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41833",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Alexander F.",
"Blue Marlin Dive Spam Trawanga",
"Cam",
"Cascabel",
"GdD",
"Holloway",
"Janet",
"Laurel G B",
"Liquid Spam",
"Nearoo",
"Ottie",
"Ska",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97607",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97621",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97622",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97831",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97844",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97848",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97905",
"rumtscho",
"teof",
"ultraswiss spam"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
69117 | How does amount of flour affect cookies?
What will happen to my chocolate chip cookies if I add more or less flour than the recipe calls for?
Depends on what you mean by "more" or "less"... How much more or less? Half? Double? A tablespoon? Give us some more information...
@Catija Let's not force the question to be too specific. It'd be sane for an answer to say, hypothetically, you won't notice anything change til you add X, from X to Y they'll get crisper, from Y to Z they'll get crumbly, past Z they won't even hold together. If the OP limits the question to certain amounts, she could easily miss out on the big picture.
The recipe used would be helpful in giving answers scaled to it.
I think it's possible to write decent answers without knowing a starting point; if the OP's recipe is already in the "more flour" direction they'll just be farther along the continuum you describe. But if you really want to know a starting point, you could assume it's the canonical Toll House recipe from the US that's on the back of basically every bag of chocolate chips (2 1/4 cups flour, 1 cup butter, 3/4 cup each white and brown sugar, 2 eggs, 1 tsp baking soda, 1 tsp salt), which makes a generic kinda soft cookie. If the OP doesn't return to clarify eventually, I'll just edit that in.
A general answer, because a concise answer would need an entire recipe.
(all ratios that follow are by weight not volume measures)
Flour gives the cookie structure. The commonly followed ratio is:
Cookie dough = 3 parts flour, 2 parts fat, 1 part sugar
That 3:2:1 ratio results in the most common cookie texture.
Adding more flour give you a hard cookie like: ginger snaps, short bread, etc.
Reducing the flour, like a 1:1:1 flour-fat-sugar will give a drop cookie and often chewy.
I Googled, and found this informative piece How to Invent a Cookie Recipe.
Is this ratio actually correct? Based on the recipe posted by Jefromi in the comments above, that's certainly not a 3 to 1 ratio of flour to sugar (by volume, anyway). 2.25 cups flour to 1.5 cups sugar is 3 to 2 ratio. Considering that this recipe is for the "classic" Toll House recipe and it doesn't match your ratios, can you please explain a bit more about this?
I edited in by weight. Toll House weights: 2-1/4 cups flour=306 grams, 1 cup butter=227 g, the sugars combined are 315 g. That's 3-2-3. The sugar is very high which is interesting because I consider Toll House to be too sweet. Ruhlman (the ratio guy), says rations are just the starting point.
The Toll House cookies might be a little on the sweet side, but they're not the only ones (e.g. the Serious Eats chocolate chip cookies) are about the same ratio, so I too have a hard time imagining 3-2-1 as a canonical chocolate chip cookie base.
This guy seems to think so. http://product.design.umn.edu/courses/pdes3701/documents/ratio_cookies.pdf Note: his ratio numbers are opposite the sequence of Ruhlman (I don't know how long that link will live)
@Paulb That's a scan from Ratio, right? (here's the same chapter in Google Books) If you look at the example recipes there, the ones actually using the 3-2-1 ratio are likely crisper cookies, and then the chocolate chip cookie recipe is 1-1-1 and the sugar cookie recipe is 3-2-2. So while Ruhlman does say 3-2-1 for some kinds of cookies, for chocolate chip and sugar his recipe is pretty darn close to the Toll House one.
Your cooking philosophy makes no sense “don’t measure unless you need precision” cooking requires precision, the better the ratio of ingredients the better the end product. If you don’t measure, whatever you make will never be the best.
More flour will result in a "breadier" cookie. It will have more structure and be less chewy. Less flour will do the opposite, resulting in a softer, flatter cookie.
http://www.handletheheat.com/the-ultimate-guide-to-chocolate-chip-cookies/
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.721855 | 2016-05-19T23:39:06 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69117",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"CrackerJacked",
"GdD",
"Paulb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76103"
],
"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
} |
74111 | White Potatoes for Hash Browns?
Are white potatoes the right type for hash browns? I guess not as I couldn't get them to adhere, without using eggs or flour etc.
Do you know a specific name? There are a lot of kinds of white potatoes. At the very least, were they waxy or starchy? (See for example http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/54322/1672 or http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/637/1672.)
Moving "why do you want them to adhere" conversation to chat.
I'm just wondering: did you rinse the potatoes? Many people do, and rinsing takes away excess starch, preventing potatoes from sticking. I've had bad luck using white potatoes for hash browns, but the ones that always work for me are Yukon Golds or German Fingerlings.
@Shalryn - fingerlings for hashed browns? Eeek! They are too precious a commodity in my neck of the woods for that. :D Speaking of which, it's about time for me to harvest my fingerlings grown via "potaotes in a bag"....
@ Andrew Mattson - Look up the "stacked tire" method of growing potatoes. Just spray the inside of the tires with silicone sealant to prevent chemical leaching. You should get enough fingerlings that you don't have to skimp. :) I'd explain more, but I think this might not be the place for it.
@Jefromi I'm afraid I don't know the specific name, it wasn't marked on the packaging.
@shalryn Yes I did rinse them, most recipes seem to recommend that but I agree with you that it would make more sense NOT to rinse them, if you want them to adhere.
I'm assuming you're talking about shredded style hash browns. I'm not sure how much potato variety affects the outcome, as I tend to buy yellow potatoes (as they can typically be used either for roasting or mashing, so I don't have to think about how I'm going to use them in advance). I'm also more likely to make 'home fries' style hash browns, but I did a bit of research & testing for my pancake demonstration
Most recipes for this style call for soaking the shreds in water to remove the starch, then wring them out in a dish towel or similar. You can get sometimes get better adhesion if you don't soak them, but still wring out as much water out as you can.
If you're making latkes, you'll want a bit of depth to the oil, but generally 1 to 3 tablespoons of oil or butter is enough for hash browns, depending on how large of a surface you're working with.
Make sure the crust is nice and brown before flipping. Also, make sure that you're flipping it over in chunks suitable for your spatula size (either divide it up into quadrants or similar if coating the entire pan; or make individual piles only slightly larger than your spatula). If the potatoes drank up all of the oil when cooking the first side, it's generally a sign that the heat is too low and you might need to add some more (before you flip, so it has a chance to heat up)
The exact temperature to cook at depends on how much you're trying to cook at once, how fast your pans recover after putting the food in, and how thick of a layer you're cooking. (you want to make sure that the middle is cooked before you've burned the outside; if you're having problems with this, you can also par cook the potatoes in a microwave first).
If your pan/burner combination has a particularly slow temperature recovery, you might want to get the oil up to shimmering before you put in the shreds, but you typically aim for a little lower than that.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.722303 | 2016-09-21T17:04:11 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74111",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Shalryn",
"ericcartman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
66482 | How do I convert a powdered seasoning into cube (bouillon) form?
I have created seasoning in powdered form and would like to also make it in a bouillon form. How do I do this?
In order for your powdered seasoning to hold together in a solid shape, two things are needed.
1. Added ingredients that will work as a binder.
Commercial bouillon cubes are made by adding some sort of saturated fat that is solid at room temperature, such as partially-hydrogenated palm or cottonseed oil. Corn or other modified food starch may also be added, along with sugar, and of course, lots of salt.
You might be able to achieve a similar effect using beef tallow, coconut oil, or lard. Without chemical preservatives however, the result would need to be refrigerated.
2. A device to compress the mixture via intense mechanical pressure.
Bouillon cube factories use large presses to form the mixture into cubes, but of course, such machinery is not available for home use.
Instead, you could compress your mixture into cylinders using a "pollen press". This model costs about $20 and will make cylinders about the diameter of a nickel.
So, you need to decide whether you really want to adulterate your special blend of seasonings with added binding ingredients — ingredients which may affect the flavor and shelf life of your seasoning. You also need to decide whether the extra work of compressing the mixture into a solid shape is really worth all that trouble.
Another possibility that might work better for you would be to put your powdered seasoning directly into empty gelatin capsules.
Such capsules are made from beef gelatin — an ingredient that seems quite appropriate for use in bouillon!
Dropped into hot liquid, the flavorless gelatin capsules would quickly dissolve and release your powdered seasoning.
If you need a vegan alternative, empty vegetarian capsules are also available. Made from a derivative of vegetable cellulose, they dissolve in liquid just like gelatin capsules. However while gelatin is basically flavorless, vegetarian capsules may add a detectable taste. The taste may vary by brand, and depending on the intensity of your own seasonings, it might or might not be an issue.
Both types of empty capsules are sold in various sizes, and there are special trays and other tools available to facilitate filling them with powder. Refrigeration is not necessary, and the shelf life your dry seasoning would be protected inside the capsules.
Gelatin capsules will immediately kill your vegetarian market.
@user23614 You can get empty vegetarian capsules quite easily.
Thank you, @Calrion — I added information about them to the answer.
Market? If the question is about a commercial product, there probably is some form of regulation to ensure that the food is safe. You will need a local expert for this, you can't just try any method and hope it works.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.722604 | 2016-02-14T03:05:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66482",
"authors": [
"Andrew Jackson",
"Calrion",
"ElmerCat",
"Neil Trott",
"Nicole Combs",
"Paddy Brown",
"Pat Ellingham",
"Trish Robinson",
"c01985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159233",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159265",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37751",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho",
"user23614"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
87334 | substitute for tuna in Poke
I like Poke, but prefer to avoid tuna (due to sustainability concerns).
I tried with salmon and it was a mixed result. The taste was good, but too many bones and hard stuff, at least in the particular piece I got. Is there a way to avoid that with salmon, maybe a particular cut?
Otherwise, what would be a good meaty fish alternative? Halibut, perhaps?
Any sushi grade fish would be good, pick the one you like.
I might ask a separate question about salmon (right cut and/or removing bones). For the substitution question I'm a bit torn - I kind of agree with Max, most anything will work, but perhaps people could try to help you stay closer to tuna. But if you want to aim for that... is it only tuna that you want to avoid? Or are you avoiding it for a reason that might apply to other fish too?
@Max: that's not a comment; that's an answer... If you answer and ping me, I'll come back and upvote... :-)
Look into Ora king salmon.
short answer: octopus, salmon, shellfish
long answer:
Traditional forms are aku (an oily tuna) and he'e (octopus)... (aka)"Tako" Poke...
ahi poke is generally made with yellowfin tuna... raw salmon or various shellfish as a main ingredient...
How about imitation crab meat? Not gourmet but I think it taste nice.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.722857 | 2018-01-27T04:30:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87334",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Fabby",
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
84894 | What makes dumplings ("knödel") mushy and sticky ("patzig")?
We just returned from a restaurant that served "dumplings" in a cheese sauce. This was an Italian restaurant. My wife didn't like them. They were the size of baby carrots, or baby meat wieners. She had expected the baseball sized ones. But the worst according to her was that they were what she called "patzig", which in this context means mushy and sticky.
Does anyone know what would cause this? My wife says its probably from over cooking.
Welcome! The "why were they this way?" is a fine cooking question, if you can describe them clearly, but asking why they'd be that way while you have this unknown word in your question makes it hard for people to answer. It looks like "patzig" means "snotty" - does that seem like an accurate translation to you and/or your wife? When applied to dumplings, perhaps very soft, gooey, kinda melding a bit with the sauce?
Knaidel in Yiddish or German is a dumpling
Knödel (or Knoedel) is German for dumpling.
@Stephie Thanks, I was hoping some native speaker would come along! (That's not that far off from "snotty".) I went ahead and edited so that answers can be about cooking, not about translation.
Where those potato or bread dumplings? Also... an Italian restaurant serving German-style "Knödel"? What where they called on the menu, tiny Knödel in an Italian restaurant sounds bizarre to me!
Are you sure the restaurant didn't serve some variation of gnocchi, but using an unfortunate translation as Knödel?
The international dumpling clan is a quite diverse family:
They come in a lot of sizes, from tiny, bite-sized gnocchi to huge, family-sized serviettenknödel and are made from a wide range of bases, like ricotta, potatoes, stale bread, breadcrumbs...
If you were in an Italian restaurant, you probably were served some member of the gnocchi family - and your description of size and shape supports that. Now gnocchi can be very light and airy, but they quickly turn sticky and mushy, both from overworking the dough and overcooking, from undercooking („raw“ centers), sometimes also because they were prepared in advance an not cooled/stored/reheated in an optimal way. And some types are a per se a bit denser than others.
Without seeing and tasting the food you were served, it’s basically impossible to fully explain what happened and whether they were within the usual acceptable range or not.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.722995 | 2017-10-09T00:15:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84894",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Layna",
"Robert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61534",
"mroll",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
66191 | Can milk chocolate candy be used as a chocolate substitute in fudge?
Can I melt Brach's Milk Chocolate Stars or Hearts to make fudge?
Chocolate to fudge I get but... are you talking about the candy hearts with words on them, the ones that are definitely not chocolate?
Do you have a fudge recipe you're working from? What kind of chocolate does it call for? Brach's chocolate candy is generally much sweeter and less flavorful than cooking or baking chocolate. It also contains artificial vanilla flavoring which might lend an unpleasant taste to your finished product.
The fudge recipe we have used for decades calls for baking chocolate and chocolate chips 50/50.
You should add links to the particular items mentioned (on their website I suppose), so it is clear which ones you are asking about.
@Jefromi I'm pretty sure she means these. My first thought was the conversation hearts, too, but that really didn't make any sense at all.
@Catija Oh, should've tried searching for chocolate hearts instead of candy hearts like the OP said. Must be it, edited!
The fudge recipes I use all use cocoa, usually Dutch process.
Fudge is candy. Like all candy making it is built on a concentrated sugar syrup. Fudge is differentiated from other candy in that it is encouraged to form tiny crystals and is high in fat.
The chocolate in fudge provides two things: flavor and fat.
Although less traditional, plenty of recipes for fudge variants leave out the chocolate altogether.
As @ElmerCat said above, chocolate candy already has a ton of sugar in it. This wouldn't be a problem but it might change the timing of your candy cooking. More sugar to liquid means the candy will not need to cook as long. You'd have to watch your temperature.
The real problem is that chocolate candy like that doesn't taste much like chocolate at all. You would be able to make fudge with the right texture and color but it would taste bland.
These two products are labeled as 100% milk chocolate, whatever that means... Does that effect your response at all?
I don't think so- you want the chocolate to be strongly flavored. Any kind of milk chocolate will have a lot of extra sugar and the flavor will be more dilute.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.723217 | 2016-02-04T03:29:35 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66191",
"authors": [
"Anna Slack",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Chris Smith",
"David Fox",
"Ellen Kane",
"ElmerCat",
"Escoce",
"Hans Stuber",
"Jon Cottrell",
"Sobachatina",
"Stephen Hyde",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158417",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158436",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158448",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41245",
"user3169"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
74569 | Slow oven brown rice
Is there a slow method of cooking brown rice in the oven?
Next week, I'm cooking for a group of friends. I'd like to start the rice, go to a meeting (~3 hours) and come back to finished rice.
I'm using long-grain (not Basmati) brown rice. I have an old oven, so no on/off timer available. Could I cook the rice on low heat for a longer time, or should I just plan to cook it ahead and reheat it?
Is the oven necessary due to quantity? My rice cooker has a timer function that allows you to set it up in the morning and come home to freshly cooked rice. Would something like that be an option?
Not for quantity, but I don't have a rice cooker, and don't really want to acquire more appliances.
I don't suppose you have a slow cooker/Crockpot? I found this and it actually takes 2-3 hours. https://www.leaf.tv/articles/how-to-cook-brown-rice-in-a-slow-cooker/
Slow cooker
If you have a slow cooker as Catija suggested, you can totally do exactly what you want. Search for slow cooker rice pilaf if you need a starting point. I know you don't want new appliances, but slow cookers are a bit more general purpose, so maybe you have one or would be okay buying one, and future readers certainly might.
Oven
I'm also pretty sure the oven will work, but it might require a little experimentation to get the timing right. There are again a lot of recipes for rice pilaf in the oven, but they normally start with boiling water then take perhaps 45-60 minutes for white rice or 60-75 minutes for brown rice, at 350-375F, so they'd be very overdone after three hours. But if you reduce the temperature, you can extend the cooking time and make it more tolerant of cooking past done. A slow cooker isn't really very different from a tightly covered dish in an oven at a low temperature.
So, if I had to hazard a guess, I'd take a normal oven rice recipe (with the water boiling before starting), and reduce the temperature to 250F, then see how long it takes to be done and whether it's okay after three hours. It'd really be best to do a trial run sometime when you can actually check on it, though.
If that doesn't extend the time enough, you can probably stretch it even more by starting from non-boiling water, but I unfortunately don't have a good sense of what combination of water and oven temperature would accomplish a three-hour cooking time.
Reheating
If you don't want to experiment, your fallback of reheating can work too. The key in my experience is to add a bit of water then cover when reheating, so that it steams and moistens again, rather than getting dry and hard.
For one to two servings I just drizzle a little water in, maybe a couple teaspoons, before popping in the microwave. For a larger quantity like your situation, probably a bit more than that - the idea is that it mostly but not entirely boils away by the time it's all reheated, so that the rice isn't wet, but has been surrounded by steam the whole time. You can always check on it in the middle and see if it's nice and steamy, and add a bit more if it's starting to seem dry.
If you put a damp or even wet paper towel over the rice you are reheating in the microwave, it will steam and soften as well as heat the rice very nicely. I've tried this on several occasions and it works beautifully!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.723428 | 2016-10-07T23:16:53 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74569",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"ec92",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51070"
],
"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
} |
88728 | Am I missing out on something by not using parchment paper?
I enjoy occasionally baking over the weekends and on special occasions - biscuits, macaroons, cakes, pies, etc. I don't use parchment. My baked goods have always come out just fine - dare I say "tasty"? - and the only mild inconvenience I face by not using parchment paper is I have to scrape out bits of the baked good from the bottom of my baking tray. Other than avoiding this mess, is there any reason to use parchment paper? Does it affect the quality of the baked product?
Can you explain (maybe post an image of) what you mean by "baking tray"?
In British English at least, baking sheet and baking tray are essentially synonyms (with perhaps a minor difference regarding the height of the sides). I don't know about American use. You may be referring to something like baking parchment, greaseproof paper, or non-stick mat, but I've never heard these Jeff baking sheets. They do help you get things out intact and keep the container from getting bits burnt on
Are you referring to a silicone baking mat to line the baking tray with?
What you're missing out on is time to do other things.
Besides the time trying to get the cake to release without tearing itself apart, or cleaning a sheet pan, you can do things like speeding up your cookie baking if you have less than 6 sheet pans:
Cut some pieces of parchment to fit your sheet pans, and measure out your cookies on them. Hold the pan at the edge of your counter, and slide the parchment w/ cookies onto it. When they're baked, grab the edge of the parchment, and slide them all off at once.
6 assumes that you're working two pans in the oven at once (if you do, you need to make sure they're rotated so they have time on both the top and underneath the other pan). You then either do two in the oven, two being prepped to go in, and two cooling. Parchment lets you remove the two that are being prepped, as well as the two that are cooling -- because they go straight back into the hot oven, you don't have the problem of the cookies spreading as you're dropping on the cookies, so the first cookies dropped cook differently from the last cookies.
So it really comes down to a question of cost vs. time. You know what your time is worth to you, so you have to decide if the parchment cost is worth it. (I personally rarely use it ... in part because I have the silicone baking mats, but for large batch cookie baking, parchment is much better as it doesn't insulate the bottom of the cookies. And then there are the other times when I kick myself for being too cheap/lazy and not using it as I sit there and scrub my sheet pans)
Parchment certainly helps with sticking. Puts a nice space between the baked good and the metal, for things like macaron it is ideal not to worry after all your hard work about it sticking to the tray! Although for macaron I prefer silicone mats. Parchment makes it easier clean up ultimately. I always used baking sheets smothered in butter and baked directly on that, but at pastry school parchment was a preference for cleanliness reasons (traditionally cheap industrial baking sheets don't have a non-stick surface, and they get pretty damaged pretty quickly).
You do not need it
But it can help in some situations.
My baking sheets are old and damaged and stuff stick to them.
Using parchment paper remove the risk of sticking.
You can use it not only on baking sheets, but also in cake molds, pie mold, as a steam pack...
Also piping bag for profiteroles
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.723679 | 2018-03-29T16:13:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88728",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Chris H",
"Cindy",
"Luciano",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
76389 | Are sausages made using the whole body of a chick?
I have seen videos that chicks are going into a grinder alive. (Please don't watch this video if you are a sensitive person.)
Is it true that sausages are made this way, with all the body parts of a chick, (like bowels, feathers, and things people don't eat)?
Rule #1 on the Internet: Don't believe every video you see. (The same applies to trustng other "information" from the web, btw.)
The answer is simply no. Sausages are not made by throwing live animals into meat grinders.
People eat sausages, so by definition every part that is in a sausage is a part people eat.
(note: I don't plan on watching the video). Sausage in the US does not have bones or feathers in it. Most don't have organ meats, either. (those that do don't use all of the entrails, though). I don't know if there's a class of chicken product that has feathers on it. At least in the US, you're not supposed to have entrails or feathers in 'chicken meal' (which is used in pet food). I've also heard of feathers and other "waste" parts of poultry ground up and being used in bioreactors to produce fuel. And I have no idea how carcasses were disposed of during the avian flu epidemic.
I do know that for the avian flu, chickens that were in barns were suffocated before disposal. (they'd shut off the fans to kill the whole flock. I've heard it's not the most humane way to go, but it was better than the other alternative (starvation, where they could go cannibal).
Sausage in a bun.
First, most sausages are made from ground pork, not ground chicken. Second, most chickens that we eat are not killed as chicks but when they are larger. Third, in the vast majority of countries there are rules around cleaning animal carcasses before using them, such as removing at least the bowel contents if not the guts themselves. There are also rules about being humane to the animals. Putting live animals straight into a grinder would violate these rules.
But even if you don't believe in government inspectors, ask yourself - why make a nasty sausage with feathers, bones, and poop in it? Who would buy that a second time? And why waste (assuming by chick you meant a large fullsize chicken) the parts you can sell at a much higher price per pound or kg than you can sell sausages? It makes way more sense to remove the breasts and legs, and use the wings, back, neck etc in your cheaper dishes. Which, as I said in my first point, are probably not sausages because chicken sausages are unusual.
It seems the videos of very tiny chicks (just hatched) going into a grinder are real, but the output of the grinder isn't used for sausage or any other human-consumption. This is done for male chicks in egg-producing operations. The output of the grinder may go to pet food or simply be disposed of. Apparently the grinder is considered more humane than putting a bunch of live chicks in a plastic bag until they suffocate, or some of the other culling options. See Jefromi's Wikipedia link for more.
You're right (+1) but in some countries the disposal of male chicks of egg-laying breeds isn't as humane as you might like. The OP should be specific as to what country. That doesn't for a moment mean they end up in the (human) food chain, but does explain the misleading videos.
And the best starting point is probably just the wikipedia article on chick culling. You can also find a lot of news articles from various points at which videos like this have gone viral, though you have to be careful there because a lot of them are pretty hyperbolic as well.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.723972 | 2016-12-12T15:10:32 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76389",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chris H",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Pete Becker",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"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/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
76527 | Is this a good way to grind beans for espresso?
I use a Hamilton Beach grinder. It's a rotating blade type. I want the best possible grind. Here's how I do it: after placing 1 tbs of beans in the grinder I begin grinding to a count of 5 (approximately five seconds), then I turn the grinder upside down, I then grind for 4 counts, again I turn the grinder upside down, and then grind for 3 counts.
Does that sound about right?
I'm sorry, but I can't find any questions like this from yesterday. Are you certain that you posted it here? The way our site works, you need to ask one question at a time, so that we may address each question separately. Right now you have two completely different questions, so you need to separate this into two posts.
It seems that you posted a question as an answer, which isn't how this site works. It takes a bit of learning at first so you're on the right track!
Indeed, now that you've posted this as a question, you can get answers, so all is well. I've edited your question to focus just on the question you actually meant to ask. I also dropped your second question - as Catija mentioned, we want one per question.
@Jefromi, hm.... Looks like a migration candidate for Coffee SE to me?
My guess is that exact timing is too preference- and equipment-specific for us to be able to answer definitively; whatever works for you is right.
If you're trying to actually make espresso in an espresso machine, a blade grinder won't do it, regardless of your method. It's simply too inconsistent. You'll get some small bits, some big bits and some dust.
Espresso needs to be ground fine - more fine than drip or French press or cold brew. You need a purpose-built grinder for this. You might get away with a high-quality burr grinder but for really great quality espresso, you need a specialty grinder.
Now, if you're just using espresso beans in your normal coffee maker, that's not espresso but your grind doesn't need to be as fine.
Info about grind taken from here and there's a lot more in-depth there, too.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.724378 | 2016-12-15T23:12:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76527",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Daniel Griscom",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
71051 | Why is there malted barley flour in all purpose flour?
A friend and I were puzzled to see "malted barley flour" listed as an ingredient in all-purpose flour and bread flour but not cake flour or any sort of whole-wheat flour. This was the case for every flour brand I checked (two "store" brands and three advertised brands - all U.S. brands). My friend said that would never happen in Hungary.
I looked over the detailed discussion on this site of different kinds of flour and protein/gluten percentages, hard wheat vs. soft wheat, etc., but no mention of malted barley flour.
So I am curious:
What exactly is malted barley flour?
What function does it serve?
About how much of it is included? (like 30%? or more like 1%?)
Do any other countries besides U.S. put this in their (wheat) flour?
Enzymes break starch chains down into complex sugars. Yeast produce carbon dioxide when fed sugars. To keep enzyme levels consistent over many milling cycles, malted barley is added. Generally less than 1/10 %. Flour millers have the equipment and knowledge to adjust enzyme levels. Blindly adding more malted barley can cause the crumb to come out doughy and appear uncooked. Leave enzyme levels to the professionals.
Sorry for not connecting the dots. Malted barley flour is rich in enzymes. Complex sugars add greatly to flavor and crust browning. 1/10 % would amount to adding 1lb barley flour to 1,000 lbs. of wheat flour.
From the Code of Federal Regulations, 21CFR137.105:
(a) Flour, white flour, wheat flour, plain flour, is the food prepared
by grinding and bolting cleaned wheat, other than durum wheat and red
durum wheat. To compensate for any natural deficiency of enzymes,
malted wheat, malted wheat flour, malted barley flour, or any
combination of two or more of these, may be used; but the quantity of
malted barley flour so used is not more than 0.75 percent.
Note - label on my bag says all purpose flour, not all purpose wheat flour. So you can take that strawman (#4) for a long walk on a short pier. You won't find it in the "100% whole wheat flour"
Purpose (#2) - malted barley is yummy yeast food (or the makings of beer.) So, not surprising that you find in in flour intended to serve the needs of yeast baked products.
What is it? (#1) Barley (a grain) that has been malted (sprouted) which converts starches to sugars by enzymatic action, and is then kilned (dried) to stop the process, then ground into flour.
Percentage (#3) no idea, but likely closer to 1 than 30.
"the quantity of malted barley flour so used is not more than 0.75 percent." https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=137.105
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.724541 | 2016-06-29T19:27:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71051",
"authors": [
"Optionparty",
"Shannon Severance",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/949"
],
"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
} |
84939 | Is this a bad apple?
I cut my apple open this morning and found that it had an unexpected consistency emanating from the core. I couldn't find much about what's going on here other than maybe this is some kind of mold (seems unlikely).
What's going on with this apple?
This particular apple was part of an Amazon Fresh delivery. I've had about 10 of them up to this point, all of which were good apples.
I took a bite before throwing it out. It tasted fine and the texture is the same as far as I can tell (dense, fibrous). Ultimately I decided to toss it erring on the side of caution.
All righty, no answers in comments, please, and that includes guesses and things you think it's not.
This appears to be watercore, specifically radial watercore, from the image you have posted. It should be safe to eat, according to this site and this site.
According to an article from Washington State University, watercore is a disorder of some apple variants, which can cause the internal flesh to appear glassy [shiny and translucent] later into the growing season. In some studies, low levels of calcium have been shown alongside the condition. As well, it should be noted that the condition 1) does not occur after harvesting 2) may cause an increase of sweetness, and 3) cause the apple to quickly degrade during storage.
As to the causes of this disorder, there are a number of theoretical factors for causation: Genetic defects, water regiment, temperature, minerals, leaf-to-fruit ratio, maturation and ripening, sorbitol metabolism and altered transport. These are discussed to some degree in both the WSU article and this MSU article
Nailed it. Google Image Search
Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_mining_in_agriculture#Sorting_apples_by_watercores: [W]atercore (…) is an internal apple disorder that can affect the longevity of the fruit. Apples with slight or mild watercores are sweeter, but apples with moderate to severe degree of watercore cannot be stored for any length of time.
I'd recommend adding a description of what watercore is and it's effects in the actual answer.
Odd, we always called that sugar windows, and did not consider it a defect when raising apples for cider. We got it a lot when apples stayed on the tree until after a frost and the tree pumped more sugar into the fruit. It definitely will effect storage and spoil much faster than fruit without, but we pressed immediately after picking. I guess for storage it would be considered a defect though.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.724753 | 2017-10-11T13:55:30 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84939",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Jacksonkr",
"Shiri",
"dessert",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41314",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62132"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
69090 | Fat free oil substitute for frying/sautéing and curries
I want to reduce fat for health reasons. Can someone please tell me a fat free substitute for oil in cooking (not baking) that will not compromise the flavour of the dish?
I am asking for a substitute in frying/sautéing vegetables and cooking curries. For example, when cooking chow mein what do I use instead of oil?
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! Unfortunately, this question as asked is way too broad. There's no one solution for every usage. Do you have a specific usage you're curious about? Please use the [edit] button to add any details to your question.
I would like to remind everybody that discussing health choices is off topic both in answers and in comments. The OP stated that they have a health reason to want to eat oil-free; please do not comment on whether you find this a good or bad choice.
Debating health is off topic here, but I think I can answer some of your question. Since you mentioned Chow Mein. I would start by saying that technically speaking you can NOT cook Chow Mein without oil. Chow directly translates to "fried" and Mein translates to "noodle". As frying (even stir/wok/pan frying in this case) by definition requires oil...
Now, can you cook noodles and sauce without oil? Sure, but it'd make a slightly different dish. You could boil the noodles for example, grill or steam the meat/vegetables and then mix it all together with sauce. You could still probably make a good dish this way. You won't get a typical chow mein though.
Chow mein aside, you could probably take a really good non stick or seasoned pan/wok and simply cook the meat/vegetables with a bit of water/broth. You'd essentially be lightly steaming it.
Though as an alternate suggestion, I would instead start with looking for dishes that utilised other cooking techniques, boiling, braising, steaming, grilling as examples. Also, can you use a, very, very small amount of oil? With the right pan a little bit goes a long way.
If you're eating meat/nuts/other things you'll get fat anyway though, some oils suitable for cooking are pretty good for you. I'd also, suggest talking to a doctor/nutritionist about how much oils are okay and which oils are okay. Not all fats are equal and humans need some fat to survive.
I guess you could also use a blowtorch to sear.
The fat is essential for the flavor many dishes. Curries were mentioned, and they are a prime example of a dish that would taste horrible without any fat (butter, oil, coconut products ... all are rich in fat, on a smaller scale even some of the spices are!) since the flavor from the spices would not well distribute into the sauce without fat.
If you want to REDUCE the amount of fat in a mixed-vegetable sauced dish and still get a better texture than just boiling the vegetables, oven roasting (marinated in some of the sauce for example!) is often a great alternative.
Substitutes that act like fat taste/texture wise but do not have the nutritional properties have been tried in the food industry - and failed, see Olestra (which was/is such a substitute, which turned out to have no calories indeed but unpleasant and unhealthy side effects).
Fat imparts (what most people consider good) flavor and will take a high temperature. So it is great for cooking (frying).
Even if you take flavor out the equation there is no fat substitute for frying (that I am aware of). It would be great if there was a synthetic fat that the body did not treat as fat. It is one thing to get your body not to break it down as calories. It is another thing to not have it clog veins and arteries.
With technique you can reduce the amount of fat used to fry.
You can saute vegetables with just wine (or another liquid) in a good non-stick pan. I like a fat free bitter orange marinade. Not the same flavors but your taste buds adjust over time.
Not in your question but for salad dressing balsamic vinegar and a squeeze of lime.
There are many dishes where there is just plain no good non-fried alternative. You need to adjust your diet.
May I ask what the problem is with this answer?
We like to steer clear of nutrition advice here. http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3270/is-it-okay-to-mention-nutrition-in-a-question
Hello Paparazzi, talon8 is correct. Health discussions are undesirable in both questions and answers. The rest of your answer is fine though, so I removed that part.
As I mentioned, that kind of synthetic fat kind of exists, and it turned out to be problematic.
For saucy curries, a masala based on onion and perhaps some tomato can be prepared with little to no oil.
I have been able to cut way back on coconut cream and other fatty ingredients in this way.
https://greatcurryrecipes.net/2011/06/24/curry-base-sauce/
Is a good all around base for anything from Dhansak to Thai
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.724967 | 2016-05-18T21:44:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69090",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"paparazzo",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho",
"talon8"
],
"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
} |
68262 | Could I possibly tell imitation lobster from real lobster?
There's a shop in my neighborhood that sells lobster rolls.
Every time that I order one, it's packed with "lobster" meat and a little bit of mayo. At $15, I feel that I am getting a great deal.
But my gut feeling has always told me that this shop uses imitation lobster -- and that it couldn't possibly give that generous of a portion of lobster and still make a profit. I asked them, and they looked at each other, hesitated, and then said, "no, it's not imitation." I figure I need another way of verifying.
Is there some way that I could check the meat to see whether it's real lobster or fake?
I'm curious to know even if it tastes the same, at least for purposes of truth in advertising.
Do you live around "lobster country" or further inland? If they get lobster right off the boat, it could be extremely affordable. (This is still a good question and worth asking, but the geography could be an important deciding factor for whether they're likely to go for imitation!)
So I'll ask here. Imitation lobster will have no variation in taste and texture. It's pretty much going to be the same every time. Where as real lobster maybe be stronger or weaker flavored from time to time, the claw meat might have a "sandy" taste to it sometimes. I don't know what else to call that sometimes off taste that claws get sometimes. Does the meat you've had vary from time to time or is it mostly the same. Also where abouts do you live?
Good question. I'm sensitive to both taste and texture, and only like the real thing. I live in Northeast USA, close enough to the ocean that it can go either way, and price isn't always the difference. If it doesn't say so on the menu I ask if it's 100% lobster. That way they can't get around it by saying it's lobster. Also, if the restaurant doesn't serve a lot of seafood, it's more likely to be imitation, or at least pre-frozen, which tastes watery & stale to me. I also ask where they get it-I know who the local quality sellers are. Others have given the same advice, so I'm just chiming in!
Langostino is often called "lobster" though it's illegal to do it without qualifying it. In other words, you can call it "langostino lobster" but not simply "lobster." That doesn't mean people follow that rule, naturally. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langostino)
Could be crawdad/crayfish: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/12/nyregion/sold-as-lobster-salad-but-a-key-ingredient-was-missing.html?_r=0
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. If you want to chat, go there; if you want to answer, post an answer.
If it is high quality imitation lobster and you are not amongst the highest skilled tasters (few of us are), you won't be able to tell the difference by yourself.
Imitation seafood is made from surimi, which is made from various whitefishes (most often Alaskan Pollock). The surimi is mechanically formed, colored and flavored to look like whatever species they are trying to duplicate. Sometimes the results are amazing. Behind the curtain, this is for crab, but I'm sure lobster is similar:
Handbook of Food Science, Vol 4: For the production of crabmeat analogs the Surimi paste containing the desired additives (with the exception of red colorants) is sheeted in a thin layer and then heat set. After this first heat set, the sheet is scored with the device that looks like a large comb. the sheet is not cut completely through. The scoring forms a long thin strips that resemble crab muscle fibers. Several of these strips are rolled together to form "muscle fiber bundles." These are set and then a portion of the outside surface is colored red with a blend of Surimi and food coloring. The ropes are then cut into logs (approximately 4 inches in length) or into small cylinders or diagonal cut product for salad chunks.
And if the cook lightly shreds the immitation crab, it's extremely hard to tell the difference.
I googled "detecting surimi" and learned that it is not an easy thing to do. There are people trying to do it with mass spectrometry and other complicated lab methods.
I'd say the lobster roll meat is one of:
it's real (guessing from their reaction to your inquiry, unlikely)
it's a high quality immitation lobster
it's canned real lobster (I never tried it)
If you like the sandwich, consider keeping it in your routine.
(a timely question, a surplus of pollock/surimi is on the market, we'll see more of these surimi analogs)
As an experiment: maybe save a chunk of the meat, carefully rinse and leave out at room temperature. Do the same with a piece of real lobster. Theory that I'm not sure of: surimi will deteriorate slower than lobster.
I almost suggested the same, rinsing it in a colander then watching it rot. That would be right up my alley if I had two nickels to rub together.
@Paulb why would that be the case ? (just curious, not challenging you)
@Ciprian, I don't know for sure. Just a gut feel. I know there is Sorbitol, Starch and usually salt in surimi. I think that might last longer the pure seafood.
I never believe it's real unless the lobster comes out and it's still attached to the shell just having been freshly steamed.
@haakon319: If it tastes the same, why bother worrying about it being real or not?
Because if it's not actually real lobster, don't call it lobster. That's like calling a California sparkling Wine Champagne because it taste the same. If it's not the real deal, call it what it is, and let the consumer decide if they like it or not.
@haakon319 I don't know if I'd use that analogy. California Sparkling Wine is the same as Sparkling wine that comes from the champagne region of France. That's more of an appellation protection issue than whether it's otherwise the same thing. You couldn't tell the difference between the two, because they are essentially the same thing, with merely subtle regional differences. Imitation lobster however is not lobster, it's an entirely different product altogether. Like trying to call veggie burgers hamburgers instead.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.725345 | 2016-04-14T10:04:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68262",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chris Bergin",
"Ciprian Tomoiagă",
"David Mulder",
"Erica",
"Escoce",
"Jolenealaska",
"Paulb",
"Sue Saddest Farewell TGO GL",
"TecBrat",
"haakon.io",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39570",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45042"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
67194 | Why shouldn't a precooked pie be frozen?
I bought a Selection brand strawberry pre-cooked pie. I just read the instructions on the pie and just realized it was pre-cooked but it says to not freeze the pie. Unfortunately, I froze it right away when I got home because I couldn't find my reading glasses and didn't read the instructions.
Are any health concerns here? If not, what could the reason be for being warned not to freeze the pie?
What are the instructions on the pie other than "do not freeze"?
Generally, these warnings are for food quality reasons, not for safety reasons.
Assuming this is a fresh strawberry pie, I'd guess that - because strawberries don't bake or freeze particularly well - if you freeze the pie, the fresh strawberries will turn to mush and not taste very good, particularly if you try to bake it to heat it up.
Freezing something should never make it unsafe to consume... freezing is a preserving method.
It's not for safety reasons that the label says not to freeze. It says that because they anticipate that freezing the pie will have a negative effect on quality. I'm guessing that freezing will make the pie mushy.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.725847 | 2016-03-07T21:51:07 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67194",
"authors": [
"Angie Cook",
"Anthony Foster",
"Catija",
"Paul Richards",
"Ron Allen",
"Roxanne Gagne",
"Susan mcGuire",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"sue white"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
68474 | How to separate peanut oil from roasted peanuts at home?
I want to enjoy peanuts' protein without as many calories, so I want to separate some oil from peanuts with simple home equipment. Is this possible?
How much oil can I separate? Can I remove 50-60% of the oil just by removing the top layer of oil from the peanut butter?
You might be interested in a product sold (in the US, anyway) as "powdered peanut butter". The peanuts are dehydrated and powdered and the caloric content is greatly reduced.
thanks, but there is no peanut flour or powder in my country .
Please provide more detailed information to help solve your question/s.
Are your peanuts raw, roasted form?
What suitable end forms do you want your peanut protein in, whole kernal, powder, paste (eg peanut butter), sweet or savory?
Disclaimer: I did not try it, but it should work from a chemical point of view.
Put the ground peanuts or peanut butter into a pot and add the same amount of water*, stir well and bring to a boil.
Pour it in a Fat Separator to separate oil and peanuts. Pour the peanut water mix into a heat resistant form and put in the oven to dry at low temperature.
If you want to use the peanuts minus oil for baking you could use milk instead of water, that way you don't have to dry it after separation.
*if the mixture is too thick for the fat separator use more water.
As an alternative you can use the method used when making paneer or potato dumplings: Put the ground peanuts or peanut butter in a dry cloth. Take the four corners together and spin to squeeze oil out. This is much easier but less efficient as well.
When you discard the oil on top of the peanut butter it does reduce the fat content, but compared to the glass of peanut butter it is only a small amount of fat you remove with the oil, it would not be 50-60%.
Do you wish to enjoy peanut butter and not want to much fat? Or do you want the plant based protein from the peanuts?
If the plant based protein is your wish then I would recommend hemp or sunflower seed protein, which is readily available in powder form almost everywhere. 100g of peanuts have about 26g of protein, sunflower seeds about 21g.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.725991 | 2016-04-22T13:32:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68474",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Food Lover",
"Mega man",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45240",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47760"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
86820 | What cut of beef is this?
My dad asked me to clean out his freezer and I found this cut of beef. It said "rib" on it, but it looks like no rib I've ever seen.
(click for full size)
Is this an ankle? How can I identify which cut it is?
I should probably be voted to oblivion here, but this is a leg of lamb
If you provide an answer that details how you made that determination, it might still be useful to the next person reading this.
The photo on the left, specifically the upper left quadrant appears to have a concave shape that would make one think (at first glance) of the short ribs, but the ball joint and size definitely is the give away here. Assuming the dish it rests in is an 9x13 casserole dish you are right that this is probably from a lamb rather than a beef. But the folks at Victorian Farmstead provide a photo that makes it completely clear that we are indeed looking at a "Bone In Leg of Lamb"
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.726179 | 2017-12-31T18:37:36 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86820",
"authors": [
"USER_8675309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45712",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52611",
"njuffa"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
58821 | Why did my meringue deflate and go soft?
I used 8 egg whites with sugar and beat it. It was so stiff that I could actually maybe cut it with a knife and make a sculpture out of it.
I preheated the oven to 150 degrees and baked it at 140. The meringue deflated and was soft and quite a disaster.
Can anyone please tell me where I went wrong? What made it soggy and deflated? It did not even start to crack. There was not a single crack in the base.
How much sugar? Was there any liquid at the bottom of the bowl when you removed the egg whites?
Cream of tartar? It's a stabilizer. Didn't add the sugar too early or too quickly? That can lead to an unstable foam. Eggs too fresh? Day too humid?
How humid is it?
How long did you cook it for? If it did not form a good crust in the oven it would deflate. If you used 140 on fan forced oven it could be too hot, which would rise and brown the outsides without forming a crisp crust.
Usually the rule is to turn the oven off and let it cool completely before removing from the oven, but without the recipe or knowing if there was an intention of "softness", its hard to give specifics.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.726289 | 2015-07-06T15:19:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58821",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"ElendilTheTall",
"JJ Ms Foodie",
"Jane Do",
"Joan Tomlinson",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"cgoconhotmailcom",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140338",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140340",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"kathy new",
"paul stewart"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
68836 | How to form cookie dough into rolls?
I see Pillsbury pre-made dough rolled in tubes. This makes it easier to open it at one end and chop off slices as needed.
In my case, I force freshly made cookie dough into containers and just slice them up later -- very difficult and tough. I tried preparing them into rolled parchment paper, which I ended up using a lot of, so it was thus wasteful.
Is there tool I can use so I can form the freshly made cookie dough into tubes, for ease of rolling later on?
When you say "pour" do you mean the dough is liquid? Or do you just mean it's solid and you're dumping it into containers and maybe pressing it in?
It's viscuous. I have to paddle it into containers.
As you're not dealing with heat, you can use waxed paper instead of parchment paper for this ... still wasteful, but less expensive.
A sausage stuffer, perhaps?
Your standard food mill attachment type more typically seen in a home kitchen:
Unless you're seeing some product I've never met, I would not call that stuff "rolled in tubes" - I'd call it a tube (or log) of dough, and I expect the filling process is VERY like a (large, automated) sausage stuffer, and involves no rolling at all.
In making refrigerator cookies, one simply makes a log out of the dough, wraps it, and places it in the fridge to harden before slicing. The dough is not liquid to start with, so it does not pour, and can be shaped without a form. If your "dough" "pours" I'm dubious about your recipe or method.
Oddly (to me anyway), this post was flagged as offensive. The flagger has no history to suggest that he would intentionally inappropriately flag. So, I want to point out that sausage stuffers are actual things. There is nothing in this post that is inappropriate for the site. Thank you.
One simple method of wrapping is simply to use a sheet of plastic wrap and twist both ends tight similarly to the right end of the roll in the image.
@Jolenealaska Added a picture, though I don't know if it helps someone who misinterpreted the answer that extremely... I may show my age when I reveal that Matthew Read's method was done with waxed paper in my house. My impression remains that the dough is way too liquid (or warm) if it "pours" rather than taking a shape that can easily be wrapped as either of us would do.
I think the "pour" might just be a language barrier thing - thinking of dumping a bunch of dough out of the mixing bowl into a container as "pouring".
@MatthewRead : another option ... after putting the dough on the plastic wrap in a rough line, fold the wrap over it and use a small sheet pan to shove along the long edge to tighten it up (hold the edges of the plastic while doing this) ... then re-wrap it normally & twist the ends. (this will let you get long, narrow rolls more easily)
It really seems to be dependent on the consistency of the dough. Some cookie doughs won't hold shape, as they contain lots of butter and very little flour - chocolate chip cookies are a good example. The upside is that you won't need to shape them into round slices before you bake them, because once in the oven, they'll melt into one big more-or-less round blob regardless of the shape they were in originally (I once tried to make heart-shaped chocolate chip cookies - didn't work). I usually just place a small spoonful or so of dough on the baking rack without flattening it. I also often freeze some dough in an ice cube tray - and when I want cookies, I just throw a few blocks of frozen cookie dough into the preheated oven.
Other cookie doughs, such as sugar cookies, are made to be rolled out and cut using cookie cutters. The dough should contain more flour and should hold its shape well, which means that rolling the dough into a sausage shouldn't be too much work. You could use a cookie press, if you want pretty cookies nearly instantly. If your dough is too soft to handle well, it means that the dough still contains plenty of butter and the butter has become too warm - chilling the dough for a while should help with that, though if you chill it for too long, the butter in the dough may become too hard to handle easily (chilling the dough of sugar cookies is a good idea anyway, it helps them keep their shape).
What kind of cookie dough are you making, and what exactly is so difficult about it?
I don't know about "tools" but I think you're using the wrong paper.
I love parchment paper for some things but this is not an optimal use of it.
You should be using plastic wrap, which is much more similar to the plastic used to hold the tubes of dough. Parchment paper is too rigid to shape the ends of the log without odd creases.
Plastic wrap is strong enough to hold the shape but much more flexible, and it's much easier to work with (if you can keep it from sticking to itself). It's also easy to tie the ends in knots or close them up with twist-ties. Plus, it's more airtight than parchment.
The process I recommend is that you take your dough and pretend it's Play-doh - make it into a tube-shape by hand that is about the diameter you want your cookies - if you want them to be analogous to the Pillsbury ones, aim for about 2 to 2-1/2 inches - and about 10 inches long (make sure it's about 4 inches shorter than your plastic wrap is wide.
Then, take a piece of plastic wrap that is long enough to go all the way around your dough with a decent amount of overlap, put the cookie dough at one edge and roll until the plastic is sealed around it.
Tie up the ends however you like.
When you want to use the dough, open one end and peel it back like a banana, cut your slices, then you should be able to revert the plastic wrap and tie it off at the new cut end.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.726544 | 2016-05-06T14:58:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68836",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Ecnerwal",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Matthew Read",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"wearashirt"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
43949 | Can I use rhubarb without tons of sugar?
My yard is crawling with rhubarb, a hardy perennial that comes back every year in greater numbers. As far as I can tell, recipes usually involve a pie or jam with gratuitous amounts of sugar to wash away the bitter taste. Can it be reliably used in ways without all that sugar?
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! We don't really do "what can I make with X?" questions here, because you can easily just search for recipes for X, and all we'll end up with is a random list of people's favorites. The one small exception is for things that you'd usually just throw out, which doesn't really apply to rhubarb, so this doesn't seem to fit our site.
That said, I think the question "can I use rhubarb without tons of sugar?" is a good question that does fit pretty well, unless I'm mistaken and there are a ton of possibilities there too. I'll go ahead and edit to try and prevent your question from being put on hold; hopefully you'll be okay with that version too (if not you can edit further or roll back).
I suspected that and tried not to use the word recipe. If anything I prefer your edit as it gets to the crux of my question which is what, if any, are the uses of rhubarb without counteracting the taste with sugar. Nonetheless, feel free to close the question if need be, but be forewarned that the lives of 2 dozen rhubarb plants hang in the balance.
I am less certain that the new formulation of the question is a good fit, but let's wait and see what happens to the question; I won't close it the moderator "hammer". But even if it stays open, I don't know what you expect from it; people use the sugar-laden recipes exactly because they want to counteract the very sour taste. If there are other uses, they will probably invent a different method to counteract the taste. If you are a sourness lover, you are probably on your own. You could always use it like any other vegetable, of course, without recipes.
@rumtscho Well I'm not going to close it just because I can't think of an answer! I think that's precisely why it's an okay question - we can't really think of anything, so it's not prone to long subjective lists.
@Jefromi I should have explained that better. I think that this question technically hurts the culinary-uses guidelines, which are quite narrow and don't make provisions for "how do I use a common ingredient, if we don't count the two most common uses". This is why I considered closing: it breaks the letter of a rule. And I reserve the option of closing it in case it starts attracting the same flurry of random answers as the typical nonrestricted culinary-uses question (but luckily, this doesn't seem to be the case). Separate from any thoughts on closing, I wanted to explain (cont)
the connection between rhubarb and sugar in recipes, in the hope that the OP will understand better what his questions implies, and maybe starts seeing his goal from a new perspective. The fact that I don't know of any sugarless recipes was not part of the possible closing reason.
All Recipies has an 'ingredient search' form, where you can specify ingredients that you want, and ones you don't want. So searching for rhubarb without sugar got me 10 results ... thwith most using some other form of sweeteners.
For the few that didn't:
Rhubarb Wild Rice Pilaf (2 cups rhubarb, 2 TB honey)
Rhubarb Salsa (2c. rhubarb, 2 TB honey)
Rhubarb and Buckwheat (not sure what this is; 1/2 c. rhubarb, 1 tsp honey)
Rhubarb Rumble Pie (not sure on sugar ratio ... comes from pudding & jello mixes)
Rhubarb Smoothie (not sure on sugar ration ... comes from fruit and vanilla yogurt)
Honey surely counts as "some other form of sweetener", doesn't it?
I've been asking my friends a similar question all week. The most interesting answer was by a friend whose mom used to parboil it and add it to stir fry with shrimp. Perhaps add a bit of ginger and honey.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.727000 | 2014-05-06T19:52:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43949",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Lappeland.no",
"Montana Pearl",
"Peter Taylor",
"Rive Gauche - Yoga Studio",
"Spammer",
"Sweetie Pie",
"U M",
"coburne",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103150",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103161",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho",
"user103150"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
58315 | How can I make curly rāmen noodles from scratch?
I want to make the rāmen noodles from scratch including the pasta itself and not just the sauce. I have found some recipes online that look promising. However, how can I give it the characteristic "curly" appearance?
I believe the curliness is a byproduct of a packaging process which aims to get as many dried noodles in the bag as compactly as possible. I could be wrong. All the rāmen I've eaten in a rāmen restaurant (in NYC, that is, I've never been to Japan) do not have that shape. Rāmen noodles in those packets are often fried then dried. The fat keeps them relatively soft.
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/34753/67
Is "curly" necessary? More important is the alkalinity of the noodle. See here: http://luckypeach.com/recipes/fresh-alkaline-noodes/
Inspired by Claire and the Bon Apettit team I did a bit of research and found the following.
Silicon flaps attached to the noodle cutter is one way to get the curly or wavy ramen noodle.
You can create your own version like Alex the French Cooking Guy did.
Which result in a nice curly noodle.
Full write up with the links to the videos and timecodes etc here.
I've never tried this, but if you're willing to experiment, a few things to try:
Roll out the pasta, then do a bit of a accordion fold / pleating sort of drape of it before slicing it into individual noodles. (if you pleat it at an angle, you might be able to get it even more curly). Of course, this means you can't use the pasta cutter on a roller.
Cut the pasta, then dry it on an irregular surface (find a few dowels of appropriate size or similar items (eg, wooden spoon handles), space them apart an inch or two, then lightly drape the noodles onto the surface).
Cut the pasta, then try slowly draping it with pleats on the counter, and let it dry a bit
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.727586 | 2015-06-17T00:06:27 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58315",
"authors": [
"ALAN Lodwidge",
"Atiyah Sultana",
"C Curtis",
"Dennis Festas",
"IconDaemon",
"Joe",
"Terry",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138947",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138977",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"moscafj"
],
"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
} |
74007 | Does sauteing onions produce alcohol or something similar to alcohol?
I came up positive on test for alcohol after eating sautéed onions.
SCRAM bracelet recorded alcohol in my system from 5 pm to 7 am. I did not drink alcohol, or use alcohol to make the onions. I read on another site about how cooking process of making sauteed or grilled onions can produce glycerol from the onion sugar and the heat from cooking. Glycerol is actually two alcohols.
Could the onions have caused this?
What sort of test?
Do you have diabetes? You might want to get checked.
If you could make alcohol from onions like from e.g., barley, there would be such a drink, like beer.
If that was the case, that would really annoy a lot of people who do not drink for health or religious reasons!!
Glycerol is not an intoxicating alcohol though.
It looks like there's a very long list of things that can set these off and are much more likely than onions - http://www.wigellcriminaldefense.com/2015/07/scram-alcohol-monitoring-bracelets-dos-and-donts/
Some conditions can cause alcohol to be produced in the human body (look up auto-brewery syndrome). Sauteed onions are common enough that if they made people come up positive on alcohol tests, I bet we would all know it.
I don't think you could make an onion ferment. Saute if anything would boil off alcohol. Were the onions possible sautéed in alcohol? I use red wine to saute red onions.
Also environment can also cause a false positive. Search on scram false positive.
Sautéing is a dry heat cooking method; if you're adding wine, you are by definition not sautéing. You might sauté first and then deglaze with some wine, but that's different. Also, the OP doesn't suggest that there was any fermentation happening; the question is about whether the process of cooking onions can produce alcohol.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.727790 | 2016-09-16T21:13:35 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74007",
"authors": [
"Caleb",
"Max",
"Niall",
"Robert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5505",
"moscafj",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
47833 | Can I substitute a stainless steel pot for the traditional iron dutch oven?
I have very limited options in my kitchen, and while the dutch oven is the preferred method for getting an 'oven spring' while baking sourdough, I do not have a cast iron pot to do it.
IF stainless steel is a good substitute, should I consider extra precautions?
I was going to post an answer, but I don't really have any facts regarding the need for extra precaautions, or what difference it'll make in the final product. As an alternative you can also use a casserole dish, clay pot or the insert from a slow cooker.
I don't know the answer. I wouldn't be worried about the bread. I'd be worried about the stainless steel. Higher end stainless steel pots are often oven safe for high temperatures and lower end stainless steel pots are often not.
Cast iron is ideal, but any pot that can take the heat and has a tight lid will work. Like @talon8 said in his comment, it doesn't even have to be metal.
This article from Around the World in 80 Bakes specifically uses terracotta for sourdough, not cast iron.
Just as an FYI, this related question deals with preheating (for no-knead bread, not sourdough), and the differing answers are interesting. To me it just goes to show that bread-making doesn't always have to follow super-strict rules. Preheat the Dutch oven (and the oven itself) for No-Knead Bread? (experiment results)
I use a stainless steel casserole dish 20cm diam & 10cm deep, with excellent results - a really good oven spring and an 'artisan' crust. Here's how:
'DUTCH OVEN' WHITE BREAD
500g strong bread flour
1¼ tsp fast-action yeast
1 tsp caster sugar
¾ tsp salt
¾ tbs light oil
Mix, knead & prove in proving oven 1¼ hrs. Knock back, shape into a boule on a 15" length of baking parchment. Holding the paper ends, drop into a 20cm couronne or large mixing bowl. Flour & slash top with a razor blade. 20 mins in proving oven then move to a warm place while heating oven & casserole to 200c. Leave 10 mins more to get dish really hot. Use thick gloves to remove it. Quickly drop dough & parchment into dish and if lid has holes seal it with foil. Bake 20 mins, remove lid & foil, fold parchment back to expose top. Bake 10 mins more then lift out, discard parchment and bake 10 mins more on oven rack.
I have been using a Tramontina Triply DO (stainless/aluminum/stainless sandwich). This is a fairly substantial construction but no where near cast iron thickness. The lid is single layer stainless and the handles are solid stainless. Plastic handles will suffer in a 450 to 500 oven. I always preheat the oven, but have tried both a hot and a cold start for the DO. Both methods work very nicely with similar oven spring. The cold start allows the dough to spread to the edges of the DO, producing a round, domed loaf with nice crust. The hot start "freezes" the dough in "rustic" irregular shapes and the crust seems a bit crispier. I adjust lid-off bake time to achieve 200-210F on an instant read thermometer.
i have not tested this myself but I do have a thought.
I would tend to think that something a little less conductive would yield better results than a stainless steel stock pot. Cast Iron, Terracotta, earthenwear and other pots typically used for this are decent insulators, they take much longer to heat up.
Just a stainless steel pot would probably transmit the heat too quickly resulting in and uneven baking of your bread.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.727970 | 2014-10-10T17:46:11 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47833",
"authors": [
"Arnettia Tanner",
"Corey King",
"John Taylor",
"Michael Lewis",
"Patricia Smith",
"Rick",
"Sherry Bennett",
"Tim Manning",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115507",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115508",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115523",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131556",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/855",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
57314 | What is the difference between chicken cubes and ground chicken?
I need to order from a menu where both chicken cubes and ground chicken are choices. What's the difference?
Ground chicken (or any other ground meat) has been ground with a grinder. It can be formed into patties (like hamburgers), balls (like meatballs), sausage and so on, but if cooked as-is will tend to turn into crumbles.
Cubes are, well, meat cut up into cubes: chunks of whole meat, with the original texture.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.728259 | 2015-05-08T23:15:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57314",
"authors": [
"Ama",
"Angela Bray",
"Dave Heatherly",
"Denell Belle Isle",
"Inesa Artamoskina",
"amanda chadwick",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136344",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136347",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136349"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
41586 | How can I infuse olive oil safely?
I am infusing olive oil with truffles. How can I do it safely? Heating the oil destroys the truffle smell and pickling it is a sure way to do the same. Are there any other methods? Perhaps some type of filter that will eliminate the particulates?
Edit This answer assumes that you want a shelf-stable oil. If you are going to use up the oil immediately (or within 3 days and refrigerate), methods like the pressure charging from moscafj's answer don't pose a safety problem.
Simply, you can't. I am not sure how industrial oils are made, maybe they are irradiated or simply made under sanitized conditions and at the end microbiologically checked to ensure that a given batch isn't contaminated, but it isn't something you can do at home.
There are no methods accessible to home cooks to prevent botulinum in low-acid foods. Heat won't work, as botulinum bacteria don't just live like any other bacteria, they also form spores which will survive temperatures which would have incinerated other species with a single form. You can never reach these temperatures in a watery medium, e.g. in canning purees, in industry it is done in canners with much higher pressure than home pressure canners. In oil, you could theoretically reach the temperatures as you are not limited by the water's boiilng point, but as you pointed out, the flavor will change a lot. In the worst case, you will have to bring the oil to above smoking point to ensure safety.
Filters won't work, as any filters small enough to hold back bacteria are too tight to permit something as viscous as oil to flow through, and botulism toxin isn't "particulate matter", it is dissolved in the food.
Truffle oil have nothing to do with truffles, it is made by a synthetic aroma component of truffles.
@rumtscho: Gamma irradiation is incompletely effective against botulism toxin: http://www.cdc.gov/biosafety/publications/bmbl5/BMBL5_appendixI.pdf (see table 1) Looks like pre-autoclaving your truffles is the way to go. That MIGHT be faked up with a pressure cooker.
OK, I thought it was obviuos that my first sentence was pure speculation. The important part was to point out that, whatever they do, you can't do it at home. Thank you both @stefan and Wayfaring for giving the details of how it is actually done, they are interesting.
@rumtscho: sure, your speculation just made me curious.
@WayfaringStranger the fact that there are no FDA approved recipes for home canning of certain low-acid foods like pumpkin puree makes me think that you can't reach the necessary water/steam temperature in a home pressure cooker.
@rumtscho I doubt FDA has looked deeply into such molecular gastronomy style esoterica. That's probably good, because if you try something like this without considerable research, and equipment testing, you could kill yourself.
@WayfaringStranger it has certainly looked into home canning. I just inferred that, if you can't autoclave canned purees to a high enough temperature to kill botulin spores, then you probably can't autoclave truffles in your home pressure canner either. I doubt that the botulism spores in truffles would be somehow different to kill than the ones in pumpkin puree.
@rumtscho true, that.
I don't understand the question or concern here -- in other foods (e.g., feta cheese) the oil is used to block oxygen and hence preventing the food from spoiling. Wouldn't that mean that anything you put into oil is safe anyway?
@Robert then read something on botulism, the Wikipeida article should suffice, or google the Big Bad Bug Book by the FDA. This is a bacteria which lives without oxygen and produces a toxin from which you can die even with proper medical care and will be in hospital for weeks else. Contamination is rare, but very dangerous. It grows in plant matter stored without access to air, unless it has been made very acidic (proper pickling). Feta doesn't come from plants, undergoes a fermentation in the presence of oxygen, and is also somewhat acidic.
Thanks. No wonder I have not heard about this -- 20 cases in 2011 in the US! Your initial answer makes it sound as if this was much more common and all home made infused oils would be dangerous.
@Robert it seems you don't understand how food safety works. For the FDA, there are only two categories, "safe", "dangerous" and nothing in between. The limit is something like "if there is more than 1x10^7 chance that bacteria survive in this food, it is dangerous". So both foods which have a 1 in 2 chance to send you to the hospital and foods which have a 1 in a million chance to send you to the hospital are dangerous. And all homemade infused oils are indeed dangerous by this definition. Now, you may have a very different personal definition of dangerous and think that you are OK (tbc)
(continued) with a risk of 1 in 1000. But the problem is that this cannot be calculated easily. Bacteria growth is highly non-linear and it can be that in food processed at 120 Celsius, only one bacteria in a billion remains alive, but that at 115, one in a million stays alive, and at 110, half of them stay alive. The only ones who have the actual data to calculate the conditions needed for ensuring that the risk is less than 1 in 1000 are the FDA (and international analogs), and they have not calculated them. So, by the only reliable definition in the world, all infused oils are dangerous.
@Robert: I don't know where you got 20 from, there's an average of 145 cases of botulism in the USA every year. Part of the reason that number is low is that most people do not attempt home canning; and most of those who do, use high-acid foods like tomatoes. C.botulinum is one of thousands of anaerobes; you can probably get a dozen more examples from Wikipedia, including facultative anaerobes like Listeria, which affects 1600 people in the USA every year all by itself. All types combined easily affect tens or hundreds of thousands.
@Aaronut: There is indeed an average of 145 cases of botulism in the USA every year, but only approximately 15% of them are foodborne (*). Which makes 20 cases in 2011 cited by Robert a reasonable number.
Source: http://www.cdc.gov/nczved/divisions/dfbmd/diseases/botulism/
(*) 15% according to CDC classification, which makes sense to me, but wasn't clear at first: they also have 65% of infant botulism that is technically foodborne, but different from adult one.
Dave Arnold developed an effective way to infuse oil with aromatics that are heat sensitive. To employ it, you need an ISI or other brand whipper. Here is an example: https://www.starchefs.com/product_education/iSi/whipper/html/recipe-lemon-infused-extra-virgin-olive-oil-dave-arnold.shtml
I've had great success with the technique and see no reason why you couldn't use it with truffles. From a brief google search, it looks like you should refrigerate this oil and use it within a month to avoid any risk from botulism.
That example is of using lemon, which is acidic. The doesn't seem like an equivalent of the problem faced with other flavors.
It is an intriguing infusion method though. Low End- High End- Chargers It's worth experimenting. Refrigerate and use quickly.
@Caleb: No, it uses lemon zest, which is pretty much inert. It's like using dried spices; you can even buy it as a shelf-stable product. You can't acidify oil; the whole concept of an acid or pH only makes sense in aqueous (water) solutions.
@Caleb the original question asked how to infuse an aromatic ingredient in olive oil. Acid has nothing to do with it. One could heat the lemon zest in the olive oil to infuse it, but that would destroy the aromatic nature of the olive oil. While the original poster was concerned about losing the aroma of the truffle by heating, I believe the ISI method would accomplish his goal. Safety is a secondary issue, but one would simply need to refrigerate and use in the near-term.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.728361 | 2014-01-30T06:20:36 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41586",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Caleb",
"Cristiana Nicolae",
"Jolenealaska",
"Michael Klaczynski",
"Raider Fan",
"Robert",
"Russell",
"Spammer",
"Stefan",
"Stefan Babos",
"Susan",
"Tareq Farmawi",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96964",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96965",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96971",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96991",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99113",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99309",
"kdubinets",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
56871 | Are my pickled peppers safe to eat?
A few years ago, I got a wild hair and pickled some sweet and hot peppers out of my garden.
It's been a while, but I remember buying the correct implements and ingredients and following a procedure I got from (I think) a Ball pickling instruction book.
The pickled peppers have been in the cabinet this whole time, mostly forgotten.
I'm going to move this week, and we found the peppers when cleaning out our kitchen cabinets. I was going to throw them out, then I got curious. I looked at the peppers, and through the glass, all appears to be fine. There's no mold that I can see. No foaming. The brine (?) is clear. The peppers are still pretty brightly colored.
I opened one jar (glass Ball-brand mason jar with 2-piece lid), and there was still suction keeping the lid down. The peppers smell good and pickled, just as I would expect a store-bought jar to smell.
Now, I'm kinda terrified of botulism. That's one reason the pickled peppers stayed in the cabinet all this time. I know I had good instructions at the time, and I followed them, but the "what if" idea just has me a bit scared.
On the other hand, it would be a shame to miss out on some good pickled peppers if there's nothing wrong with them.
So, given that a good deal of time has elapsed, are there any methods to tell whether botulism is present in them? Anything else that I should worry about?
I'm not posting this as an answer because I'm sure someone else will provide more detail, but... it sure sounds like you've avoided most of the red flags. There's an element of risk present in any home preparation, but it's pretty minimal if you follow a tested recipe correctly and there are no evident signs of spoilage. The only completely safe answer is to throw these out, but then again the safest way to travel is to never leave your home.
I wouldn't have thought botulism in a pickle would ever be of concern. The high acidity will kill it, especially over a 2 year span.
My concern wouldn't be botulism, but texture. If you leave things in a pickle brine for too long, they just get mushy. They might be okay as a flavoring in something else where you don't want any texture, but as the original ingredient they're kinda nasty. It's quite possible that the brine is more useful as an ingredient than the peppers at this point.
Gas production is one of the biggest signs of botulism. Botulism also doesn't like strongly acidic solutions. Your pickled peppers sound safe.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.729064 | 2015-04-22T19:17:35 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56871",
"authors": [
"Armin Halilovic",
"Donna Daniels",
"Doug",
"Elizabeth Snell",
"Joe",
"Karen Dunne",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135280",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140560",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"logophobe",
"user2063206"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
78345 | Coffee in a rattlesnake recipe? Why?
WARNING - IF YOU HAVE A PET SNAKE LOOK AWAY NOW!
The quest continues! The back story to this question is: My friend is competing in a competition, the main ingredient should be lizard, however I pointed out to her that some people didn't like talking about lizard. I suggested snake, yes, she can cook snake, and be judged on that, as there will be other snake dishes being offered.
Now, I've eaten snake, and found it quite palatable, but I have never personally cooked one.
I asked what equipment they will have access to: BBQ grill, oven, broiler, hot plate for pans. I asked if there were any other requirements as per the ingredients - no she can use what ever she like.
I found this recipe for fried rattlesnake with ham gravy particularly interesting, but am struggling with the coffee bit in it. Not quite sure why it calls for that, and to my mind sounds wrong - so the question is: what can she substitute for coffee in this recipe and what does the coffee achieve?
Okay, well, I'm assuming this is sufficiently settled and I've archived the comments about edits in chat, in the interests of leaving this as a clean question to answer.
It's not a mistake. It's there because people like the taste of coffee in meat dishes. It adds some richness to the flavor, definitely something that works well with meat, and I doubt rattlesnake is any exception. I've had chili with coffee in it, and plenty of barbecue rubs with coffee. (I don't remember a specific recipe I've had, but for example these ribs look good.) You can find recipes for all sorts of other things, e.g. beef roast with coffee, pork tenderloin with coffee, or coffee beef jerky. You'll see dark chocolate or cocoa powder used in a lot of similar ways.
Unless you have a coffee allergy or can't get coffee, I'd try the recipe as written before you write it off. You could use instant if it's just that brewing real coffee is a pain. If you really can't use coffee, I'd try cocoa powder and water, in a ratio like hot chocolate, minus the sugar. You could also substitute milk or water or stock or any appealing liquid if you don't want to use coffee, I suppose. You'd still get a gravy, just not the same gravy, not the one the recipe author intended.
And of course, I'd give the same answer about any meat recipe with coffee in it, not just this specific snake recipe. It might be surprising if you haven't seen it before, and I guess it might not be as common outside southern US cuisine, but it's a good idea.
You can also find instant coffee powder in Brown Bread recipes, like this one http://www.mamas-southern-cooking.com/outback-bread.html and others.
The ham gravy over it is a play on red eye gravy, which contains coffee. Can't see why it would be bad on snake, although I've never had snake.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.729284 | 2017-02-12T06:14:21 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78345",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Kyle",
"Paulb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52379"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
63105 | Lemons and oranges coated with imazalil
I scrub waxed citrus fruit under hot water with a little washing up liquid added as I have been advised. Can I clean up unwaxed citrus fruit coated with imazalil in a similar way please? I use a lot of citrus zest in my baking so this question is important to have an answer.
How much is "a lot". Most recipes use less than a single fruits worth of peel in a whole cake
Imazalil is a suspected carcinogen, so is bacon
The amount left on a fruit after being on the tree growing etc, in the rain, wind, and lots of sunshine is very small, and way under recommended limits, that why they are allowed to sell it to retail consumers
Dipped fruit, is usually only late harvest, or long storage fruit, this is easily avoid by only buying in season. Again the amount is very small that is left, especially by the time you buy it. And any containment in pulp is usally regarded as cross-contamination, not organic ingestion
@TFD look up a classic lemon bar recipe, you'll be zesting 3 or 4 lemons for a standard batch of 8-12 bars.
@Escoce that's a joke right? With that amount of fat and sugar, you shouldn't be worried about cancer from imazalil, your problem will be diabetes or heart disease
I was simply saying there are uses for that much zest in a recipe. I never mentioned anything about anything else.
I thought that all edible fruit and veg in the uk were stricter and nothing was allowed in that was carcinogenic
Could you get organic citrus with no imazalil on them ?
No, you can't wash it off. Part of it is probably that washing methods are not fully effective, another part is that there is diffusion into the fruit, and the diffusion is strongest in the uppermost cell layers. In oranges, this is the peel.
From Kruve, A., Lamos, A., Kirillova, J., & Herodes, K. (2007, September). Pesticide residues in commercially available oranges and evaluation of potential washing methods. In Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences. Chemistry (Vol. 56, No. 3, pp. 134-141).
The same paper found 0.64 mg/kg imazalil content in orange peel and 0.04 mg/kg in orange pulp before washing. The regulatory allowed limit is 5 mg/kg. So if your fruit starts out with more pesticide than theirs - and it can legally be sold with 8 times more - the residue will be even higher.
If you want to follow safe food preparation practices, you have to use organic citrus fruit for zest. Non organic fruit can have pesticide residue from the growing period and still be labelled as "untreated" because it was not treated post-harvest.
If you are eating only the zest, you can happen to stay under the WHO acceptable daily dose, which is 0.05 mg/kg (human weight, not fruit weight). So if you're a 75 kg man1, you can eat a bit over half a kilogram of orange peel (if it doesn't exceed regulatory limits) and stay under the limit. But 1) you're also taking in the pesticide from the pulp, and while there's less in it, you're eating much more pulp than zest, 2) regulatory limits might be laxer where you live than in the EU, and 3) you're still poisoning yourself, even if it's not enough to become alarmed about it. Why consume one more carcinogen when you can avoid it?
1 it's less for women of childbearing age and children
That's really sad. Is there anything left safe to eat?
Nothing is safe. You are more likely to get killed driving to the organic fruit store, or die from lung diseases from the fumes from your VW car, than get cancer from imazalil
@TFD and agliogia if you define "safe" as "zero risk", then of course nothing is safe, ever. This is why specialists are paid a lot of money to calculate an amount of risk which is seen as acceptable (a very difficult calculation) and this is labelled "safe" Safety is a matter of expert opinion and regulation, not a promise that nothing can happen. And people don't get cancer "from carcinogens", but the exposure to each of them increases their total risk. If you, personally, decide to expose yourself to a preventable risk, it's your right to do so.
@algiogia what!? you can eat a bit over half a kilogram of orange peel - do you have any plans to eat over a pound of orange zest in a day? Let's have some perspective please.
@mikeTheLiar but it's also in the pulp. I know I won't die eating oranges, I not that stupid. But if you add everything up the future doesn't look bright
Those two solid 0.00 values in the table are strange. Especially that thyabendazole was not considered washable off by the articles I saw previously. Also, it thermally decomposes somewhere above 200'C, AFAIK. Did the text have any explanation?
@Sz. they just take it at face value. To quote from the paper: "As can be seen for thiabendazole all washing methods decrease the concentration. Washing with cold water is the least effective method of washing.
Washing with soap and in ultrasonic bath decrease the concentration twice. Hot
water and dishwashing soap are able to totally remove thiabendazole residues
from the orange peel."
Imazalil is a systemic fungizide that surpresses mold and bacterial growth, for example on the skin of citrus fruits.
As it is a known carcinogen, the consumption of citrus peels treated with it is not advisable, as stated here (in German, sorry) for example by the German a.i.d. (Governement supported agency).
I could not (yet) find a reliable source giving good information on the solubility of imazalil and the effectiveness of washing, so I stick to the official warning of "do not consume".
Without contrary proof, a variation of the basic food safety rule applies:
When in doubt, throw it out - that is, do not use the zest of treated citrus fruits.
Here in Germany, practically all Citrus fruit treated with any artificial coating (usually any combination of Thiabendazol, Orthophenylphenol, Imazalil) comes with a clear statement "Schale nicht zum Verzehr geeignet" - "Peel unsuitable for consumption". One should assume there is a reason behind that very unconditional statement.
Most supermarkets here will carry both treated and organic (I asked a clerk at an organic store about it, they definitely are not allowed to do wax or treat them in any way) varieties probably for exactly that reason; the interesting thing is that neither of them are immune to getting moldy, nor do any of them mold quickly when stored under normal pantry conditions. Also, citrus fruit that come without an organic label but with an explicit label of "Schale ist verzehrbar" - "Peel is edible","Unbehandelt - Schale nach der Ernte" - "Untreated (Peel, post-harvest)" are becoming common. Not 100% sure if there are waxed products around that state their peel is edible.
Many waxes are edible, and organic fruit is allowed to be waxed with beeswax but not petroleum derived products. So, it is possible that a waxed product states that its peel is edible - but then, the peel shouldn't be toxic. I'm not entirely sure about the regulations about the "peel is edible" label, what kind of pre-harvest treatment it allows, and what are the toxin limits for it.
So you are implying it might be more store/sourcing policy than law?
There is a law, I'm pretty certain of that. But I can't really tell how much of what you describe is prescribed by law and how much of it happens to be how a single store does it. Separately, even for things which are covered in the law, the matter isn't as straightforward as it seems on first glance. If the law says "only fruit which has not been waxed after harvest can be labelled as 'untreated'", it is entirely possible that all organic farms have switched to waxing before harvest.
Imazalil has a limited shelf life (after application)
I guess one should keep the fruit (citrus) in the fridge for a while (maybe a week? considering that it has been already stored for a week before you got to buy it from the store...)
please read "Degradation of imazalil, orthophenylphenol and pyrimethanil in Clementine mandarins under conventional postharvest industrial conditions at 4 °C"
Washing will not help much but like any fruit/product to be consumed should be thoroughly cleaned; I use warm soapy water & baking soda for mine in hope I remove most of the wax as well as possible germs.
What does it degrade into? Expired poison doesn't mean harmless :)
How long do fungicides in wax on oranges take to degrade? That may solve a problem. Or just wash wax off hands after peeling. Our bodies are very good at getting rid of bad things.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.729540 | 2015-11-03T17:03:47 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63105",
"authors": [
"Dan Cenci",
"Elise Barclay",
"Escoce",
"J K Mitchell",
"Julie Williams",
"Max",
"Melissa Smith",
"Patti C",
"Ruby Bucchare",
"Ryan Geris",
"SoniaSpiers",
"Sz.",
"TFD",
"Traci Morgan",
"User1000547",
"algiogia",
"charlie Kline",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150165",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150166",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150176",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67332",
"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
} |
63148 | Should I bake cookies with the oven heated from the top or the bottom?
Last time I made a chocolate chip cookies, my cookies became black because I did not know which side of heat to use. Should I heat the oven from the top or the bottom? I thought maybe I needed to heat from the top to help flatten them?
Which side did they burn on? If you used the top heating element and they burned on the top that seems like a pretty solid indicator it wasn't the right thing to do. If they burned on the bottom, the whole oven might just have been too hot.
1.
Definitely heat from the bottom but bake on the center rack. Place a thermometer inside the oven to check that the temperature is accurate--home ovens can be off by 50 degrees or more, making a huge difference for cookies. 350 degrees Fahrenheit is a good temp for chocolate chip cookies. If the cookies turned black, they simply got overbaked. They will flatten naturally as the dough gets warm in the oven, so no need to worry about that.
2.
If perhaps your particular recipe yields slightly "puffier" cookies than you desire, you can try any of these steps:
Use whole butter only instead of margarine or shortening--butter causes cookies to spread out, while the other two cause them to keep their rounded shape.
Add a tablespoon or two of water to the recipe.
Do not omit any sugar from the recipe--the cookies will be puffier with less sugar.
Let the dough become room temperature before baking.
Use the bottom heating element. Direct heat will in effect toast or crisp things in the oven. You don't want to toast a cookie.
My oven when in bake mode doesn't use the top heating element at all, the only way to get the top element to turn on is to switch it to broil.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.730187 | 2015-11-04T12:27:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63148",
"authors": [
"Ahsan Khokhar",
"Carol Hattersley",
"Cascabel",
"Croad Langshan",
"Md Bazlur Rahman",
"Nick Sarras",
"Nick Thomas",
"R A",
"Shellie White",
"Sue Hunt",
"Zahira Boodhun",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150254",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150261",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150329",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150331",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150333",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150414",
"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
} |
44112 | A few basic stove questions
When cooking oil doesn't spread well, how do I fix that without spray or spill? How often do I need to reapply oil? Which oils catch fire?
Is safe to heat any types of dinner plates on the burner?
How do I heat the pan to a certain temperature?
Are you asking about a dinner plate, if a plate you might use to eat off is safe on a burner?
Yes which plates can go on burner?
Most can't. Anything that's porcelain or ceramic or Pyrex will break, possibly dangerously and violently. The rest of your question deals mostly with different kinds of oils and their smoke points. I'll address those points in an answer.
You're asking a lot of different things at once here. It'd really be best to post a separate question for separate things - maybe one about oil, one about pan temperature (unless you mean oil temperature for deep-frying, as part of the oil questions), and one about using other things like plates on the stove. Either way, if you can explain more what you're trying to do it'll really help.
I agree: this is not one question, these are five questions. Not even the ones about oil have anything in common. We don't have a function which would allow us to split your questions automatically. I am putting it on hold now, once you have split it (just ask new questions and copy paste the parts of this one in them), we will reopen.
Different oils burn at different temperatures. I'm guessing that you don't have a thermometer that will measure the heat of your pan (that's a pretty specialized item that most cooks don't have), so just know which oils you use have low smoke points, and which have high. Here's a good chart concerning smoke points, and here is a good answer about guaging the heat of the pan Cooking on the stove: what is "too hot" for a pan?. Deep frying (with a couple of centemeters of oil in the pan or more) is different. For that you should use a thermometer if you can. Most deep frying is done at 350F (175C). Choose an oil with a smoke point well above that. If you don't have a thermometer, drop a small piece of whatever you're frying into the oil, and look for it to start to brown right away, without threatening to burn.
You can tell when your oil is getting to it's maximum safe and tasty temperature when it just starts to smoke a tiny bit. That tiny bit is OK, just don't go any further. Ideally, you should start with all the oil that you will need, so you don't have to add more. An exception to that is if you're frying in batches. If you need to add oil, give it time to get as hot as for your last batch.
Any oil can catch fire if it gets too hot. If that happens, usually the best way to put out a grease fire is to get a lid on the pan to deprive it of oxygen. Kitchens should also have a fire extinguisher (B type, or ABC or AB type). NEVER use water to put out a grease fire.
Finally, the easiest way to spread oil is usually to tip and swirl the pan. If the oil isn't hugely hot, you can also use a paper towel to spread it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.730388 | 2014-05-14T03:10:43 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44112",
"authors": [
"Barbara Smith",
"Cascabel",
"DOTSHOT",
"Herman",
"Jolenealaska",
"Mele Luau at Coral Crater",
"Muhammad",
"SSB METAL WORKS",
"Spammer",
"Tim Silbaugh",
"beinclarity",
"dat",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103583",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103584",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103587",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103588",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103589",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103592",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103593",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103605",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24935",
"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
} |
36662 | My cookies are turning out like cakes
This is the basic recipe I used (taken from http://www.yuppiechef.com/spatula/the-science-behind-chocolate-chip-cookies/):
8 oz (about 225g) unsalted butter
10 oz (about 1.5 cups) sugar
12 oz (about 2.75 cups) flour
2 large eggs – these will soften the cookies and help make them nice and ‘puffy’
1 tsp baking soda – to help the cookies rise, and also to brown
1 tsp salt – to bring out the flavour
To clarify I definitely used bicarb (the UK version of baking soda). The butter was softened and I used everyday plain flour. I substituted half of the sugar with soft dark brown sugar, so about 5oz brown sugar and 5oz caster sugar. Instead of using chocolate chips, I used about 3 teaspoons of vanilla extract and about a dessert spoon of ground cinnamon for the flavour.
I followed the mixing and refrigeration instructions to a T and the dough was left in the fridge overnight. It came out of the fridge lovely and stiff and I was able to form balls of dough without any mess left on my hands.
I tested 2 balls of cookie dough, and they've come out nicely browned but they're flat cakes (spread out with a small hump in the middle), not cookies! The texture is that of a sponge that hasn't risen. The oven had been preheated to 160 degrees Celsius because it's old and a bit temperamental. If I'd had it at 180 degrees, they would've burned for sure.
I was hoping these would come out moist and chewy. Where did I go wrong?
Why are you using a chocolate chip cookie recipe if you don't want chocolate chips? You would be better off finding a butter cookie or sugar cookie recipe that has the characteristics you desire.
I didn't know the difference! It was the first time I made cookies from scratch.
The original author is in error adding baking soda (bicarbonate), and indicating it will help rise. For leavening, you require acid for the sodium bicarbonate to react with. The original base recipe has no significant acid ingredients; even the modified version you used has only a trivial amount of acid from the molasses in the brown sugar.
Therefore, the only effect of the baking soda is to increase the pH of the dough, which will encourage browning. However, as the cookies are full of sugar, encouraging browning is not generally a problem.
The creaming method creates bubbles in the solid phase butter, and encourages rising and a more cake-like result, especially when paired with an effective leavening agent.
Resting the dough also hydrates the flour, and allows the butter to re-solidify, both of which inhibit spread and contribute to a higher cookie.
For a chewier result, do not use the creaming method. Melt the butter instead, and then combine your ingredients.
You may also choose to reduce the baking soda to reduce the metallic taste it brings without anything to react with.
If the cookies are now too dense, you might try adding (starting with smaller amounts) 1/2 tsp to 1 tsp or so of baking powder which has its own acid to react with, to help leaven the cookies.
See also:
What is the purpose of baking soda in chocolate-chip cookies?
How can I get chewy chocolate chip cookies?
How do I get my chocolate chip cookies to turn out thick and soft?
Thanks, I'll refer back to your answer next time I make cookies. :)
If you don't have baking powder, you can mix 1 part baking soda/sodium bicarbonate with 2 parts cream of tartar/potassium bitartrate by volume.
The main problem is the bicarb. The recipe you are using is for a cakey cookie, not a chewy cookie. The bicarb is a rising agent which dramatically changes the structure of the cookie. Leave the bicarb out next time and you'll get a chewier cookie.
Unfortunately leaving it out didn't make a lot of difference. Thanks anyway.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.730673 | 2013-09-10T09:14:00 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36662",
"authors": [
"OpenAI was the last straw",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"cornishninja",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85739"
],
"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
} |
30729 | How do I adjust oven time to cook 2 dishes at the same time
I have seen a chart for cooking two dishes that list different temperatures at the same temperature, just changing the length of time for one dish. Can anyone provide a chart like this, or at least explain how to pick a common temperature and adjust cooking times? What kinds of dishes will this work for?
+1 It's obviously a bit more complex than just a simple chart, but I think this question is well worth trying to answer.
This question is not a duplicate of the link @Jefromi provides in my opinion because the other question only addresses increasing quantity of the same ingredient which would nominally bake that the same temperature anyway. This question specifically indicates different temperatures, which implies differing items. Still, this question is very vague and hard to address since the two items could be anything.
The question as it stands - 'does anyone have this chart' - is not really much good surely?
Before voting to close as not a real question or not constructive, please consider editing the question instead. The OP's intent is pretty obvious, and there's an answerable question here.
Can you bake meringues and pizza together in the same oven? There are limits. We need the OP to give us some hint or scope of what he or she wants to achieve in order to help edit the question, or to have a coherent answer. I added a new answer the older question, which may provide some insight, but certainly isn't a direct answer to this question.
@SAJ14SAJ No, we don't really need any hints from the OP to answer this. The limits are part of the answer; that's why I edited that last sentence in. It's quite possible to provide generalities. No one is going to downvote an answer and say "but what about meringues, or croissants, or baguettes, or ...?" The main point of a question like this is less-sensitive things, anyway - a couple things with plenty of liquid that ask for temperatures 25-50F apart and bake for a while.
I think that the key part of the question is the different temperatures aspect. Yes, there are going to be dishes that are sensitive to temperatures, but there should be some general guidelines for holiday baking when you've got lots of things that all are supposed to cook at different temps.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.730998 | 2013-02-06T00:37:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30729",
"authors": [
"Brett",
"Cascabel",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Joe",
"MFazio23",
"Nico",
"Otacilio Oliveira",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71896"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
40907 | Can I cook gnocchi with sauce in the microwave?
Today for lunch at the office I have a package of gnocchi and a jar of tomato sauce. We have a microwave and a water cooler/heater. Is it possible for me to actually cook this up?
I'm going to propose a different cooking method that's closer to cooking it on the stovetop; gnocchi when cooked wrong can be quite dense. It's still edible, but it's not as enjoyable.
take your cooking vessel, and heat up your cooking liquid (I'd go with just water, as we don't know how much liquid it's going to absorb, and we don't want too runny of a sauce)
Float a toothpick in it, or something else microwave safe. (note: this is for safety ... we need nucleation points so you don't get scalded in step #5)
Microwave on high 'til boiling**
Remove the toothpick
Add the gnocci
Microwave on high 'til boiling again
Microwave on low until floating.
Drain
Add sauce
Microwave to warm the sauce.
** as you said you had a combination water cooler/heater, you can start with hot water, and skip steps 2 through 4.
Put the gnocci in the tomato sauce with a little extra water to compensate for the absorption from the gnocci, and then microwave until done to your liking. You may need to add water as it cooks, if they are very absorbent.
The cooking time is likely to be longer, maybe even a lot longer, than boiling. You will also want to stir every couple of minutes for even cooking.
I have done this with traditional pasta when my gas was out, and it works well. As gnocci are essentially another type of pasta, the same technique should work.
I would use the water heater (or an electric tea kettle if there is one) for the gnocchi for a couple of minutes, then nuke the "cooked" gnocchis and the sauce together for 1-2 more minutes.
(this is because the gnocchis need to fluff-up and expand in water, just using a microwave with water wouldn´t produce that because it would cook them from the inside out and result in a denser structure...though they would be still eatable and taste more or less ok)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.731311 | 2014-01-06T14:56:00 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40907",
"authors": [
"EDSSCO INC. spam",
"Jeremy Brian Mayer",
"bavaria spam",
"chongman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95246",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95252",
"lagerone",
"user95248"
],
"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
} |
4529 | What temperatures should I keep my refrigerator and freezer set at?
For a refrigerator, if it's cooler, items like milk and meat last a bit longer. However if I set it close to freezing then some items start showing frost on them. What temperature should I set my refrigerator to for best overall results?
Since the person answering is likely to know, I'm also asking what temperature I should set my freezer to.
Freezer burn should be prevented by better wrapping. Freezer control position should be set based on a thermometer.
Daniel is spot-on with his answer. I'll elaborate on it a bit here.
As indicated by his bottled water in the freezer trick, a full freezer is a happy freezer. The same applies to the refrigerator too. While I wouldn't put random bottles of water throughout my refrigerator, it's important to know that the fuller your refrigerator is, the more it holds its temperature when opening/closing, and the less energy you'll use. However, you don't want to jam pack it so full that there isn't any airflow around your stuff, because this can hamper the cooling efficiency as well.
The ideal refrigerator temperature is 35°F (1.6°C). You're not hugging the danger zone like you would be at 40°F (4.4°C), and you're distancing yourself sufficiently from 32°F (0°C) that you don't freeze half the stuff in your refrigerator. That said, the temperature within your fridge can vary rather significantly with normal usage.
The coldest parts of your refrigerator are the back, and the bottom. The back because the cooling element is there, and the bottom because warm air rises. If items you don't want frosty are getting frosty, then move them away from the back of the fridge. I would avoid putting items in the door of your fridge that are particularly sensitive to spoilage. The items in the door of your fridge can easily get as high as 59°F (15°C), and do so often. Putting milk and eggs in your door will significantly decrease their shelf life. Butter is OK in the little covered section in the door, because the door actually helps keep it's temperature a little better. You also generally don't want rock solid frozen butter.
So, put your meats on the bottom shelf in the back, your condiments (mayo, ketchup, mustard, etc.) in the door, and put everything else where it fits.
The warmest location differs depending on brand & model (my fridge is certainly colder near the top than near the bottom, probably because the cooling element is at the top...). I'd suggest people test out their own fridge about that and use it accordingly. And in any case the back will have a more stable temperature than the front, because of being further from the door.
If you have a split fridge-freezer with the freezer on top, the cooling is almost certainly from the top, as it works by diverting some of the cooling going to the freezer. (This is why the freezer temperature control effects both fridge and freezer, btw)
I want to add that I have tested the different areas of my last two fridges, and the door is not significantly different than the rest of the fridge. Maybe 1°F lower if at all. I think that is a myth, or was relevant for fridges made 30 years ago. The top vs bottom however does vary due to air current from the cooling system. To get items to 59°F would require leaving the door open for 20 minutes or more. Simply not going to happen.
Just moved. Fridge-a-horrid brand = 1 giant freezer zone on top & many tiny fridge zones below. New thermometer checked freezer (not much inside). 7°F at max! "We're all gonna die!" Danger fridge at 47°F but less than halfway to max! So adjust fridge, check minutes later, it's already starting to cool (ignore note "wait up to a day"). Open freezer, been closed for a while: it's blasting like breath from a white dragon! So, fridge temp affects freezer b/c element primarily behind freezer vent, not fridge vent! Spot on w/ this model derobert & JanC! We may yet live! Great q (& a's)! Thanks all!
Normally a domestic freezer is best set to −18 °C (0 °F) or colder, as that's what the expiration dates for many food items are based on. It's also a requirement for freezers in restaurants, supermarkets & other places that sell food (at least here in Europe) to maintain a temperature of at most -18 °C.
A general purpose domestic fridge should be at around 1-4 °C (so, just above the freezing point, and below 5 °C). Normally it's not possible to set a fridge to 0 °C (at least not over here), but sometimes the temperature sensor doesn't work as intended, especially if there is a freezer compartment that is heavily frosted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refrigerator has some more info, and also lists some alternative temperatures for special purpose fridges & freezers, e.g. for fresh fruit a normal fridge is too cold.
Some refrigerators are now divided into four zones to store different types of food:
−18 °C / −0.4 °F (freezer)
0 °C / 32 °F (meats)
5 °C / 41 °F (refrigerator)
10 °C / 50 °F (vegetables)
Why do I need to keep my freezer at 0 °F, which is 32 °F below freezing? 0 °F (−18 °C) seems like such an arbitrary number. Is there some biological significance to that temperature?
@stefan : it's because stuff in the freezer isn't pure water. Stuff like an 'enhanced' chicken (where it's been injected with salt water) won't freeze at the same freezing point as water. 0°F is where a non-agitated saturated salt water solution will freeze, but I have no idea at what point something like a non-enhanced chicken will freeze (I suspect lower than 32°F)
If you keep potatoes in the fridge they should not be stored at temperatures below 7 °C (45 °F). If, that is, you intend to use them for roasting for frying. At lower temperatures the starch in the potato breaks down giving a burnt look and a bitter taste after roasting.
My fridge, which stands about six foot, appears to have almost 4 °C of difference between the temperatures at the top and at the bottom. This means I could have potatoes at the top and items that spoil more easily lower down. At least I could do that if the piece of junk would maintain a consistent temperature.
Interesting comment. I've never EVER stored potatoes in a fridge... there's never been room for the huge bags I buy!
Potatoes should actually be stored at room temperature, not refrigerated.
Following what Darin said, I'd keep them out of direct light as well.
The ideal temperature range to store them is between 7°C and 9°C. The potatoes will stay dormant in the cool (i.e. they won't sprout).
Room temperature ought to be fine if you don't store them for prolonged periods. In the fridge they will keep for a couple of months.
According to "Keeping Food Fresh" by Janet Bailey: Some foods need temperatures warmer than your refrigerator but cooler than your pantry. Fresh potatoes and winter squash for example keep best at a temperature of around 50°F. to 55°F. An unheated porch, garage or attic may be the right spot for storing quantities of these foods for longer than a week or two.
I've always been told to keep freezer at 0 F, with fridge no higher than 40 F. Alton Brown recommended buying a pair of those hanging temperature gauges (one for each compartment).
+1 for fridge thermometers. I never trust an appliance's self-reporting temperature, I've had enough ovens with hot spots to always be wary. With our fridge, our crisper drawer regularly frosts and partially freezes our veggies, and with a thermometer I was able to determine why - it's significantly colder down there than the 35F the rest of the fridge is set on. By at least 5-8 degrees. Yikes.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.731528 | 2010-08-07T14:53:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4529",
"authors": [
"Andy B.",
"Bernheim",
"Bort",
"Charles Beattie",
"Chris",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Darin Sehnert",
"Henrik",
"James Chen",
"JanC",
"Jeff Axelrod",
"Joe",
"Jon",
"NOTjust -- user4304",
"Nabil Echaouch",
"Naillil",
"Neelam Gahlyan",
"Ocaasi",
"Paul McMillan",
"Serguzest",
"Stefan Lasiewski",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56958",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81261",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8634",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8635",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8661",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9972",
"pyprism",
"stephennmcdonald",
"tomrob",
"yura"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
4640 | How can I adjust my recipe for étouffée to prevent the addition of okra to it from making the dish too gummy?
This is my recipe for étouffée:
4 Tbsp butter
4 Tbsp flour
1/2 cup chopped celery
1/2 cup minced bell pepper
2 toes minced garlic
1/2 cup chopped green onion
3 Tbsp chopped parsley
1/2 cup seafood stock
1/2 cup white wine
salt, pepper, and hot sauce to taste
8 oz crawfish tails
I want to double the recipe, substituting a cup of chopped okra for the additional 1/2 cup each of celery and bell pepper otherwise called for. What concerns me about doing this is okra's mucilaginousness; I know that my great-grandmother adjusted her étouffée recipe when adding okra to it to prevent it from becoming too gummy but can't remember how.
definite +1 for mucilaginousness
I'm a novice when it comes to okra, but would cooking time prevent you from adding half at the beginning and the rest later to (gummy) taste?
The gumminess in okra is from something that is inside the pods. If you add the pods whole, they won't be gummy. You can adjust how much you cut to figure out the ideal texture -- try cutting some and not others.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.732155 | 2010-08-09T14:53:27 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4640",
"authors": [
"Anil",
"Blrfl",
"Leo Martin",
"Miriam Rosypalkova",
"Ocaasi",
"RodH257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8889",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9570",
"kolrie"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
35576 | Dry cured chicken with bad odor
I dry cured some chicken for three weeks: I cut chicken breasts into 1 inch slices, usee 10-20% salt and rubbed thoroughly. I left it to dry cure for 2-3 weeks. I did this however I forgot to remove all the fat that may have been on the breasts. After the 1st week a bad smell started to appear and it has got worse over the last 2 weeks.
Although I used chicken breasts there was still strings of fat on the chicken and my guess it seems the smell is coming from the fat. The meat itself looks red, hard and cured.
If it is the fat, is the fat unsafe to eat?
Is the meat still usable even though it has been surrounded by this odour for 2 weeks?
If I just cut the fat pieces of will that make the meat safe to eat?
If I do not cut of the fat and then steam/or cook the meat in a soup with the fat, will the soup water and meat become unsafe to eat?
Just to add: I am NOT trying to make beef jerky or the like and I do NOT want to use a dehydrator. The thing I am trying to cook is a soup where the chicken meat is very salty. Dehydration or wet brining doesn't achieve this. As such I am trying to dry cure the meat and then cook the soup as you would have with Virginia ham.
Can you tell us what recipe/method you used? It certainly sounds like you just let your chicken spoil, but knowing what you did would help people figure out what went wrong.
If you're just trying to get salt into it, not make jerky, why are you curing it for three weeks (instead of a day or so), until it's cured dry and hard?
Where is the cure in your curing? You can't just throw some table salt on it and wait. You need a curing salt! You also didn't specify how it was stored, but that chicken has definitely gone bad after 3 weeks.
Don't eat it! The soup or the chicken.
Chicken meat may contain bacteria (inside the meat, not just surface) and can grow. Even if you've kept in the fridge for the weeks, it can still carry enough bad bacteria to seriously harm you. From what I know, the meat and fat structure of chicken doesn't lend it to curing in open air and long term.
If you are in fact trying to make a beef-jerky or cured sausage style and then cook in the soup to give the soup flavour and maintain decent flavour in the chicken, then you should be doing it differently.
You can dry cure the chicken in a dehydrator set to temperatures above 140°F as in this recipe.
For the soup: you'll need a soup base that is nearly as salty as the chicken (say %6 solution) so the salt doesn't leave the chicken and try to establish a new equilibrium between the saltiness of the chicken and soup.
This may mean that you might have to hold a portion of your soup back to add after the chicken is pulled out so it becomes less salty, but maintain the chicken flavour.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.732284 | 2013-07-25T15:04:02 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35576",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Brittany Whitaker Hurtado",
"Cascabel",
"Fish and chips",
"Jane Johnson",
"John Albe",
"Yosef Baskin",
"fabf spam",
"ganto",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83265",
"kidicarus",
"lime"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
28060 | Baking a cake in a microwave
I generally bake cakes in a microwave (because I don't have an oven) and all of them have a spongy texture. Is there any non-oven method where my cake has a little bakery style cake like structure?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.732531 | 2012-10-27T18:41:07 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28060",
"authors": [
"Eve",
"Harsh",
"Inanc Cakil",
"Lucy Stevens",
"Voyrev",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64526",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89459",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89465",
"user1622",
"user3639989"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
27999 | What are the odds that American household have a rice cooker?
We started a Kickstarter project of creating an e-book with online videos to show you how to make sushi, from a master sushi chef.
We are wondering what the odds are that an American family has a rice cooker. We are thinking of adding a section in the book to teach people how to cook rice using their pans, to save them money from buying rice cookers.
Surely your actual question is: "what are the odds that an American who would buy a book about making sushi has a rice cooker or would be willing to buy one?"
An informal survey of (engineer) coworkers yielded the following data: 5 out of 7 coworkers have a rice cooker. Of the two who didn't, one is single and eats only instant rice, the other is me who already knows how to cook rice in a pot so I didn't replace my cooker when it broke.
Sobachatina : wow. I've worked in places where you're lucky if 2 out of 7 even knew how to cook, much less had a rice cooker. At once place, 3 of 6 of the employees lived in a home with a rice cooker, but as 3 of shared an apartment, if you went by homes it was only 1 of 4 had one.
Hmm, "this question will likely solicit...polling"?
@Joe- Having a rice cooker doesn't imply cooking ability. Those coworkers that had one did so because they weren't confident cooking rice without it.
For the record, I didn't actually vote to close this - I think it's quite possible to answer without being a poll. (I removed the "do you have one?" bit that was originally there.) I just thought it was funny that it actually directly caused people to take polls.
Most American households don't have rice cookers - it's just not part of traditional American kitchens. Most Asian-American households probably do. Some reasonable fraction of people likely to make sushi do - but probably not all.
But this seems beside the point. Cooking rice in a pot is simple, and won't take a significant amount of work to explain. Why not just do it?
Maybe you are right!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.732601 | 2012-10-24T19:42:56 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27999",
"authors": [
"Brady Sundquist",
"Cascabel",
"Jason Snell",
"Joe",
"Karanpreet Singh",
"Liza Marsin",
"Peter Hallett",
"Sobachatina",
"Taegen Meyer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64361",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64362",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64363",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64371",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64372",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user1187968",
"user64362"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
1042 | How is mustard made?
I'd like to make mustard soon. What's the basic process to start with?
Mustard is one of those simple condiments to make, and is fun to experiment with. At it's most basic mustard is two ingredients:
Mustard Seed
Liquid
There are endless variations from there.
Mustard seed comes in white, yellow, brown and black variations. I suggest buying whole and grinding them yourself using either a mortar & pestle or coffee/spice grinder. (Don't use a coffee grinder that you use for grinding coffee! You'll end up with mustard flavored coffee).
Liquids can be water, vinegar, wine, or even beer. Using vinegar/wine will help it last longer than water or beer would.
Once you've fine ground (of course there are coarse ground varieties too) your mustard simply mix it with the liquid until it is the desired consistency.
Additional ingredients can be added to taste. Honey, turmeric (gives yellow mustard its color), sugar, etc. are all possibilities.
Update: I forgot to mention that mustard needs time for the flavors to mix. This can take anywhere from a few hours to weeks. A fresher mustard tends to be hotter, but an aged mustard can often taste "better" with a slight loss of that initial heat. Refrigerated mustard will keep it's heat longer. Also note, mustard made with water should definitely be refrigerated and consumed quicker than others.
What does "heat" mean, spicyness? Also, why wine conserves the mustard?
I feel the need to comment that grinding is an option (but you need to leave plenty of space and liquid for dry mustard seed to swell in the liquid) as I often make unground (seedy) mustard rather than even cracking it. The mucilage is impressive ;-)
There are tons of recipes for the mustard, but there are few important tricks to know:
water temperature:the colder the water the hotter the mustard
vinegar amount: as water increases the hotness, the vinegar does the opposite. You can balance the hotness level by using more or less vinegar.
wait for 3-4 days to judge your mustards taste, because it's really not good in the beginning.
I always have good results by using honey, apple vinegar, eggs and himalayan salt
Enjoy!
I haven't made mustard yet there are tons of recipes to do this. For example at food.com here they have lots of recipes listed.
The first recipe returned on the site combines all the required ingredients, lets it sit in the fridge overnight then mixes it in the blender.
Good luck!
-1: This answer doesn't really bring much to the table.
He wanted to know how to make it... there are recipes at the link that tell him how.
It's still pretty weak as far as content goes. Answers should have more to them than "there's lots of stuff here, go read". You also hadn't added the second paragraph of your answer at that time. If you fleshed out your answer more I'd consider removing my downvote.
I (half) agree with @hobodave. There's nothing wrong with copying the recipe from your link and then sighting the source where you found it. @hobodave I think the response is in the same context as the question. The question is very general and doesn't describe what it is to be use for.
I'm surprised you're getting "flamed" for this, but it's actually not a bad thing (that you're getting flamed)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.732802 | 2010-07-15T19:05:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1042",
"authors": [
"Alan Henderson",
"Anastasia Conolly",
"Andrew Dunaway",
"Camilo Martin",
"Christian Payne",
"Douglas Mukucha",
"Ecnerwal",
"GuyNoir",
"Jazz",
"Kiwi",
"Kyra",
"Matchu",
"Zach",
"bobobobo",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155716",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155726",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155727",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1916",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8658"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
3211 | What white fish can be used in rolled sushi?
I have been making sushi using salmon and tuna for a while, but i would like to know it there are any firm white fleshed fish that will work well in a rolled sushi paired with apple and cucumber. I tried cod but it doesn't carry a lot of flavor. I had also thought about tilapia but had never seen it served in a sushi restuarant and wasn't sure it would be suitable.
White fish are, as a rule, more delicately flavored than darker fleshed fish. Add farm-raised to that equation and you have the makings for a very bland meal, which is why you almost always see farm-raised white-fleshed fish served with heavy herb treatments and powerful sauces, or (in cod's case) fry batter. Tilapia and cod are two of the most common farm-raised fish on the market, so I'm leaning heavily on my suspicion that you're trying to make sushi out of the farm-raised varieties and not wild game.
If it's white fish you desire for sushi, talk to your fishmonger. Tell him what you're doing and ask for his recommendation. He'll direct you toward game fish that that are either very new and very fresh or that of the flash-frozen variety.
Fluke in season works well
does fluke have another name? I'm on the gulf coast so it can be kind of hard to get northern fishies here.
A common one is haddock and is in season pretty much year round.
On the contrary, tilapia is almost always served raw at sushi bars. It is usually what you are served when you order red snapper. No joke. It is pretty tasty if you get it fresh enough.
My personal recommendation for a lighter-flesh fish would have to be yellowtail (hamachi).
This is cheating, but white tuna is delicious.
Ditto the blandness.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.733114 | 2010-07-25T23:30:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3211",
"authors": [
"BЈовић",
"Christopher Hawkins",
"MandyK",
"MoG",
"Pablo Fernandez",
"Zypher",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140789",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5819",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5904",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6596",
"sarge_smith",
"tomas.lang",
"user6374"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
28221 | Finding good bamboo shoots
I recently tried to make a soup recipe that called for bamboo shoots. I found some canned shoots from a local Asian supermarket and attempted to use those---but they were awful. They had a bitter, metallic taste from the can, and no other discernible flavor. I'm pretty sure that's not what bamboo shoots are supposed to taste like, but how can I find good ones?
I'm not asking for specific shopping recommendations, but more general advice.
Do frozen bamboo shoots exist? Are they better than canned?
Am I likely to find fresh bamboo shoots at the Asian market if I ask?
Is there some other recommendation for finding a good brand that I can use?
I sound like the can was faulty. Canned bamboo is normally very nice and sort of a cross of corn and nuts, and not metallic
@TFD, good to know. I have another can of these to try, but if they're also bad I'll have to try a different brand. Is there any particular type that you've had luck with?
Fresh bamboo shoots are available at Asian markets but the quality control of those can vary greatly by market and turnaround (if you have a "reputable" one nearby like a Ranch99 I'd check them out). They tend to be more tender and sweet than canned bamboo shoots. It's worth a shot, though. Ideally you'd be able to eat them straight without cooking.
However, in most general cases, I agree with TFD's comment.
Canned bamboo shoots are NOTHING like fresh ones. But they should not have been awful, metallic. Try another brand.
Frozen bamboo shoots are also available in many Asian markets. Not as good as fresh, but better than canned. If you are unlucky enough to live where there are no Asian markets (I tried to get BEAN SPROUTS in Bensalem, PA and everybody looked at me like I was nuts, so forget that place), canned ones will have to do but there are some dishes for which they won't work (Braised Bamboo Shoots, for one).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.733284 | 2012-11-04T22:52:44 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28221",
"authors": [
"Bikia Mbiba da beaaaaaaaaaaast",
"Errol",
"JSBձոգչ",
"Kaci",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64943",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64944",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65007",
"user64944",
"user64948",
"user65001"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
63155 | Are there any features of cookers that make them rodent resistant?
Our gas cooker has started leaking gas. It is likely that it is because mice have been living in the cladding for a good few months and they have finally got around to chewing through a gas pipe.
I am now looking for a replacement but there seems to be no direct indication in any cooker specifications that suggest it would be rodent resistant. What features could I look for that would suggest the mice will not get in again.
There does seem to be some notes on the Amazon website that some cookers have some rodent-proofing feature (such as the Bush AG56D) but the wording is unclear.
I'm going to guess that 'rodent proof' is like 'water proof'. Many companies aren't willing to make that claim for warranty reasons, so only label it 'resistant' rather than 'proof'.
@Joe - Good point - changed proof to resistant.
It seems that piping materials thusly qualified are often called "chew proof"... you might want to look for something using hoses/pipes that are clad in some kind of flexible metal mesh or armor...
The hose that supplies the gas is probably not part of the cooker itself, but a separate part which can be swapped by an armored one.
Manufacturers don't have a rodent-resistant label, what you need to know is whether chewable materials are part of the construction. The best way to tell this is to lift the lid and look at the supply to the burners. Generally these will be metal, not materials like rubber or flexible plastics.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.733814 | 2015-11-04T14:12:13 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63155",
"authors": [
"Ales Skorjanc",
"Charles DeWitt",
"Deana Blackwood",
"Joe",
"Michelle Campbell",
"Mike Cunningham",
"OldCurmudgeon",
"Peggy Berbesque",
"Sarah",
"Shan Free",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12842",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150269",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150270",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150274",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160583",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"michael mclaughlin",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
32409 | How can I make better eggless scones?
I made chocolate scones using this recipe, using the milk/cream but leaving out the eggs because I'm vegan. The scones didn't come out soft. What might be the reason? Is there any substitute for the eggs that can make the scones softer?
See this question: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14025/are-there-any-vegetarian-friendly-egg-substitutes-that-can-be-used-in-cakes
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.733992 | 2013-03-04T10:42:16 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32409",
"authors": [
"Mien",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
20428 | What does "combine dry ingredients through cloves" mean?
I see in several recipes for spice cake to do things like "combine dry ingredients through cloves" or "add flour through cloves". What does that mean? I'm looking at this recipe. It calls for 1/2 tsp - can I use ground cloves instead of whole cloves?
Those parentheses you omitted are an important clue. Same with the word "the". The recipe says "combine the dry ingredients ( through cloves ) in a large bowl…". This instruction (as @Jefromi answers) takes it normal English meaning—it is not cooking jargon.
@derobert, normal American English. British English speakers may well be equally as perplexed as chadoh.
Move to "English Language and Usage"
It means to combine the things listed up to and including the cloves, as in "combine ingredients 4 through 11". In that recipe it's just a helpful hint to tell you where the dry ingredients stop.
The recipe is already calling for ground cloves - it mixes them into dry ingredients as-is. When using whole cloves, if you don't immediately just grind them, you generally cook them in something liquid then strain them out later. (Similar to cinnamon sticks or whole allspice.) The cinnamon and nutmeg in the recipe are also ground, not whole. If a recipe wants whole cloves, it will explicitly say, and often count them: 10 [whole] cloves.
So ground cloves vs. whole cloves dunt matter?
@chadoh: If you have a choice between using freshly-ground cloves and preground cloves, usually you'll want to pick freshly-ground, the flavor will be better. Spices lose the flavor over time, especially when ground. The exception might be when you're using a family recipe from a family member who kept his/her spices way to long (but then, I'd say still use freshly-ground but less).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.734061 | 2012-01-13T20:37:54 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20428",
"authors": [
"Darrell Strandberg",
"James",
"Midhat",
"Peter Taylor",
"Sanora",
"chadoh",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44850",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44851",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44854",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44856",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8714",
"kettch",
"kjosh",
"nigel222"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
20106 | Ideal pressure cooker size for cooking a pound (454g) of beans
I'm shopping for a pressure cooker. Could anyone advise me on what size of pressure cooker is sufficient for cooking a pound of beans? I don't want to buy one that is too small and overcrowd it.
A pound of beans should be 4-5 cups (about 1L) when cooked. I think it's pretty hard to find pressure cookers smaller than 4 quarts (16 cups or 3.8L), so you shouldn't have any worries at all. Even the smallest one you can find will have plenty of extra space.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.734244 | 2011-12-31T22:51:18 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20106",
"authors": [
"Jonathan",
"Josh B",
"Katie Olfert",
"Tano",
"ak47",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43951",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43954",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43955",
"marioandpeach"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
19410 | brined turkey and fat
I had a brined turkey that someone had cooked for the 1st time this Thanksgiving. Typically we eat one that has been cooked in a roasting bag. My daughter and I both noticed that the brined turkey seemed greasier. Is the total fat higher for a turkey that has been brined, compared to cooked in a roasting bag?
Brining shouldn't have any real effect on fat content, just moisture. The issue is, that fat and water can have similar cooling feelings on the tongue, and dried fat may not feel as greasy to the hand.
I have noticed that if you take the bird straight from the brine to the pan, the skin doesn't crisp as much, leaving it feeling mushy and greasy. The best thing you can do here is after you're done brining it, dry it off thoroughly, and have it rest in the refrigerator for 3 or more hours. This will dry out the skin, and make it crispier, and the subcutaneous fat should effectively fry it.
Alternatively, you could have just gotten an unusually fatty bird. It's hard to say from just one sample.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.734327 | 2011-12-05T20:53:30 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19410",
"authors": [
"Billy",
"Eriek",
"fenuedward",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42233",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42246"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
85466 | Does honey always have to be heated in order to liquefy it for bottling?
Some honey producers claim that they are honey is unheated. Assume that the producers in question are decently large scale and sell their honey in typical bottles/jars/pails.
However, talking to other producers, they indicate that they had to heat the honey in order to liquefy it for bottling. E.g. from one producer:
In order to liquefy the honey for bottling, it is gently warmed to around 110 to 118 degrees Fahrenheit (~= 43.3 to 47.8 degrees Celsius) and then strained through a cheesecloth. The warming process includes only air circulation and doesn’t directly touch the honey. No “cooking” is involved.
or from another producer:
Our raw honey has never been heated over 100 degrees Fahrenheit (~= 37.8 degrees Celsius). Most of our honey is heated at some point. However, we do have some right now that is cold processed and has never been heated. We have cold processed until it crystallizes and then we have to warm it in order to pour it.
Does honey always have to be heated in order to liquefy it for bottling?
Example of bottles/jars/pails:
Worth noting, as a Texan, that 100F is ... "room temperature" for honey (outside) in hives during the summer... So, whether you consider 100F to be "heating" is a bit... up for debate.
Knowing small-scale beekeepers personally, I can confirm that fresh honey straight from the combs is liquid(-ish) and can be put into jars directly.
I have seen (and participated) in the process of manual extraction: The full combs are uncapped (the wax lids of the cells are removed), then go into the extractor - think of an old-fashioned laundry spinner - and the centrifugal force extracts the honey. If the beekeeper did everything right, the honey can go straight into the jars, no heating or warming required.
But of course I wrote „if“.
Raw honey will crystallize at some point and yes, this may even happen while the honey is still in the combs. (But rarely, because it would mean the beekeeper has waited way too long to harvest, e.g. until spring.) Likewise, harvested honey will crystallize during storage and so the producers may have to gently warm the honey if they didn’t bottle it immediately. The speed of crystallization depends on the environmental conditions, but also on the ratio of glucose to fructose. Some types of honey will hardly ever crystallize (chestnut, for example), others will solidify almost immediately, like rape.
(And there is also the honey that is sold in the convenient squeeze bottles: It’s often warmed beyond 70C and filtered at some point to prevent future crystallization that would clog the nozzle.)
So the short answer:
No, honey need not be warmed if it’s bottled straight from the extractor. But it may be more practical or economic for producers to do so.
You might want to note that the bees keep the temperature in the hive between 33 and 36C - so without going into a “health” discussion, slowly warming the honey to that temperature will make it liquid without affecting the enzymes etc. significantly. Warming the honey beyond 40C starts to destroy them.
It does help to heat it to a warmish temperature so it flows more easily, though, and reading between the lines of the second quote you can tell that they're doing that. They say it's never been heated above 100, but most has been heated somewhat. So they're heating it to at most the temperature of a hot day, nothing the honey wouldn't experience on its own in the summer, but not a cooking temperature.
My father is a beekeeper and disagrees with heating the honey for bottling, however it is often chrystalized at that time already
He mechanically breaks it down with a mixer attached to an electrical drill, which leads to a liquid structure again.
I wionder how warm it gets in the process -- this is basically how it was established that heat and mechanical energy are equivalent
Not to the 60 degrees celcius honey is subjected to in the European union
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.734450 | 2017-11-05T19:56:21 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85466",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Chris H",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"jdog"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
33441 | How does the heat energy from the sun cook an egg within 5 minutes?
I read a book recently, and the book has an experiment that allows you to cook an egg with solar energy within 5 minutes, I was amazed! I tried it myself too and it did work, and the egg tastes nice too. How does it work?
Perhaps if you explain the method used, we could comment more intelligently.
The energy of insolation (the rate energy is delivered from the sun) is approximately 1350 watts/square meter, of which about 1000 watts per square meter reaches the ground.
If you think about it, that means a square meter of ground, on a full sunny day, receives about as much solar energy as is put out by a 1000 watt microwave oven on full power.
Is it any wonder at all that some contrivance could be made to concentrate the energy enough to cook an egg, which is fully cooked at about 180°F (82°C)?
You haven't described your egg cooking method or device, so I cannot comment further on how it works, but really, there is little left to add that is not a question of physics or practical engineering.
Wikipedia's solar cooker article shows many methods of cooking with direct solar energy if you are curious.
It's also important that the egg is small, so it doesn't take too much energy to heat it up to 180F. The same solar cooker would be a lot slower for something bigger.
@Jefromi True, although some of the solar ovens with only a couple of square meters of effective surface area for light gathering are supposed to heat up to about 300 F!
I'm going to assume that you used a solar reflector or a solar oven.
The sun (as with any star) gives off a lot of energy, but it decreases with distance, as the total radiation is spread across a sphere of increasing size. The Earth's orbit being eliptical means that we're between 147 Gm (billions of meters, or millions of km) and 152 Gm from the sun. The surface area of a sphere is a function of radius squared, so we're looking at 6.5% stronger sunlight perihelion (in January) than aphelion (in July).
The sun's activity also varies on an 11 year cycle (or 22 year, if you take the polarity of the active regions (aka sun spots) into account), but most total solar irradiance measures normalize to the effective W/m^2 at 1AU (149.6 Gm). Based on spacecraft observation it's near 1360 W/m^2, but you have to remember that this is from measurements above the atmosphere; not all of it reaches the ground, and there's significant variability based on the angle of the sun (if it's directly overhead or at a lower angle where there's more atmosphere between you and the sun) and your height above sea level.
And then there's problems with clouds, contrails, volcano plumes, smoke, or other dimming. There are some ground-based measures of solar irradiance, but I don't typically deal with that community. NREL should have maps on their website, but I can't confirm, as I'm having trouble connecting right now.
So the problem is ... what took 5 min to cook today, even using the same gear, might take a different amount of time the next time you try it.
We can offset this variability by concentrating the amount of sunlight into a smaller area. Similar to using a magnifying glass to start a fire, we just concentrate the amount of light into a smaller area to increase the amount of power acting on the item we're trying to cook.
The easiest solar cooker is just a simple set of reflectors; it's similar to a satellite dish, where you collect sunlight over a larger area and focus it into a small spot. (although, we don't want too small of a spot for cooking, or you'll just end up burning one spot).
You can make your own solar cooker with some large pieces of cardboard or other stiff material, something shiny (mylar or aluminum foil) to cover them, and a piece of food to concentrate the heat on (a broken egg in a dish is typical; you can also try a hot dog or marshmallow on a stick).
For faster cooking, we also attempt to limit how much heat escapes from the cooker -- you typically see these called 'solar ovens'. You make a greenhouse from a closed box (possibly insulated and painted black on the inside to absorb sunlight) with a glass lid, and panels around the side to reflect sun into the box. It takes a little bit of effort to cook a full meal, as the longer times mean that you have to adjust it as the sun moves through the sky.
(disclaimer : I've never done solar cooking other than the little experimental demonstrations ... but in college I was on a solar car team (sunrayce & world solar rallye), and I currently do IT support for a solar data center)
I have to say, though I appreciate the detail, that the solar cycle variation is orders of magnitude smaller than the other factors.
@Jefromi : Correct, but people always seem to bring it up as a major source of variability ... it's not in terms of visible light, but it is in terms of EUV (extreme ultraviolet) and more highly energetic particles like x-rays ... but they don't make it down to the ground. The ham radio folks care as it affects radio propagation, and the airlines care as some won't fly transpolar flights during days of high activity. (the earth's magnetosphere concentrates energetic particles at the poles, which is the trigger for the aurora borealis / aurora australis )
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.734760 | 2013-04-13T13:53:44 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33441",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Joe",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"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
} |
33468 | Why does food taste bland when we are sick?
Once, I had a high fever and everything I ate seemed to taste bland. Why is this so?
I'm sure this is an interesting biology/pop-sci question but it's not about cooking.
Reason for reopen vote: If you reformulate as "how to make food tasty to someone that is ill?", it becomes about cooking very much. The word "sick" also needs to go since it tends to mean the very opposite of appetite in some regions :)
But wouldn't "how to make food tasty to someone that is ill?" be overly broad and opinion based?
Smell. Smell is a big portion of taste, and you likely had an upper-respiratory infection that blunted your sense of smell.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.735127 | 2013-04-14T04:23:56 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33468",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Debbie M.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
47586 | Did I just almost start an oil fire?
I wanted to make some burned onion rings, so I chopped up some onions and let it cook in oil on the stove. Heating the oil was taking a long time so I decided to leave the oven alone for a bit.
I came back after hearing the oil making crackling sounds and I immediately turned off the heat. When I lifted the lid slightly to assess what had happened, the oil suddenly started crackling again violently.
Did I just almost start a fire? As I understand, there can be no fire without oxygen, and by lifting the metal lid I introduced oxygen. Also my entire house smells like smoke.
Mostly off topic, but what's a burned onion ring? Are they battered?
Just chopped onions in oil and later I added some brown sugar (which probably led to the smoke).
What kind of oil was it?
You said "on the oven" and mentioned lifting a lid - did you mean on the stove?
I mean the stove yes. Sorry, it is probably quite clear I'm not a very tasteful cook and I have no knowledge whatsoever in the kitchen.
Is it possible that the heat of the oil caused water to condense inside the lid? If so, then small droplets would form and drop back into the oil, causing small "explosions" as they immediately evaporate in the hot oil. Lifting the lid would also disturb the droplets, causing even more to drop in.
When you lift the lid on something that's been fryed in hot oil while the oil's still hot, any water that's cooked out of the oil and condensed on the lid has a chance to fall back into the oil. That can cause violent spattering. Usually being gentle in lifting is enough to prevent the problem.
and water entering hot oil will literally explode and burn off your face. It happened to someone in my high school culinary class; my friend described it as "his face turned white and melted off". The chef was fired from his job shortly thereafter.
Note I answered this question assuming that the onions are in the oven, not on the stove. See the other answers for a frying pan on top of the stove.
It is highly unlikely that you started an oil fire in the oven. The flash point of oil is close to 400 Celsius, domestic ovens don't go that high. And even if you had managed to heat the oven to 300 Celsius, this wouldn't be the temperature of the oil in the pan. Without having been there, I can't tell for sure, but I don't see how you can have gotten it hot enough. Besides, oil burns with visible flames, if it doesn't give you an outright flameball.
A better explanation for the cracking would be steam explosions. They are unavoidable and harmless. The sugar would explain the smoke, sugar chars at 190 Celsius.
They are harmless in that they won't start a fire, but they can still spatter hot grease on you and cause burns.
Is it possible that hot grease spatter was hitting an electric heating element? While the oven won't hit 400 C, the individual coils definitely will.
With the lid on, obviously not. Without a lid, you'd need an oven with open heating elements, which is not so common. And even then, you're unlikely to start a fire. I have roasted lots of meat in a toaster oven/rotisserie with open elements. The inside is all splashed with fat coming from the skin crisping, but I've never seen fire or smelled smoke. I suspect that the drops getting to the element are too small and burn out almost instantly, without anything else catching on fire.
Although oil can spontaneously combust if heated hot enough, the typical reason for grease fires is the following combination of events:
the oil level is too high in the vessel
wet ingredients cause the oil to violently bubble
the bubbles go over the side of the vessel
the spilled oil ignites from the burner below
... and when it happens, it's really not good. (trust me, I speak from experience). And the 'cover with a lid to keep out the air' trick doesn't work if your stove is designed in such a way as that there's venting from underneath the burner. See How do you put out a grease fire? .
If lifting a cover to check you should lift it away from you. Since the cover has water dropplets on it and they will splatter when hitting the hot water. The cover will help in keeping most of it off of you. Illiminating the possibility for burns on your body.
I would say you nearly started a batter fire.
A scary phenomenon of spontaneous combustion, that not many people I know have heard of, unless that happen to work in a chippy.
Fried scraps will spontaneously combust. I have personally seen this occur, but am not sure of the exact process. Guessing I would say that as the bits dry out air and thus oxygen gets to a finely divided surface (bubbles of batter) and it ignites, possibly due to the batter or surroundings retaining heat.
I was taught to always pour a bucket of water in to the outside waste bins of chip shop cooked batter waste to prevent this occurring.
An example reported a couple of years ago apparently in a batter bin inside the chippy
'Batter bin' caused fire at chip shop, says owner
As reported in DevonLive Chip Shop owner Lee Grayling saying:
... fire started in what is known as a batter bin, where excess pieces of fish batter are discarded. ...
... "I have heard of this happening in other chip shops - apparently the batter can generate heat. ...
From DevonLive
Another reference: By Thornhill Insurance
Fire Prevention in Fast Food Establishments
Waste
Bits or Scraps (depending on where you are from!) can be a huge risk to Fish and Chip Shops and Fast Food Establishments and are often overlooked. We personally have seen numerous instances where the waste was left in the shop after closing time and these have spontaneously combusted, leaving the whole shop ravaged.
Waste should always be stored as far away from your property [sic] ideally in a metal bin and this is usually another insurance warranty.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.735228 | 2014-10-02T03:18:13 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47586",
"authors": [
"Breege Keaney",
"Cascabel",
"Corey Stevens",
"Dissenter",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Kriss Judd",
"Nate Eldredge",
"Palo Swatsi",
"Preston",
"Sebata",
"Seth Gollhardt",
"Tenway Norsing",
"classic metals",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114876",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114894",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18731",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho",
"seasoned",
"steve daglio",
"valverij"
],
"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
} |
46142 | Margarine vs Butter in cinnamon roll schmear
What properties of margarine makes it better as a schmear in cinnamon rolls? According to an online source:
The oil-based fat holds up better than butter under the oven’s heat,
so the goo doesn’t ooze out into the bottom of the pan.
What's so special about oil-based fat? Why is this type of fat different? And does margarine with a higher fat content act as a better schmear?
If you're going to quote something online, please link to it!
The claim is probably based on the higher melting point of hydrogenated vegetable oils. While butter melts between 90F and 95F, hydrogenated oils can have melting points up to 120F. This can give an advantage when baking as proteins begin coagulating at around 120F and starches start to gelatinize around 130F. This is easily observed in cookies: cookies made with all butter will spread much more in the oven than cookies made with shortening as the butter has completely melted long before the starches and proteins begin to catch up.
In something like a cinnamon smear using butter, if your oven temperature is lower than expected it can cause the butter to melt out the bottom of the cinnamon rolls, carrying a lot of the sugar and flavorings with it. This leads to empty rolls and a layer of toffee on the bottom of the pan.
To say that one fat is better than another is very subjective though. While hydrogenated fat has an advantage in melting point, butter has much more flavor. You can also counteract the low melting point of butter by adding a starch or protein to the smear to help bind it, or by mixing butter and shortening together for the smear. Since margarine is usually a blend of oils, this also means that your baking results will be dependent on the blend of oils in your specific product.
My take on that ('cause Cinnabons are awesome) is that Cinnabon has a proprietary or specially chosen blend that melts just right for their purpose, and since they buy it in huge quantity, they can get it cheaply.
That's very possible. There are a lot of special blends for professional use, for instance blends of oils, hydrogenated fats, and water that are used for sheeting applications. You get a softer melting curve and a bit of steam to puff things.
Which is to say: It's almost guaranteed that there is A margarine that works better than butter, but I wouldn't extend it to say that ALL margarine works better than butter.
To call one fat superior to another because it is "oil based" is ridiculous on its face. That quote is prefaced with "The choice of margarine has nothing to do with calories..." Well of course not, average butter and average margarine have the same calorie density. Their choice to use margarine instead of butter is not about quality, it's about economy. Cinnabon Article
In any kind of side by side comparison of texture and flavor, I can't think of a single application for which margarine would be superior to butter. Margarine is significantly less expensive and is usually a reasonable substitute for butter. Some margarines are also acceptable to vegans, whereas butter is not. But for them to say it makes a superior schmear is dubious at best and most likely just marketing horsehockey.
Do you not buy into the higher melting point argument?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.735734 | 2014-08-06T11:17:18 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46142",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"CookingNewbie",
"ENG_ACK",
"Janet",
"Jill",
"Jolenealaska",
"Rosemary",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"Tina Wallace Magee",
"Tosh Daniel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110119",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110132",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110135",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110136",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110137",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110139",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"user110134",
"ساري المكلاوي"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
45980 | Why use citric acid and sodium hexametaphosphate in cheese sauce?
I was watching a YouTube video from ChefSteps on how to make cheese sauce. They used sodium citrate and sodium hexametaphosphate. What are the reasons for including these in the recipe? What are the alternatives to using these ingredients?
there's a link below the video to the recipe on their web site with ingredient links that explain exactly what you're asking.
@jim : yes, it says what they do (and a direct link for those, so you don't get stuck with annoying auto-playing videos w/ loud, obnoxious music) ... but "Sodium hexametaphosphate is a sequestrant that binds with calcium ions" doesn't mention what potential alternatives are, or what that actually means in terms of the recipe.
I voted this up, because it's a good question ... but then had to cancel it because I was so annoyed by that video. (admitedly, I had my volume all the way up, because of a video that had been really, really quiet)
ChefTips don't generally have people talking in their videos. Just some background music and sharp editing. The videos are very short and direct to the point. I like them.
@Joe : ok, as to the question of substitutes. i put some time into checking these ingredients out. there are a few well known candidates for the functions sodium citrate performs (just google: sodium citrate substitutes). sodium hexametaphosphate (SHMP) might not be so simple. A substitute for that may require two to three other additives. i'd have to ask a food chemist, and i don't know any food chemists
Understanding a little bit more about your application would be helpful in giving you a good answer. What is important to you about this particular recipe? (there's a slew of cheese sauce recipes on the interwebs) Is it the type of cheese they used? Was it because milk was used instead of cream...or because this recipe did not use another particular ingredient(like flour/eggs)? The simple explaination for use of these two salts is that they act as textural property enhancers, allowing it to behave as a lovely cheesy sauce at temperature ranges it generally couldn't without resolidfying.
Here's an article written by the whey applications program coordinator for the Wisconsin Center for Dairy Research in Madison, whose background is food chemistry: http://www.foodproductdesign.com/articles/2000/02/understanding-process-cheeses.aspx
Citric acid and sodium hexametaphosphate are often used in processed cheese as emulsifier. These kinds of salts improve the protein's swelling capacity and emulsification and thus inhibits the leakage of water or fat from the product (forms metal complexes). Some salts are also acid buffers. 1 In this wikipedia article (in German, but chemical names are quite similiar to the Engish ones) is a list of possible substitutes of citric acid and sodium hexametaphosphate. Or just look here (in English) for E 325, E 326, E 327, E 331, E 332, E 333, E 339, E 340, E 341, E 450, E 451, E 452.
The receipe of the cheese sauce has the same ingredients of common processed cheese2.
1 Source: Wikipedia: Schmelzsalz. My bad attempt to translate this article :-\
2 "Processed cheese [...] is a food product made from cheese (and sometimes other, unfermented, dairy by-product ingredients); plus emulsifiers [note from me: the mentioned salts], saturated vegetable oils, extra salt, food colorings, and/or whey [note from me: or watery liquids like water or milk] or sugar. "
an alternative to using these ingredients directly is to use common processed cheese as an ingredient, which adds those ingredients already in the common processed cheese
yes, I've done it a lot. works great for making cheese sauce with other cheeses
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.736123 | 2014-07-29T21:40:02 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45980",
"authors": [
"CookingNewbie",
"Jessica",
"Joe",
"Joe Cort",
"Little White Lithe",
"N dickson",
"Ryan Bedford",
"Spammer",
"Tain",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109650",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109652",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109654",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113235",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25745",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"pleasePassTheCheese"
],
"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
} |
45000 | How to make bread mould resistant?
With the bread I bake, they become mouldy within two weeks.
With the bread I bought from the supermarket, usually whole wheat, I would have the loaf gradually consumed and by the 6th week, it would still not turn mouldy.
What did they put into the bread that makes it mould-resistant? Is it natural?
What ingredients that I could safely mix into the dough to make my bread mould resistant?
possible duplicate of Is there anything I can add to homemade bread to preserve it?
@logophobe : highly similar, but with the last question in the text, I'd take it as a different answer. (most of the answers to the other question were suggestions for specific types of bread that last longer)
If you don't define "natural", nobody can answer that part.
Wait... weeks?!
There are many "natural" or "clean label" ingredients that work as mold inhibitors. Most of them work by adding some acid and thereby creating a more inhospitable environment for mold. Some of the popular mold inhibitors (at least is some U.S. bakeries) are: cultured whey, vinegar, and raisin juice.
I think vinegar and raisin juice are good options for home use.
Vinegar
Works by adding Acetic acid. The white vinegar you buy in the grocery store is typically 5% acetic acid (at least in the U.S.).
To inhibit mold, the recommended amount is 0.5-2.0% of the flour weight of 5% acetic acid vinegar. Add with your other liquids.
Raisin Juice Concentrate
Raisin juice concentrate has been shown to be effective at retarding mold and bacteria growth in bread. It works by adding Propionic acid and Tartaric acid. Further, it seems that a home baker should be able to purchase this in reasonable quantities and at a reasonable price.
The recommended amount is 5-10% of flour weight, by weight. Add with your other liquids.
My personal experience is positive: I used to purchase a whole-wheat bread with raisin juice concentrate and it lasted forever.
This study from the Journal of Food Science, Application of raisin extracts as preservatives in liquid bread and bread systems, found very dramatic increase in shelf life.
The mean mold-free shelf life of the bread containing 7.5% water extract [of raisins] was 18.1 +/- 3.3 d at room temperature while the negative control was mold free for 9.4 +/- 2.4 d. The antifungal efficacy of the extracts in bread was equivalent to 0.24% calcium propionate in 21 d of storage. Doubling the concentration of the extract did not improve the mold-retarding property in bread. The bread containing raisin paste, the percentage of which in dough was equivalent to 15% raisin extract, exhibited a stronger antifungal activity than did the extracts in bread.
Notes
Both of these can inhibit yeast activity which you may need to compensate for by increasing yeast or proofing time.
Sources: some personal experience, this really interesting article from Oklahoma State University, Clean Label Mold Inhibitors for Baking, and the study linked above.
Does the term "raisin juice concentrate" seem oddly redundant to anyone else?
@logophobe - it's weird stuff and it's not grape juice. Raisin juice is made by soaking raisins in water. Which seems counter-intuitive since raisins are dried grapes. But apparently the drying process from grape to raisin does some chemistry magic (which I can't remember or find right now). Raisin juice concentrate just has some of that water evaporated off. Source
The most common ways to naturally extend the shelf life of bread are to change its enzymatic activity, available water, or pH.
There are a variety of enzymatic shelf life extenders such as Naturelle, Mold Out, Bred Mate II, etc. Most of these are made of a cultured carbohydrate base, such as wheat flour, corn starch, or corn syrup. They are added to dough at around 1-2% of the flour weight and will usually extend the shelf life of bread by a few days.
Preservatives that lower the available water are usually made of a carbohydrate that will bind with the water, commonly listed as "fruit juice and grain dextrins" or another form of dextrins. These work by making less water available for mold growth which requires an available water level of around 0.7. These can have the added benefit of slowing staling.
A final method to make your bread more mold resistant is to lower the pH. This is best done by culturing the dough with a sourdough culture or an acidic preferment and giving it a long proof time for the microorganisms to acidify the dough. This could theoretically be achieved through using ascorbic acid or citric acid, but is next to impossible to do in practice. Citric acid has a strong lemony flavor and has the effect of breaking down gluten, while ascorbic acid has a bitter flavor and makes gluten very tight. The levels at which both acids affect gluten is far below the level that they would have an acidifying effect on the dough. A better solution would be lactic acid which is produced in sourdough cultures (as well as many other cultured foods). The flavor of lactic acid is more complementary to bread and the acid won't have an overwhelming effect on dough workability at practical levels.
Factory bread contains ascorbic acid as a preservative.
While usually made artificially from glucose, it does occur in nature, in fruits that contain vitamin C for example.
You can add that to your bread.
To be clear, as razumny and others say, ascorbic acid is naturally occurring. I tried to edit above to change "[not] natural" to "[not] artificial" but it didn't take...
@hoc_age, you're right, it does occur in nature, sometimes I'm not sure wether people want something from nature, or anything that could have come from nature. I've edited it myself.
Ascorbic acid is the most common way of making bread - and many other things - mould resistant. It is a naturally occurring compound, and one of the forms ("vitamers") of vitamine C.
My problem with ascorbic acid, is that it doesn't do anything for the flavor of the bread. I have seen recipes that call for wasabi, which is said to impart many of the same preservative properties, while adding a faint flavour to the finished loaf.
It doesn't do anything for the flavor, but warning, it affects gluten production! You get more/stronger gluten when you use ascorbic acid, so if you want to keep the same texture, you have to change something else (e.g. reduce the kneading time). Alternatively, if you are into very high-gluten bread, you can eat it without changes.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.736461 | 2014-06-20T06:11:21 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45000",
"authors": [
"DasRakel",
"Deborah",
"Doug Nelson",
"Edward Walters",
"Firebucket53",
"Joe",
"Mary",
"MaryAnn Haniford Zaid",
"SamBobb",
"Samantha Keldsen",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"TNhands",
"Vito Valjavec",
"hoc_age",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107032",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107033",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107065",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107081",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25519",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"logophobe",
"rumtscho",
"seeon"
],
"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
} |
57191 | Chemical process behind hardening ice cream
We made a simple ice cream by mixing whipping cream, sugar, and Nutella.
After 5-6 hours (surely enough time for the ice cream to cool to the temperature of the freezer), it was soft (mechanically soft, while getting it out with a spoon). After 20-30 hours it became hard. Is there some chemical process involved? What is it?
I didn't think to ask - did you churn it in an ice cream maker? (You just say you mixed the ingredients.) My answer applies either way, but it'll certainly freeze rock-hard if it's not churned.
Didn't churned, Used a mixer.
I don't think there's a chemical process here. It just takes a really long time for it to freeze solid. After 5-6 hours it was probably firmer around the outside than in the middle, and after a day it was probably fully frozen. (I've made a lot of ice cream, and have reliably seen this.)
It takes so long because the heat transfer is so inefficient. It's already bad since there's no convection, just slow conduction from the outside in. And the conduction is slow because your ice cream is basically insulating itself: it's full of air.
If there is something on top of that, it's probably that your emulsion is breaking as it freezes, so water gets forced out and freezes into harder ice. This would be pretty noticeable - you'd get a grainy, icy texture. (If you really are mixing whipped cream and nutella I can certainly see that happening.)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.736964 | 2015-05-05T13:23:08 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57191",
"authors": [
"Amelia Cain",
"Brandon mclellan",
"Cascabel",
"Fatima",
"Gill Brittle",
"Mary Adario",
"Noah Bennerson",
"Oliver Buckley",
"Oskar Howells",
"Whitney Marquez",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136076",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136077",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136086",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21969",
"hulkingtickets"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
36368 | What causes seals to fail when canning?
My husband made and canned pickles 1 week ago. Tonight he noticed the seals were popped on all but one jar. One other time the same thing happened when he canned green beans. What would be the cause of this?
It's unclear if we're talking about boiling water or pressure canning here - I'd expect boiling for the pickles and pressure for the green beans (since they're not acidic enough)? I think the answers are mostly the same either way though.
Aside from the notes in SAJ14SAJ's answer, if he didn't run the canning process long enough, there may have been residual bacteria (or spores) that remained active.
The failed cannings I've seen due to insufficient heat took exactly one week to pop their lids.
You should not re-use lids, so they should come in good condition, although you can give them a visual inspection for dents, dings, and missing sealant before using them.
However, it sounds like perhaps your jars are not being properly processed to develop their seals if so many are failing. The University of Missouri Extension provides this list of things that might have gone wrong:
Failure to read and follow instructions on package for using bands and lids.
Leaving wrong amount of head space when filling jars.
Not removing particles of food, seeds, seasonings, or pulp of fruit from the top of jar before putting the lid on. Also, watch for threads from the cloth that is used to clean the rim of the jar.
Screwing band too tight can cause lid to buckle.
Not screwing band tight enough.
Insufficient heat to seal the lid.
Failure to exhaust (vent) steam - pressure canner for a full 10 minutes.
Letting pressure in canner fluctuate.
Reusing jars in which commercial food is sold.
Using warped, rusty, worn bands, or old commercial caps instead of home canning brands that are in good condition.
Reusing lids. The lid of a two - piece metal cap should not be used more than once.
The NCHFP's page is of course also good. It manages to mention a few different things despite missing a lot of them: defects in the jar itself (chips in the glass), tipping/inverting jars when removing them from the canner, and (when canning meat) getting fat on the rim.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.737122 | 2013-08-28T02:28:07 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36368",
"authors": [
"Bonnibel",
"Cascabel",
"Jason Godden",
"Paras Sood",
"Peter Neal",
"Scottuc",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85340",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85356"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
36397 | How important is fresh ground coffee vs a good coffee grinder?
Given a choice between using a good coffee grinder a few days in advance, or one of those whirly-chopper grinders immediately before brewing, which would you choose?
I'm not an expert, but it probably depends on how you're brewing it.
It's really going to be a trade off between the flavor defects, but it also depends on the brewing method, and if it's drip or espresso.
For us, with drip, stale coffee tastes worse than badly ground coffee. We can always tell if coffee has been freshly ground or not, because the characteristics and flavor profile change the longer it's been ground. Having a crappy grinder will affect the flavor as well, with some grounds being over extracted and under extracted. At this point the quality of the coffee wouldn't even matter.
So, it really depends on what you'd prefer to sacrifice. For me? In this situation, I'd probably just drink tea.
It will be drip, through a cheap drip grinder with a gold mesh basket. If I'd had time to think before packing for this trip, I'd have brought my own grinder and Chemex. Well, I guess we'll just have to rough it. #firstworldproblems.
Both have downsides:
Coffee that is ground more than a few hours before brewing loses aroma, which is obviously an important part of flavour.
A blade grinder doesn't produce evenly-sized particles; big particles will under-extract (losing flavour) and small particles will over-extract (introducing bitterness).
My wife and friends didn't believe me about the over-extraction potential of blade ground coffee, so we did a blind taste test between coffee beans ground with a blade and ground with a burr. I identified the blade-ground coffee every time. That's not the comparison you have, but in the absence of a burr grinder I'd go for pre-ground, for convenience.
Although there are trade-offs for both, I would suggest grinding right before brewing.
Here is why:
As soon as you grind coffee beans, they begin to lose aroma and flavor. This begins to happen as soon as the beans are ground. In my opinion, this is a big problem if you want really great tasting coffee.
Although blade grinders do tend to produce some uneven particles, which can cause uneven extraction (over extraction for smaller particles and under extraction for larger particles), for the everyday cup of coffee, this isn't a significant problem. Good blade grinders ($50 and up) do not have this problem as much.
The everyday coffee drinker will most likely notice less fresh coffee as opposed to an uneven extraction.
A burr grinder is the best way to go, but you need a really good quality one (expensive) to produce a good grind, and there are even downsides to this type of grinder.
In my cafe, we use industrial burr grinders that are very consistent. At home, I use a good quality blade grinder and usually come up with good results, especially if I am grinding more coarsely (drip coffee, french press, etc). I only really get problems with inconsistent grind when grinding finely for espresso. I also find that if you shake the blade grinder (almost like a martini shaker), the grinds mix better during the process and you get more consistency. That is just what I have found though, and you should be very careful when doing this.
I don't think that freshly ground coffee tastes better than pre-ground coffee of the same age? Personally, I cannot tell the difference. So, from my point of view, it's not important at all.
Just because you can't tell the difference, it doesn't mean that it isn't there. Anyway, demanding evidence is not an answer, it is repeating the question at best. I'll remove that part and leave the rest, so other people reading it are aware that this situation exists - it is not always possible to tell the difference.
In my experience, it seems to make a weaker brew when ground unless you use more in the pot. I'm not a fan of weak coffee, so I just stick to a good brand of pre-ground.
Hello. Welcome to Seasoned Advice! Are you saying that you feel coffee you grind at home is not as strong as coffee you purchase pre-ground?
Given that both have pros and cons, I would choose fresh ground with a blade over older burr-ground. The smell is an indication of how it will taste, and it smells sooo good immediately after grinding.
Typically coffee beans are ground to make brewed coffee (hot or cold). If you have a great smell while grinding, you have just lost a lot of the flavour compounds you probably want for the brewing process?
@TFD That's actually an interesting point, but are you saying burr-grinders don't produce fresh grounds that smell as strong?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.737353 | 2013-08-29T02:46:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36397",
"authors": [
"Ambuj Shahi",
"Dana Fabbri",
"Edward Falk",
"Jaltaire",
"Joanne Lohuis",
"Kelly Richards",
"Klesun",
"Linda",
"Liz Lee",
"Mark Moser",
"Preston",
"Shawn Taylor",
"Sinh Tran",
"TFD",
"bytesparallel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103886",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112607",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112661",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122484",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85399",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85400",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85402",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85507",
"karenjean",
"rumtscho",
"user5561",
"ʇsәɹoɈ"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
34937 | Bottling salad dressing with fruit
I'm considering bottling salad dressing but I'm not sure of the shelf life. The ingredients for some are - prunes (or figs), lemon, olive oil, ginger, garlic and water and possibly some xanthan gum.
Can you tell me what the best way to bottle this and how long it will keep once bottled and then how long after when it's opened?
Also, I may consider keeping this as a thicker 'dip' recipe as well. How would I bottle that?
By "bottle" do you mean heating to sterilize in a sealed vessel (generally called "canning" in the US), or just pouring into a bottle and saving?
Related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22617/how-to-bottle-your-own-homemade-salad-dressing - it's a different dressing, but the answer is essentially to use a trusted canning recipe.
See related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34893/is-storing-homeade-dressing-with-garlic-powder-safe/34894#34894 Safe refrigeration of dressing with garlic.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.737727 | 2013-06-25T17:00:28 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34937",
"authors": [
"Amber Lincoln",
"Cascabel",
"CherryQu",
"Jmicenskyrn",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"enbin",
"hasnain ghumman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81495",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81497",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81499"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
46159 | What are the fault tolerances on the FDA food handling guidelines?
Sometimes I have suggested that food that sat out a little longer than optimal may be safe to eat.
Granted, this is based on my experience, and I always qualify that it shouldn't be served to guests (and by extension, customers) and that one should determine their own tolerance to risk, but I want to know if there is information as to the methodology of the FDA guidelines. Specifically, what is the contamination rate at n hours, and what are the initial conditions of the food and environment? How much risk is there REALLY (in incidences per n-population and such) in a standard kitchen for food that has sat out 50%, 100%, 200%, etc. longer than recommended?
If you have something you want to discuss to do with how people should answer questions, what should be closed, or why people vote the way they do, please take it to [meta]. Some general comments, before you post there... Users are free to vote how they like, and no site policy will or should stop them from downvoting answers they disagree with, but downvotes aren't the same thing as saying you're not allowed to post answers like that. And we do frequently close food safety questions as duplicates of one of a few canonical questions.
@Jefromi Fair enough. I just get a little frustrated when I answer a question no one bothered to, and get downvoted as a result. I always try to give the 'correct' answer, then my experience, and qualify with YMMV. I may take this up in Meta, but I really do want to know how the FDA/USDA determines their safety guidelines. As an engineer, knowing the methodology behind them would allow me to give better answers and qualify the risks, should I choose to answer those kinds of questions in the future.
Yes, I agree this is a great question. Happy to discuss the rest on meta or in [chat] if you'd like.
I have no idea how they measure, but I would assume they'd use something like the LRFD method used in civil engineering -- you try to minimize the risk of there being a problem based on statistics. (how much of a risk they design for, I have no clue ... 1%? 0.01%?) and of course, different foods are going to have slightly different risks that the 2hr guidelines don't account for.
That's what I figured, Joe. Not familiar with the LRFD method, but been engineering for 7-8 yrs now, so I am familiar with fault tolerances. I figure the number they give may also depend on cleanliness of prep area, ambient temp, processing of food prior to preperation, etc. I'm sure they take some sort of mean, but would like to see the raw data. Are there cases where 2 hours is too long, or where the food would be fine for half a day? Those are things I usually eyeball at this point, and would like a more definitive answer.
I don't think your question has an answer. Let's say that X bacteria cells of a given species will make the average person ill, and the FDA has calculated holding times such that a contaminated piece of food containing on average X10^-7 bacterial cells will have at most X10^-3 after being handled according to guidelines. Bacteria multiply at an exponential rate influenced by temperature, so it can happen that the same food will reach dangerous levels after 10 hours at 20 Celsius and after 1 hour at 25 Celsius, for example. And nobody knows the exact number of contaminating cells too.
@rumtscho I guess I am asking what the values of X are in your example. I realize that there are certain assumptions, and maybe the FDA doesn't make it public. If they do though, it would be nice to see it. That way the answer to I left x out y hours could be, "These are the guidelines. If you are in Minnesota in December, you may have n more hours. If you are in Alabama in August, maybe less. When in doubt, throw it out." I believe in nuanced answers, and a stock 'toss it' does not make me happy.
I agree that this is a great question, and one that I often wonder about as a cook and haven't been able to find info about online. It's a legitimate question about food preparation practices, not site guidelines, that shouldn't be relegated to meta.
The recommendations (in the US at least) are based on a risk model, which takes into account a number of factors:
frequency of outbreaks and occurrence of illnesses
severity of illness, taking into account illness duration, hospitalization and mortality
likelihood of contamination
growth potential/shelf life
manufacturing process contamination probability/intervention
consumption
economic impact
Some of these factors are statistical (frequency, economic, for example), and some are measured (growth, aspects of severity). For the measured aspects, a large number of methods are employed, including animal testing, human histories, and toxicology reports (including LD measures).
Primarily, most home cooks should follow the FDA guidelines as the recommendations take into account the supply chain and common outcomes for most pathogens (for a given food). It's important to note that live pathogens are not the only risk in food safety, also toxins (as produced by the pathogens) are an important factor depending on the specific life form. These toxins are not mitigated by cooking (generally), and some pathogens are not completely mitigated by heat or cold. The risk is related to the combined risks, time, and supply chain.
The FDA site contains the regulations, methods, and sampling guidelines for various stages of food production and food safety.
This is not my speciality, but I did teach food safety many years ago (please refer to the current guidelines and methods for current recommendations).
References:
Designating high risk foods
Home food safety cheatsheet
Example toxicity studies - I'm not certain these feed into these specific guidelines, but the methodology will be similar
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.737853 | 2014-08-06T23:04:35 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46159",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Coffee Grounds Spam",
"JSM",
"Joe",
"Josh",
"Katana Swords",
"Michelle McIlroy",
"Spammer",
"Susy Wagner",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110155",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110157",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112491",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3345",
"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
} |
78153 | Do scratches on electric range burner elements affect its performance or function?
My electric range is about 5 years old and over time the burner elements have become scratched- it looks like coating is being worn off- is that normal and does it affect the performance or function of the burner?
Are you sure the burners have a coating on them? I haven't ever seen or heard of electric burners with coatings? Did they look like they had this coating when your stove was new?
this shows what I'm talking about- is that not coating being worn off?
Thanks for adding the photo, Ford, as I think I know what it is. Although your photo is nicely focused, it's not the real thing so I can't be 100% sure. It looks to be the built up bits of grease and other residues from the bottom of your cooking pans that have accumulated over the 5 years. Not saying you slopped lots but the smallest amounts of spatter from cooking will add up. I moved 6 months ago into a place with a new stove and I've done my best not to spill food and to always wipe up right away but I've noticed the burners getting marked. It doesn't wash off either. Do you find the elements you cook on the most are more marked?
But to answer your original question whether the scratches affect the burners' performance, the answer is no. All they need to be able to do is heat up and even a knick in the metal wouldn't stop it from heating.
Just asked an EE who states that yes it will affect performance, and over time the whole thing will just break down and stop working. He did state that it should be fairly well protected so you should be alright electrically.
EDIT: EE just looked at your photo and states that they should be fine, but to keep an eye on them.
Could you clarify what to look out for when keeping an eye on them, i.e. what kind of damage is not okay?
Do you understand how these elements are made?
Yes, I do, but I'm asking on behalf of the OP and future readers, so it'd be helpful if you added something useful to people in general.
Well, if between you and the qualified EE, you're able to clarify your answer (as I asked in my first comment), that'd be lovely. If you have further questions or concerns about moderators' role or powers... let us continue this discussion in chat. (or ask on [meta], of course) Those are great discussions to have, just not here. This space is purely for discussion of the answer, so I've removed meta comments.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.738402 | 2017-02-06T02:00:32 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78153",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Jude",
"dougal 5.0.0",
"fordeka",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23991",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54271"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
28905 | Should I boil beef for burgers before marinating?
My homemade burger patties became smelly after one day kept in the fridge (not the freezer). The taste after I grilled them was also not good. Along with the smell, there is also blood stagnant inside the container.
Are there any solutions? Should I have boiled the beef first? But then I wonder if the taste after I grilled the patty would be different.
Why does your title say "marinating"? From your question, it sounds like you just mean storing in the fridge. And what kind of meat did you make it out of? Ground beef does not generally have blood in it.
How long had you had the mince before making the patty? Had the mince been frozen prefiously. Was the mince cool while making the patty? What other ingrients did you use? Eggs? If so how fresh were they? I certainly wouldn't boil a burger ever.
The pale red liquid in a meat container in a fridge is not blood. It's the meat's juices (cell plasma and proteins). It always oozes from meat kept in the fridge and is not a sign of spoilage. Manufacturers selling prepackaged meat will put an absorbent napkin in the package to keep this liquid from sloshing around, so you may not have seen it before, but it is almost always there.
To those who edited this question you changed the meaning. You can't remove ambiguity (between marinating and storing) by simply picking one on behalf of the OP. I've rolled it back to the original content (but fixed the language up). If the OP returns to clarify, then the ambiguity can be removed.
Thanks for all of your comments and suggestions.
I'll applied them one by one and collect the result.
By the way, sorry for the broken language.
Will improve it for sure, ^_^
Do you have a fridge thermometer? Confirm that your fridge is below 40°F (~4°C). Preferably around 37°F (~2.5°C), or, if you're primarily storing meat, colder (you can actually go slightly below freezing). If your fridge is too warm, things will spoil much faster.
That said, when meat is ground, all the contaminants on the outside are mixed in. So the shelf life is quite limited. And as you work with it, you'll want to keep it cold (e.g., make sure your marinade is cold when you add it). That said, unless you have a really cold fridge (around 30°F/-1°C gives you another few days), ground meat should only be stored for a day or two. Of course, you can put it in a ziploc bag, and put that in an ice bath in the fridge to get almost that cold.
You should not boil the burgers, that will certainly make it safer, but the taste will be pretty bad. If you have a low-temp (sous vide) setup, you could pasteurize the formed patties at around 57°C, that should be fine. But you don't want to bring them to 100°C, that's certain!
If your marinade contains water, you can get it cold by substituting ice for some of the water (equal amount by weight).
So, my suggestions would be:
check your fridge temperature
buy the ground meat (or grind it yourself, whichever) on the day you plan to use it.
If you want to marinate for more than a few hours (normally not needed with burgers, but...), make sure the marinade is cold. You need to keep everything below 40°F (4°C).
If you really want to push it to keep for more than 2 days, store it in an ice bath in the fridge.
If you have the equipment, you can use low-temperature pasteurization to make it keep much longer. And also to safely serve a medium-rare burger.
Thanks for your detail explanation.
I'll go trough them one by one.
Thanks for your kindness.
^_^
Your question deals with food safety, more than anything else. Ground meat, should be kept only for a short time (1-2 days). If you manipulate it, do so just before cooking.
If it smells bad, you risk food poisoning or, in the least, a bad taste experience.
You can flavour (marinate) the ground beef before you shape the burger. That way, you add moist.
Do not boil (cook in water) a burger patty. You should grill or cook it in a frying pan with very little oil. The method is to get the grill (frying pan) hot, put the patty on for 3 minutes on each side. After that, you can lower the heat until the meat is done to your liking.
Once you've browned it (which takes a lot less than 3 minutes per side with how hot I heat my pan), you can also (if you're willing to wait) plop the frying pan into a moderate oven to finish cooking. It'll cook more evenly in the oven. Or even switch it to a different pan or baking sheet, since the frying pan will probably be quite hot still. [I use a cast iron fry pan, which of course is oven safe, and safe to heat to ridiculous temperatures.]
@derobert, right you are. It depends on how hot your frying pan is.
This is a really poor answer in my opinion and it doesn't answer the question at all. Mainly because you need more information from the OP as to what he means. "If it smells bad..." Are you the defining arbiter of what food should and shouldn't smell like?
@spiceyokooko: well, if meat starts to have a strong smell that is definitely not a good sign.
@nico The OP never said his meat had a strong smell. Who knows what's causing the smell? What did he put into them when he made them? Day old meat kept in the fridge doesn't generally go bad - the smell he's experiencing could be anything.
@spiceyokooko: "My homemade burger patties became smelly after one day" seems quite a clear sentence to me...
Clear in what sense? Do you know what the smell is? Is it a bad smell? Do you know what's causing the smell? Could it be picking up odours from elsewhere in the fridge? Could it be something he put into the burgers when he made them that wasn't right? Too many unknowns here to be able to give an answer, as I said previously.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.738628 | 2012-12-05T00:24:01 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28905",
"authors": [
"Anonymous",
"BaffledCook",
"BlkPengu",
"Cascabel",
"Emiko Pijoan Nagasawa",
"FireSBurnsmuP",
"Joanne Stanton",
"Kimi Wei",
"Michael L. Boone Jr.",
"Peter",
"Rendy",
"Tim Walsh",
"Unreligious",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14597",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66971",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66997",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67005",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67006",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67007",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67011",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67093",
"joana",
"lawsome",
"nico",
"rumtscho",
"sktguha",
"spiceyokooko",
"user14597",
"vikas shukla",
"vwiggins"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
12198 | 'Phorons' for Dahls
I love dahl. In India (where my folks were from) there are an almost infinite set of combinations of dahls and corresponding phorons* (spice-seasoned anointing oil/ghee)
But I only know a handful of 'phorons' e.g.
Red lentils: Panchphoron + garlic and onion.
Toor dahl: garlic + bay and mustards seeds.
Does anyone know where I can find out about more phorons? Do you know any yourself?
* a Bengali word - people from different parts of the sub-continent may use different names
OK. I think in Hindi it's called 'tadka' or 'chaunk'.. Which is basically tempering spices in hot oil and then adding that to the dal.. Am I right??
Oh look!! Wikipedia has some info on that as well.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaunk
@ntt You are right - I don't think there are any other cuisines on earth that use this technique - another question for cooking.stackexchange.com ;-)
I couldn't find it on Wikipedia because I was looking for 'foron'/ 'phoron' etc. Many thanks!
And yet another name is "tempering".. that seems to be the way it is often rendered in English versions of Indian recipes.
The following site has a few recipes under the header of Basic Tempering Dal Recipes:
http://www.ifood.tv/network/basic_tempering_dal/recipes
Being described as "basic", these won't be using any really special spices; but on the other hand, from what you said at the start of your question I'm going to assume you're not in India yourself and that therefore you likely won't have access either to many of the more unique spices that are used in India to season dahl. For more ideas, you can find many bloggers that have posted recipes online, but (at least for English-language recipes) you may need to use different search term variations to find them ("tadka dal", "tarka dahl", "lentil tempering", ...). Again, this may lead to recipes using rather basic combinations, but I hope you at least pick up a new idea or two.
Thanks, I'll take a look.
I'm not in India (my parents live there for half the year), but I can get pretty much everything I can think of (for north indian food, anyway) where I am.
I had this idea that phorons/tadkas/chaunks were a characteristic of Bengali cooking (certainly I have lost count of all the variations I've encountered in my mum's cooking over the years), interesting to see they're not...
OK. So for the real answer.. Here are some 'tadka' that I know..
Typical : Mustard, Turmeric, Asafotida, Red Chilli Powder
Jeera : Cumin (sometimes in ghee (clarified butter) instead of oil)
Just Garlic : Garlic
Great, thanks for posting.
One Question: are these general 'tadka's or are they specific to particular dahls/dishes?
Hmm... As far as I remember, my mother would use different ones for different dishes, but there isn't a hard and fast rule. You can experiment.. I am guessing it also depends on which part of India you're in..
More Tadka/Chaunk/Phoron info here: http://bit.ly/g3bsQ0
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.739106 | 2011-02-15T17:28:08 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12198",
"authors": [
"Kevin",
"Michael Natkin",
"Spundun",
"Wannabe butter maker",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25137",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25139",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25161",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4283",
"immutabl",
"neufuture",
"notthetup",
"user2418514",
"zbs"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
41773 | What are East Coast Chinese Chicken Wings marinated in?
Does anyone know what the Chinese Restaurants on the East Coast (in the US) use to marinate their chicken wings? I was told by one owner that they use 10 different ingredients but she wouldn't tell me what they were. Do you know if they parboil them before deep frying them?
Is this something that's generally approximately the same at many different restaurants? Are there any big chains that make them in the style you're looking for? (Or alternatively, can you give us any hints as to the flavors, or what seems to be missing if you've tried a recipe?) It's easier for people to answer if they're confident what you're aiming for.
I know it doesn't mean much, but this recipe certainly has 10 ingredients (besides the chicken), and the flavors seem like they could fit: Grandmother's Chinese Chicken Wings
From East Asian point of cusine... heres a hint. Chicken for Chicken rice is par-boiled before deep frying. Rest coming mainly from Ginger, Sesame, Garlic, Soy Sauce. There are a variety of making methods: bbq, deep fry, oven baked, par-boiled fry. You better check with that lady which of these methods she is using. So you are half-way through. Because certain spices either get enhanced or degraded/vanished depends on the fire/cooking method...
East Coast of where? There is more variance from North to South in China, than East to West?
No one has offered the answer. It's a flavor that is unique, not obvious like garlic. It's a savory, gingery something that gives them a yellow/orange color inside, right? I'm wanting to know as well.
No, the wings are not boiled first and it depends a lot on the family's recipes...
I've been trying to get my old boss to give me theirs when I moved to the west coast and can't get wings hardly at all from anywhere. What I do know is that some of the common ingredients are:
Corn starch, tumeric powder, ginger powder, soy sauce, Japanese white cooking wine (substitute: sherry), black pepper, white pepper, sesame oil, onion powder, garlic powder, and some type of red chilli powder, but I haven't figured out what type yet. (It's not the one you use for making chili, I have tried Korean and Thai so far, but have not looked for Chinese or Japanese red chili powder yet)
I have no idea how much of each ingredient you need based on the amount of wings you are making, but I know that the ratio is:
1 part black pepper, tumeric, ginger, onion, garlic powder, oil, and soy sauce.
1½ parts chili powder
2 parts corn starch and wine
3 parts white pepper
Soak the wings in marinade for at least 4 hours, 24 hours is the best.
The only reason I know this much is because I have worked in a few restaurants and have watched them over the years. My favorite is a 15 spice version, but I could never catch them put in all the ingredients.
Don't try to be healthy and get some fancy oil just use good old fashioned vegetable oil, heated to 350°F ( I do 375°F) one whole wing should take 7 minutes to fry but I like crunchy, so I wait till it’s golden and the oil stops fizzing. I do like 5 at a time in my little fryer for a total of 12 to 15 minutes.
If you are cooking for a large group double fry the wings to help keep them crunchy and warm.
The secret of the perfect Chinese chicken wing, is to barbecue it. First to marinate the wings with soy sauce, garlic glove for one night. Barbecue it when almost ready, to brush some honey onto the wings. Taste like heaven. Juicy and tender inside, sweet and crispy outside( the honey will help create a little char on the skin).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.739382 | 2014-02-04T19:51:45 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41773",
"authors": [
"Brad",
"Cascabel",
"Craig Anderson",
"Filmonaday",
"Nur",
"OXY Performance",
"Rasool ",
"Rusatoto spam",
"Spammer",
"TFD",
"bonCodigo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18731",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97433",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99941",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99965",
"luk",
"spammer",
"valverij"
],
"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
} |
25676 | Can I make white chocolate brownies based on a normal brownie recipe?
I've been trying to make white chocolate brownies by taking a normal brownie recipe and replacing dark chocolate with white chocolate. It doesn't work, though - the butter seems to split, and the consistency gets totally wrong. I'm just trying to make a white chocolate cake that's fudgy and dense like a brownie. What am I doing wrong?
White chocolate isn't real chocolate, so you probably cannot just substitute one for the other. You probably need to find a dedicated recipe that was made with white chocolate in mind.
Recipe requests are not valid on Seasoned Advice unfortunately. VTC.
I think you could probably reword your question to make it fit. Ask why substituting fails, and post a recipe you tried. Then try and figure it out from there. Also, agreed that maybe doing your own search for an actual white chocolate recipe as @vulpix recommends is an easier path.
I voted to close, then immediately felt guilty - there's a reasonable question under there, as other people hinted. I went ahead and edited it. Lia, please feel free to edit it further if it doesn't match your intentions.
@Jefromi thank you for your edit, this version looks very nice. Reopened.
As you noticed, white chocolate doesn't have the same fat or solid makeup as regular chocolate, and in baking that will make a huge difference. The proportions of starch/binder (flour) to fat (butter & chocolate) to protein (eggs) are what make the difference between cake, brownie, fudge and everything in between.
White chocolate tends to melt faster than regular chocolate, so the baking time will be shorter, and there'll probably need to be extra flour & butter to make up the difference.
Go ahead and google for a basic recipe & then you should be able to make most of the same add-ins (nuts, extracts/flavorings) as any regular brownie recipe.
I would warn you to stay away from the "marble brownie" recipes though - they're really popular, but these are not two batters that play well with each other.
EDIT: Regular chocolate varies broadly in its fat makeup - different countries have diff regulations on what types of (natural) fats and (artificial) emulsifiers can be added to chocolate and chocolate-derived products. White chocolate has the same ingredient list as milk chocolate (w/o the cocoa solids), but again, the proportions and allowed/disallowed additives may be different. So you have to mind your brands/country-of-origin, as well as the "family" of chocolate.
Hershey's (US): http://www.thehersheycompany.com/nutrition-and-wellness/chocolate-101/types-of-chocolate.aspx
EU standards: http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/consumers/product_labelling_and_packaging/l21122b_en.htm (If someone can find a more consumer-friendly explanation of EU chocolate labeling, that would be great.)
I agree with your point. One nit-pick: I thought that white chocolate did have the same fat makeup as chocolate. Exactly the same in fact. All it is is sweetened cocoa butter.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.740041 | 2012-08-15T17:54:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25676",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Fred Gauthier",
"Hybrid",
"Jules",
"Lavish Logic",
"Maira Teixeira de Melo",
"Neano",
"Sebastian",
"Sobachatina",
"Steve M",
"Suryaprakash Kinger",
"carmenism",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58865",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58876",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58952",
"rumtscho",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
29100 | How can I make my fried potatoes not fall apart?
I cut the potatoes up. I boil them for 7 minutes and then I fry them 15 min in some olive oil, but they fall apart quickly.
When I remove the water from the boiling pan after 7 minutes, the potatoes are already almost falling apart.
I have tried to fry potatoes without bowling them for a while, but they still weren't done.
How do I get the potatoes not to fall apart and get at least a bit crispy?
What kind of potatoes are you using?
Aardappelen: Iets kruimig (Dutch) / Potatoes: Somewhat waxy/floury (English I hope)
Waxy and floury are generally considered opposites when speaking about potatoes. You want a waxier potato for what you are trying to do. Do you have the potato variety's name (even if it's Dutch)?
From the looks of your picture, you are not deep frying them, you are stir-frying them. "15 minutes in some olive oil" is another red sign. There are recipes for that, but it is normal for them that the potatoes fall apart. If you want to have a french fries type of potato, you have to deep fry them.
What are you trying to cook, exactly? "Fried potatoes" sounds like you're trying to make french fries, but your picture looks more like hash browns, complete with peppers, tomatoes, onions, and is that chicken?
A few possible ways, which can, of course, be combined:
Use waxy ("new") potatoes. These potatoes have a lower starch content, as well as a different ratio of starches (more amylopectin) which helps them maintain their shape.
Microwave then cool the diced potatoes rather than boiling them. Do this in a microwave-safe bowl with microwave-safe plastic wrap over the top. This process should also help maintain potato integrity while cooking them through.
Fry them in small batches in vegetable oil (or another high-smoke-point oil) at med-high to high heat (depending on your pan/stove combination) rather than the lower heat required for frying with olive oil. To get a nice brown crust, you're essentially searing the outside of a pre-cooked potato.
Too add - par-boiling and cooling them before frying would probably help as well.
Yes, that could replace step 2. Also, cooling is a useful step for MW as well, so I updated my answer.
I think the clue here is that your potatoes are almost disintegrating after you've boiled them. If they're doing that, then they will only continue to disintegrate when you sauté or shallow fry them, which is what I assume you're doing and that will happen regardless of the type of potato you're using.
As others have rightly stated, some potato varieties are less inclined to 'disintegrate' than others, but moving to a waxy potato (firm) may stop the potato disintegrating but it may also not give you the texture you're trying to achieve - crisp on the outside and fluffy on the inside.
I my opinion you're better off sticking with a 'floury' variety of potato, but modifying your cooking technique to prevent disintegration. I'd suggest trying the following -
Experiment with boiling times. It sounds like you need to boil them for less time than you're doing, trying boiling for 5 minutes instead of 7. The potato should be part cooked, but not breaking up, because you'll finish the cooking in the hot oil.
Strain your potatoes and immediately rinse them under cold water and set aside to dry.
Put your frying pan on a low heat and let it heat up for a few minutes, pour in some olive oil and heat that for a few minutes more - it should not get too hot. Flick in a tiny droplet of water, it should just start to sizzle, if it immediately evaporates it's too hot.
You need to cook potatoes in olive oil on a low heat as olive oil can change properties if it's allowed to get too hot. But you also need to make sure the oil is hot enough, the potatoes should sizzle when added to the pan, if they don't it's not hot enough.
Practice on getting the temperature of the olive oil just right as this is important to the outcome of your sautéed potatoes.
When the temperature is right, carefully tip your potatoes into the frying pan, separate them and let them fry for a good few minutes or so so they crisp on one side, now flick them over and let them cook on the other side. Keep doing this till they're done. Resist the temptation to bash them about and push them round the pan as this will cause them to fall apart.
They should not disintegrate but should crisp on all sides and be fluffy in the middle.
After you've par-cooked your potatoes, cool them rapidly in iced water, drain them, and then let them cool, preferably in a fridge, uncovered, for a few hours.
When you want to 'fry' them (NOT stir-fry!), use an high smoke point oil, such as vegetable oil - or if you want a really tasty potato, in beef lard, at about 190C
Totally agree on not using olive oil for frying potatoes. Olive oil gets better, smokes, and can start on fire if it gets too hot, so it's not a good choice for frying potatoes.
@GdD I don't agree. I frequently sauté par-boiled potatoes in olive oil with rock salt and rosemary, it's quite common in the med regions to cook potatoes in this way. It's just a different technique, but it's wrong to poo-poo it as being wrong.
According to Kenji Alt at Serious eats, in his article on French Fries, a small amount of vinegar in the par-boil water--one tablespoon per quart--will cause the fries to hold their shape by inhibiting the breakdown of pectin.
The same technique should be very effective with fried potatoes: par-cook the diced potatoes in the weak vinegar solution. Then sautee them to finish for crispiness and color.
Here is what Kenji Alt says:
The fries boiled in plain water disintegrated, making them nearly
impossible to pick up. When I added them to the hot oil, they broke
apart even further. On the other hand, those boiled in the vinegared
water remained perfectly intact, even after boiling for a full ten
minutes. When fried, they had fabulously crisp crusts with tiny,
bubbly, blistered surfaces that stayed crisp even when they were
completely cool. As for the flavor, if I tasted really hard, I could
pick up a faint vinegary undertone, though I wouldn't have if I didn't
know it was there. Even knowing it was there, it wasn't unpleasant at
all. After all, I'm used to putting my fries in ketchup or mayo, both
of which contain plenty of acid.
That's also a trick that was used in America's Test Kitchen when making potato salad -- they also mentioned that it increased the cooking time.
I once had a Chinese dish they called "Fried Potato Strings", where they have the potato sliced in thin long strings then stirred fried. The potato strings turned out firm, very crunchy and far and from falling apart. I tried this back home but just ended up getting the potato strings and pieces all meshed up.
I went back and asked how they did the trick. So basically you have to wash the potato slice to remove the starch content as much as possible on the surface, before cooking; don't forget to hand-rub the potato in running water for some minutes. The potato should be cooked in higher heat and adding a small dose of white vinegar also helps it further.
I tried and it worked.
reason for down-vote? Or tell me a better way to make your potato crispy
It wasn't me, but some tips for improvements: (1) in telling your story, you bury the tips (wash the starch off, cook in high heat, add vinegar); after the story, pulling them out as bullet points might help. (2) You weren't specific in how the vinegar was used (when washing? when frying? added afterwards). (3) some of the tips might not be relevant for the preparation they were asking about (the washing and oil temperature are more significant for thinner things and stir fry, and likely won't apply to larger cuts of potatoes like home fries)
When potato pieces cook, they release moisture. If they are clumped together in a pan, the moisture will become steam and you will reach full cooking before the pieces become dry enough to brown and crisp. The result is crumbling pieces, especially with the starchy variety you have. However, if you ensure low moisture content prior to frying, then the potato pieces will be able to brown and make the nice crust that you want, and as this happens the pieces will “glue” with their neighbors like you see in a hash brown.
As others noted, the solution is to pre-cook your pieces in a way that allows moisture to escape. This can be done by parboiling or microwave, but the important thing is a cooling and resting period afterward.
After boiling the potatoes, make sure you drain them and let them cool before frying. They solidify and dry as they cool. Avoid stirring too much when frying.
Try frying raw potatoes in enough oil (I usually pour ~0.3 cm of oil for a full pan of potatoes) on medium-high or high heat WITHOUT the lid and WITHOUT salt/pepper. Stir them not often (but don't let them burn, indeed) till they are crispy enough on all sides. Then reduce the heat to low and keep potatoes under the lid till they are cooked enough (you should be able to "cut" them easily with a spoon or fork). At the very end add salt/pepper to taste.
I never boil potatoes before frying them. Red potatoes, imo, offer the best texture (they are firmer than many varieties) and taste. Scrub them, chop them, add them to a large saucepan or wok with 1/4 - 1/2 cup of heated oil, add seasoning, and stir/toss them periodically until they test done. This will result in a potato that is crispy outside and tender inside.
I assume you are boiling your potatoes pre-cut? (7 minutes is a really, really short amount of time for your potatoes to be almost falling apart!) If so, try boiling them in larger chunks and cutting them after the fact. I believe they should still be quite firm by the time they hit the pan.
I boil potatoes whole (the potato out of the bag scrubbed) for 10 minutes. Then I put them in a colander for 15 minutes. I then hold them under cool water and the skins come right off. I then cut them up into squares.
Next fry some bacon in the pan you will be cooking the potatoes in. Set aside. Add some butter (1/4 stick) then add potatoes when the butter has melted and is good and hot. Fry until they are almost cooked through and then add chopped onion and red pepper and cook 5 minutes more.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.740349 | 2012-12-11T20:14:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29100",
"authors": [
"Ant",
"Behnam Esmayli",
"David Pearce",
"Eli Lansey",
"Felipe",
"Frank Treacy",
"GdD",
"Gerre Fiore",
"Gray Sheep",
"Ionuț Staicu",
"Jax",
"Joe",
"KMC",
"Lmwangi",
"Marti",
"Preston A Vickrey",
"Rose White",
"Tobias J",
"User1000547",
"Wellander",
"alwayslearning",
"exitpotato",
"harsh99",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134015",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134028",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134052",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67435",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67436",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67437",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67463",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67472",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67523",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67760",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67813",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67916",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68085",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8434",
"jscs",
"rumtscho",
"spiceyokooko",
"ujjain",
"user1830432",
"user6284097"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
50194 | How do I heat up rice and pasta at work?
I want to heat up rice or pasta at work so I can have a hot meal with rice and chicken or pasta and chicken. There is a microwave there - can I use that?
I don't know if I can bring a rice cooker. But I do know there is a microwave but I want to have the food already made not have to cook it at work. No one else uses a rice cooker so it would probably not be a good idea to bring any equipment to work.
Re: bringing in appliances ... talk politely about it to whoever is responsible for fire/electrical safety. Be prepared to explain how it works, and why (in case of a rice cooker) there is limited risk. Take charge of that equipment, if there is any damage that might make safety inspectors raise flags (damage to cords and plugs, scorch marks anywhere, electrical smell...), proactively replace the appliance.
To reheat left over rice, microwave is the best!
Put a clean damp (wet but not runny) cloth or paper towel on top of your rice in a microwave safe dish and heat it for 2 minutes. Don't put a lid on top of the dish.
Left over pasta is always gross, no matter how you reheat it. So stick with microwave. If you pasta is not super saucy, same method (with a damp paper towel) would apply to pasta, otherwise, just heat with a lid on.
you didn't say anything about pasta.
Edited my answer. the rice part is CAPPED so I thought that's a more urgent question.
@YueY I'm sorry that your second ever answer here was treated so rudely. You actually answered the question as it stood when you wrote the answer. Look at the edit history of the question. There was no mention of pasta in the original question. I hope we see you again soon.
@wannaknow Your original question didn't say anything about pasta; you added that in a later edit. No one ever removed it from your question.
@Jolenealaska Hi! I saw his edit history but was just too lazy to argue. Thank you for speaking out for me.
That's what a microwave is for! The easiest way to do your rice is to cook big batches of it at a time at home and then freeze it in Ziplocs in individual servings. Then just heat it up at lunchtime. Like this: Safe to wash rice the night before and leave overnight before cooking?.
You can do the same thing with your chicken, just cook it in advance. If you have a fridge at work, great. If not, by bringing the cooked chicken to work frozen, your food safety risk would be almost nil. You could be even safer by packing it with ice packs.
The whole thing would take maybe 1.5 minutes in the microwave.
EDIT: So all you're doing at work is reheating, you've cooked everything in advance at home. For pasta, it's best to mix the pasta with sauce before chilling. It can be frozen in individual servings as well, but that isn't as ideal as it is with rice.
And make sure there's enough moisture left in the rice - if it's been refrigerated a while and dried out some, you might want to drizzle just a little extra water in there.
no. rice is gross when cooked in the microwave. Pasta too. i only want to reheat in the microwave, or find a way for it to stay hot for 4 hours. I do have fridges at work.
@wannaknow No one is suggesting that you cook the rice in the microwave, just to use the microwave to reheat it. Read the link in my answer if the answer itself isn't clear.
There are a few things that you can do to improve how well pasta reheats, but it requires a little more work up-front.
First off, the sauce (containing moisture or fat) will change how well the pasta reheats. One solution to this is to keep the two seperate. Pull the pasta when it's still al dente or a little bit before, rinse it to stop the cooking, mix in a little bit of oil to keep it from clumping together too much, then portion it out before chilling it.
When you want to eat it, heat the sauce to hotter than you'd want for eating it, then mix the sauce and the pasta together, cover, and allow the temperature to equalize for a minute or two.
As for the chicken, it likely depends on how large of pieces it's cut into. I'd likely warm it through on low power, then heat the sauce and mix them all together.
Of course, this isn't 100% universal:
This won't work with a cream sauce. You'll want to only barely heat the sauce through.
For the times when there isn't much sauce to give the necessary thermal mass, such as with pesto, you're better off mixing it together before portioning it out, then microwaving it as a lower power to warm through. You'll want to mix it once or twice during heating for best results.
If you increase the flavor (some extra crushed garlic, herbs and possibly hot paprika or crushed red pepper), you don't need to heat up the pasta as much. You'll want to warm it through so it's pliable again if it's strands (spaghetti, linguini, fettucini, etc), but you don't need to get it much above room temperature.
Also, if you're specifically looking for something warm and comforting that contains pasta and chicken ... consider soup. Simply treat it like my recommendations, but you have enough thermal mass from the broth that you don't need to take it significantly above eating temperature.
Put a wet paper towel over the bowl when you put it in the microwave. Works every time
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.741337 | 2014-11-29T22:46:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50194",
"authors": [
"Carrieb Walker",
"Cascabel",
"Danni Mobbs",
"Debbie Hudson",
"Estie Van Rooyen",
"George Markwell",
"Harley Zukerman",
"John Hogg",
"Jolenealaska",
"Robert Dewhurst",
"Roger Sackey",
"Ruth Pomeroy",
"Simon Rodrigues",
"Sliding Room Dividers Ltd",
"Sonia Escobar",
"Sylvie Chagnon",
"Tom D'Agostino",
"Vicki Mcvey",
"Wendy Roberts",
"Yue Y",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120014",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120021",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120024",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120032",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120037",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120038",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120039",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120044",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120589",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21090",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29631",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"kviLL",
"rackandboneman",
"wanna know"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
43955 | How to make pretty crêpes?
I know how to make crêpes, however they have some tendency to be a bit ugly aesthetically speaking.
Each time I go to a crêperie, I can see this kind of crêpes :
However, when I try myself, I often end up with something much thicker, with less even browning, like this but thicker:
What can I do to improve my crêpe-fu? Is it possible to achieve the prettiness of the first picture?
You are aware that the colors in the first picture are adjusted in photography postproduction, I hope :) Also note that they seem to be showing two first sides, and yours shows half a first and half a second side.
@rumtscho sure ! But even "in reality", the crêpes coming from real restaurants (at least in France) often have a much better appearance than the ones coming from my pan, and are very similar to those in the picture :)
The pictures of what you're making (and the comment that they're thicker) suggests to me that you're making a british / swedish / dutch pancake. Generally, those are spread w/ gravity by lifing the pan, while crêpe making may use a device to push around the batter to make it exceptionally thin.
@Joe It's hard to tell how thick these are in each picture, but I seem to be able to get them plenty thin by tilting the pan - as long as the batter isn't thicker than it's supposed to be.
The trick, according to a French roommate from college, was thin batter temperature and a well (clarified) buttered pan.
The batter should feel almost too thin. I always thought that the batter was perfect and she would thin it just a little more.
The pan should be at just the right temperature (this will vary stove by stove). Your photos look like the temperature could be a little lower, but only just! The way she kept her pan perfectly buttered was using clarified butter, and used half of a yellow or red potato on a fork (think a nice waxy potato) to spread the butter. This allowed just the right amount of butter into the pan.
I'll accept this answer (after all this time!) because the clarified buttered pan really helped a lot. The appearance is much more appealing when using this instead of regular oil.
Perfect crêpes are the result of lots of practice. Things you need to experiment with are:
Flour - getting just the right fine and freshly ground flour, plenty of wholemeal gives it a better texture. try putting the flour through a food processor to make sure it is equally fine
Standing time - the crêpe mixture needs to be left standing enough for flour particles to get wet, but not too long so that it goes gluey. About 30 minutes at room temp is the minimum, try around 2 hours for better results
Heat - what is the perfect heat for your pan or and its surface, you'll find this out over time and experimentation? It is usually around the 80% of maximum mark on a typical stove. Some of the best crêpes come from thick aluminium pans, with a low ridge, and a very slightly bumpy surface (a pattern of round humps about 6mm in diameter, and 0.2 mm high)
Butter - getting just the right amount of butter in the pan for each crêpe, too much and you deep fry it, too little, and it cooks too slowly. Use a brush to get an even thin layer on quickly. The butter fat acts as a heat transfer agent as well as a release agent
Spreading - use a T shaped spreader stick to get thin and even crêpes. Tilting the pan takes too long, and makes the heat uneven
Timing - crêpes continue to cook after you take them out of the pan if you are making a stack of them. Always go for slightly under-cooking, and therefore slightly higher heat to make them brown in the same time frame
I'm sure a spreader works, but in my experience tilting the pan works fine too. You just have to make sure the batter's not too thick and that you don't put too much in the pan.
@Jefromi Tilting the pan may work, but it wont get thin enough to get the even fine brown colour as per OPs request. Unless you have very watery batter, which then falls apart when served. Where's my -1?
I don't think your advice is bad, I'm just saying I learned to make them a little differently. You're right that the browning isn't as good as in the first picture, but I think it's still pretty good, they seem plenty thin, and it's pretty easy, no extra tool or anything.
I also find more than one flip gets me better colour without burning. You want little enough batter that the pancake just, just doesn't have holes in it. A nice hot pan, just short of burning anything.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.741811 | 2014-05-06T22:33:19 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43955",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Joe",
"John Thomas",
"Maël Nison",
"Spammer",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103165",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103166",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103173",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"peaches56",
"rumtscho",
"troutman314",
"vwiggins"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
44209 | Other than gelatin what makes gummy bears chewy?
From previous experiences, every time I try to make gummy bears they are more springy than chewy like gummies are supposed to be. I have been wondering, other than gelatin, what makes gummy bears chewy? I use 250 bloom gelatin powder.
If you could post the actual recipe you're using I'm sure it'd be helpful.
From a package:
corn syrup, sucrose, gelatin, citric acid, apple juice concentrate, sodium citrate,
coconut oil, natural and artificial flavors, carnauba wax, red 40, yellow 5, blue 1
Likely the sugar types and their ratio is important. pH (citrate) shouldn't make a lot of difference unless you're using something weird instead of apple juice. Carnauba wax is likely a mold release agent, which leaves coconut oil as the most mysterious ingredient. I wouldn't bet on it affecting chewiness much, but these dense gel recipes can be pretty sensitive to minor ingredients.
I agree it's likely the sugars. I make my gummies with just juice and gelatin which is a much, much lower density of sugar than commercial gummy bears and I get the squeaky/springy texture that the OP describes.
Experimenting with corn syrup and more sugar generally will likely get you closer to you the results you want.
One gummy bear hacker says you need to leave them out for 3 days to aerate for the gelatin to toughen up. The longer you leave them out, the chewier they become.
https://topsecretrecipes.com/foodhackerblog/haribo-gold-bears-gummy-candy/
Gelatine is not always used as some of these types of sweets are vegan or Halal and they cannot use Gelatine for “moral” or religious reasons.Carnuba wax or agar agar or Guar gum are often used instead.Gelatine is an animal by-product so is not vegetarian.
Your answer could be improved with additional supporting information. Please [edit] to add further details, such as citations or documentation, so that others can confirm that your answer is correct. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center.
I doubt that your ingredients are wrong, a wrong process is the more likely culprit.
Gummi bears are traditionally make gummylike with gelatine, nothing else. But what you describe as "springy" gelatine reminds me of the way gelatine becomes in its usual application for producing pie fillings and other desserts meant to eat with a spoon or fork.
Gummy bears are much drier than these desserts. I don't know if they make them that way by using more concentrated gelatine, by drying them out somehow, or both. But I think this is the main difference to a "classic" gelatine recipe. And as Wayfaring stranger mentioned, there are no other gelling agents in the mix of commercial gummy bears either.
Gummy bears are 6-10% gelatin. Gelatin desserts run 2-5%.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.742195 | 2014-05-18T04:47:47 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44209",
"authors": [
"Anthm",
"Carl Winbäck",
"Cascabel",
"Christopher",
"Community",
"Spammer",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Wilderness Welding Fabrication",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/-1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103871",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103872",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103884",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103991",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"shilpa joshi"
],
"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
} |
34384 | does washing vegetables and fruit with baking soda make sense?
I have checked the other questions about washing vegetables and fruit, but they don't mention baking soda. Google brings up only unreliable (random blogs that give no reference) or biased (baking soda brands) sources. So, here it goes: my grandmother swore by washing vegetable and fruit in a weak baking soda solution (I am talking about sodium bicarbonate NaHCO3, not baking powder).
I tend to follow her advice and wash fruit and vegs in a baking soda solution, but I just gave the matter some rational thought: how concentrated should the solution be? And what the heck and I doing anyway? Does it make any difference? It is not that I am obsessed with cleanliness, I just want to know whether baking soda in the water makes any difference, or if I am just wasting time (and soda).
The FDA does not suggest baking soda, just plenty of water. I have found a paper, Antimicrobial Activity of Home Disinfectants and Natural Products Against Potential Human Pathogens that indicates that baking soda and vinegar have a disinfecting action against bacteria and the polio virus, but they are consistently less effective than commercial disinfectants like Clorox (nothing strange here, otherwise why would we need Clorox, right?).
Any suggestions? Sources?
Do you have any idea what the purpose of the baking soda was supposed to be? This sounds like... forgive me... an old grandma's tale.
What problem are you try to solve?
My problem is, si licet magna componere parvis, a bit like the one faced by Hervè This: I have witnessed an old grandma's practice that is not unique to the said grandma or to me. I want to know if there is any rational base for it. For example, you may have a practice to add baking soda to onions when caramelizing them. Does it make sense? Yes, it does as http://blog.khymos.org/2008/09/26/speeding-up-the-maillard-reaction/ shows. I am asking the question in the same vein: this is my problem.
Related, in a way: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34142/at-what-concentration-is-sodium-bicarbonate-a-sanitizing-solution
I think Hervé This tended to focus on myths that came with their own rationale, such as gnocchi being cooked when they float, or stock having more flavour and clarity if it starts from cold water. It's just not clear here if the baking soda is supposed to be a disinfectant, or preserve the colour, or make them taste better, or... what? I don't think that any of us can say conclusively that "it doesn't do anything", but if we knew what it was supposed to do then that would be a lot easier to debunk (or confirm).
Hervè This was advocating a very broad research programme about what he called "culinary precisions" that's to say specific instructions in recipes (like the one you mentioned about stock). The programme advocated testing the instructions in the light of scientific method to see if they actually worked: some would turn out to be myths, of course. This is not so different from bioprospecting... my grandma's claim was that the soda would disinfect the vegetables. I think it has been more or less disproven. On precisions: http://www.flavourjournal.com/content/2/1/6
From what I can tell it seems like you are asking whether a baking soda solution is a good solution for cleaning fruits and vegetables. The answer to that would be not really, you're wasting good baking soda. Research shows that even purpose made commercial vegetable cleaners were no better than plain water for cleaning vegetables, it's the soaking time and technique used that makes the difference.
The only chemical tested that seems to make and difference is chlorine, which demonstrably reduced contamination on the outside of melons. However, you don't eat melon rinds, I wouldn't wash vegetables or fruit that I was going to eat in a chlorine solution because chlorine is unpleasant stuff and will probably ruin your flavors.
So washing your vegetables in baking soda, vinegar, or baking soda and vinegar is no better than washing them in plain old tap-water. It's better for your flavors that you do not as well. The only use I know of for baking soda in the preparation and cooking of green vegetables is that adding a bit when boiling green vegetables helps preserve their vibrant green flavor by neutralizing the acids that break down the chlorophyll. The trouble is it also turns them to mush, so I never use that method.
thank you! The reference you produced was exactly what I was looking for. In exchange, I will give you not one but TWO uses for baking soda in the preparation of vegetables :) one is to speed up the browning of onions http://blog.khymos.org/2008/09/26/speeding-up-the-maillard-reaction/ (and any other Maillard reaction, really) and the other is to boil beans faster http://www.curiouscook.com/site/2012/07/peeling-fresh-fava-beans.html which also works for those most evil things, dried chickpeas.
I should have said green vegetables in the post, as I knew about the other uses as well. I haven't tried them though, what's your experience?
they really do work. In the case of the onions, it pays to have a light hand with the soda otherwise you get a horrible salty/bitter taste. In my nonscientific experience, a pinch is enough to accelerate a medium sized onion into delicious brownness. I have also tried the chickpeas, and it does make a difference: notice though that dried pulses cooking times are also influenced by the hardness of the water.
An Italian food blogger (a chemist by training) also did the counter-experiment with vinegar: as you would expect, the reaction slows down. You can see the blog entry here http://bressanini-lescienze.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it/2011/05/23/la-cipolla-di-maillard/ even if you don't speak Italian you can check out the picture: http://bressanini-lescienze.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it/files/2011/05/cipollamaillard3.jpg soda top left, vinegar top right, control bottom.
A recent study {1} supports the use of baking soda to wash fruits in order to reduce the presence of pesticides. The study
was summarized by https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-10/acs-abw102017.php (mirror) as follows:
The researchers applied two common pesticides -- the fungicide thiabendazole, which past research has shown can penetrate apple peels, and the insecticide phosmet -- to organic Gala apples. They then washed these apples with three different liquids: tap water, a 1 percent baking soda/water solution, and a U.S.-EPA-approved commercial bleach solution often used on produce. The baking soda solution was the most effective at reducing pesticides. After 12 and 15 minutes, 80 percent of the thiabendazole was removed, and 96 percent of the phosmet was removed, respectively. The different percentages are likely due to thiabendezole's greater absorption into the apple. Mapping images showed that thiabendazole had penetrated up to 80 micrometers deep into the apples; phosmet was detected at a depth of only 20 micrometers. Washing the produce with either plain tap water or the bleach solution for two minutes, per the industry standard, were far less effective.
References:
{1} Yang, Tianxi, Jeffery Doherty, Bin Zhao, Amanda J. Kinchla, John M. Clark, and Lili He. "Effectiveness of Commercial and Homemade Washing Agents in Removing Pesticide Residues on and in Apples." Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry (2017). http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.jafc.7b03118 ; https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=15050243519960633498&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 (the study was funded by the National Institute of Food and Agriculture of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, but is behind paywall, i.e. not accessible by the taxpayers who funded it.)
Everything you've said is correct (so +1) but I wonder how likely it is that the grandmother in the original question considered pesticides when washing
@ChrisH and I took it for granted in my answer :) that was a typical discussion topic in my family. I've just edited the answer to make the the purpose of washing more explicit.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.742460 | 2013-05-28T22:17:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34384",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Chris H",
"Elizabeth Hidalgo",
"Franck Dernoncourt",
"GdD",
"Laird Nelson",
"Megidd",
"Mien",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Skogsv",
"TFD",
"Walter A. Aprile",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10703",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80075",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80076",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80077",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80095",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80108",
"motionpotion",
"rkedge"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
55135 | Is there a difference between poached and steamed chicken?
I'm planning to make chicken sandwiches and was wondering what the difference is when chicken is steamed vs poached. I know the technique for both but was wondering if steaming was meant to leave the chicken more juicy (or vise versa), or are they much the same?
Recipes call for one of the other and I'm curious if I can substitute!
You might be better off asking only your last question "Can you substitute poached and steamed chicken for each other?" Your main question is a matter of opinion and would be considered off-topic. I recommend you consider redrafting your question.
I've gone ahead and edited. I don't think it really changes the meaning substantially, and now there's really no reason to close it.
I would say its a matter of personal preference. One method or the other doesn't mean your chicken will turn out jucier, either of those methods can dry chicken out if not done properly. For your application, just cook the chicken how ever you enjoy it the best whether its those methods listed, grilling, frying, etc. As long as you cook the meat properly it will stay juicy and tender.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.743175 | 2015-02-25T23:51:27 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55135",
"authors": [
"Anonymous",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Fredrik Mowinckel",
"Jessie Dick",
"Shannon Turner",
"Sharon Ruiz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130986",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130987",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130997",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131006",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131007",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"joanne rowland"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
41906 | How to choose non-alcoholic beverage pairings for filets mignon?
I'm serving filets mignon with goat cheese and balsamic reduction to guests who don't drink alcohol. I'd like to serve a beverage with our meal that complements the steaks as nicely as red wine would (even if not in the same way). I'd also like it to be a sort of festive beverage. I was thinking along the lines of sparkling cider, but that will be way too light and sweet for the heavy meal.
There's a long tradition in the culinary world of pairing wines with meals or specific types of food, and the same goes for beer. What do I need to keep in mind when looking for a beverage that can hold its own against my filets? Are there any general rules for non-alcholic pairing, like there are for wine pairing, that would apply in this case?
This is a matter of taste and opinion which is difficult to give a factual answer on. You have enough rep to drop by [chat] where the rules are more relaxed; people might have some ideas.
Noted, @saj. I was hoping for some guidelines for choosing these pairings in general more than specific suggestions - I'll edit to clarify, but if it's still too opiniony I'll indeed drop by chat.
I think we can leave it open for now and see if somebody comes up with guidelines. If it starts attracting specific suggestions only, we can still close. I am protecting as preemptive measure against new users who don't know about our "no list of opinions" rules.
@AbbyT.Miller can we say you are looking for a non-alcoholic red wine substitue? I personally take seafood + vegetables and no meat. For drinks always preferred Bundaberg Ginger Beer ;) lemonades, non-alcoholic cocktails, Sparklings. And there are many ways to make some of those at home or at your own restaurant with a bit of experiments. Let me know if you are still interested in few pairings...for fish based dishes.
I really want this question to work. Given that well-asked subjective questions are okay, and that it's possible to pare down an overly broad poll question into something with few answers, I think it can be done, and that our site will be better if we can manage it.
Good answers to this question should focus on attributes that make drinks pair well with steaks - and of course it's fine to provide examples of drinks with those attributes.
@Jefromi Feel free to make or propose edits to this question so it can be a better example of a successful subjective question. Making this work on the site is more important to me than my original wording.
@AbbyT.Miller I actually think it's pretty good already! But I'll see if I can tweak any. I may try to focus it down to steak pairings, since the general non-alcoholic beverage pairing question is really broad. ("How do I pair wines?" might not get good answers either.) See also: http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1872/how-can-we-make-pairing-questions-work
I have had success pairing steaks with freshly pressed apple juice, as the tartness helps offset the richness and fats of the meat and cheese. An apple/raspberry mix works beautifully, too, as does apple and blackcurrant.
While ginger beer and ginger ale may work, you run the risk of the drink taking over the show, which you don't want.
Two more pairings that work well: Apple and cherry juice is beautiful. Blueberry juice (100% blueberries, with no additives) have much the same mouthfeel as a good red wine, while giving flavor notes all of its own.
It seems that you are trying to offer drinks for the meal mentioned in the question, as opposed to general guidelines on how to pair. If users keep understanding the question that way, we will have to close.
@rumtscho I think there's some of both here. He mentions that acidity balances with the fat and richness (one guideline). He mentions the mouthfeel of blueberries (maybe tannins?). And I suspect there's something left to be said about why some fruits are good - perhaps they're flavors that are commonly in red wine that's good for steaks?
@jefromi OK, let's see if the new spin you put on the question can end up as being "good subjective". Now that the question is more focused on steaks, I decided to revert my downvote.
My intention was, as Jefromi notes, to both give specific suggestions as well as advice with regards to what I have found to work.
If your guests drink non-alcoholic drinks then there are non-alcoholic wines available. A quick google search tells me Total Wine sells them. That way you can still do the normal/conventional wine/food pairing, but in a non-alcoholic version.
Another idea (based on your sparkling juice idea) would be to use soda water and juice. That way you can control the sweetness and pair the fruit to the meal (ie. berries/dark fruit to red meat, peach/light fruit to fish/chicken). You'll still get a different (unusual) drink that will also compliment the meal.
As your question aims to be as broad as possible, there isn't one right answer of course, but as a general guideline:
It's always good to put some of the beverage accompanying the dish, in the dish.
You could make an adapted version of a red wine sauce, based on a soft drink instead of wine/port. Let it reduce a bit, so it becomes thicker and stickier. You could read this to have some idea what I'm talking about.
I think you could also do this with fruit juices, for instance orange juice in a sauce for duck or chicken, although it is possible that the orange taste is too strong, if you serve it with OJ as a beverage.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.743331 | 2014-02-10T03:24:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41906",
"authors": [
"Alan k Sujo",
"Andrey",
"Cascabel",
"Casey Milne",
"DFW Virtual Spam",
"Dallas Stamped Concrete Pros",
"Deborah ",
"JJ Des Moines Spam and Junk",
"Kerry Duncan",
"MNJ Medical Transpam",
"Mr. Joe",
"Prodie",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"Tie",
"bolbteppa",
"bonCodigo",
"hairboat",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97788",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97789",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97813",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97884",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97900",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97903",
"iPro assistencia spam",
"razumny",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
56447 | What is a clove of garlic?
If a recipe calls for 8 whole cloves of garlic, does it mean 8 whole garlics? Or does it mean 8 of the wedges?
http://www.mmmgarlic.com/clove-garlic-vs-head-garlic/
Garlic on English Language & Usage.
This question just naturally begs for a photo in the best answer.
When the recipe says "whole", it may mean to keep each clove whole i.e. not sliced or chopped or minced.
Each "wedge" is a clove. The entire garlic is called a "head".
The heads are also sometimes called bulbs.
And, let's face it, they are not all that standard, so a degree of common sense and how much you like garlic need to be applied to recipes that are written this way, or the results will be very different with large or small cloves...
It may be easier to remember this distinction if you realize that the word "clove", as applied to a "wedge" of garlic, comes from the same root as the verb "cleave" (and the corresponding participle "cloven", meaning "split" or "divided").
It's very important not to mix this up! While at college one of my flatmates made a spag bol using 2 bulbs rather than 2 wedges. Not to be repeated :)
@IlmariKaronen but of course not from the same root as the verb "cleave" meaning "cling, adhere or stick fast to something" ...
@Fetchezlavache I had to search for "spag bol" to find that it meant "spaghetti bolognese." Now the mental picture is complete. :)
Apologies mskfisher :)
Related: if you're using it for a recipe, a clove of garlic produces about a teaspoon of minced garlic.
@Fetchezlavache, a friend of mine made that mistake for at least a year and was amazed that his friends never came for dinner twice. (He turned into a great cook later.)
For easy reference , I am posting the picture directly here.
Reference : LINK
The strings also come one bulb wide in a plastic mesh.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.743789 | 2015-04-06T21:22:21 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56447",
"authors": [
"AakashM",
"Bridget Dawn Wickles",
"DarenW",
"Dawood ibn Kareem",
"Ecnerwal",
"Fetchez la vache",
"Funeral Homes East Flatbush",
"Funeral Service Canarsie",
"Ilmari Karonen",
"Jodi Shahan",
"Joe",
"TRiG",
"Tracy Dixon",
"Vince Bowdren",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Wendy McMylor",
"Willeke",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10730",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134176",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24698",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5982",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81092",
"jvriesem",
"mskfisher"
],
"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
} |
54660 | What's wrong with my oven?
I have a Kenmore stove, model number 911-735-9180. My burners are working fine (they click to turn on) but my oven does not work. I push the bake setting and it does not heat up although my broiler works fine.
Is it a stove you're familiar with that has worked in the past? Just wondering if it's a question on using the stove or if it's developed a fault.
Gas or electric?
If was working before... call Sears?
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is a technical question about an appliance, not anything to do with cooking as per our guidelines.
@Cindy Kitchen equipment is the second bullet in the help center: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic I do think questions like this will likely get better answers on http://diy.stackexchange.com/ though, since those folks often have more experience with major appliance repair than us.
Thanks @Jefromi. I was thinking that use or advice would be more in our scope than repair.
In the world of home appliances, a cooktop with an oven in a common cabinet is called a "Range".
This is a Kenmore Gas Range model # 911.7359180
Sears model #'s usually don't have - dashes/hyphens in them.
There are only 3 or 4 parts that can fail.
Basic Gas Oven Troubleshooting:
Check the power, needs to be plugged in, standard 110vac outlet.
Check the Igniter, it's the most common oven part that fails. Does it glow?
NO = replace igniter $25
YES = can you smell/detect gas from oven pilot or burner? = replace igniter.
YES = but no gas smelled/detected. = bad gas valve.
May have 1 valve, combination safety & control OR
2 valves, separate safety & control.
Gas Valves start around $100.
CAUTION! If you are unsure of what you are doing, Hire a Professional!
You and yours could die if repaired improperly.
www.appliancerepair.net has a good general online guide covering all types of appliances. Ovens are at: http://www.appliancerepair.net/oven-repair-6.html
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! A helpful user has fixed up the formatting in your answer. Your signature was also removed - your username's at the bottom anyway, and while we're fine with you advertising on your profile page, we'd rather the answers stick to answering the question.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.744013 | 2015-02-12T20:41:49 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54660",
"authors": [
"Alan Hinett",
"Cascabel",
"Cindy",
"Doug",
"Kay MacDonald",
"Leslie Alger",
"Malloy Law",
"Margo Marques",
"PeterJ",
"Sharon Cruce",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128696",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128697",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129161",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"laurence Reid",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
55881 | How do I quickly get okra to stop being goopy?
It's irritating to cook any recipe with okra. I love okra, but it always takes a long time to burn off all the goopy stuff. Is there a way to get rid of it more quickly so my okra will be ready sooner?
If the question is about okra, see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/35879/67
@CoDeMurDeRer Are you trying to reduce the sliminess in general? Or with a specific cooking method? Your original question kind of suggested you meant specifically pan frying or something like that, while the question Joe linked to is more about soup/stew things.
The best way that I have found to cook okra, and prevent it from being slimy is to avoid cooking it with moisture.
If you dredge it in seasoned cornmeal, then pan fry it, you get none of the slime that is common to okra.
I haven't done any tests to verify if a quick fry would then prevent it from developing slime if you then add liquid, however. If you're trying to add the okra to a soup or a sauce, you might still need to spend some time cooking it to break down the slime.
When I cook an okra, I've found that adding tomato suppresses the slime. For about one or two cups of okra, I add one small ripe tomato. I do that whenever I cook an okra curry.
Deep frying okra in some kind of batter also works well and is delicious.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.744222 | 2015-03-20T09:20:39 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55881",
"authors": [
"Anita Reyes",
"Cascabel",
"David Woollons",
"Elaine Prescott",
"Joe",
"Kevin Smallman",
"Marian Madden",
"Nathan Robb",
"Richard Cole",
"Virginio Rivera",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132806",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132807",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132894",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133748",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"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
} |
26039 | Why do we boil whole spices when making masala tea?
I've heard that people prepare chai masala by boiling whole spices instead of using a ground masala spice mix. After preparing it with whole spices, I doubt that 10 minutes of boiling will release much of the cinnamon flavor. It seems wasteful to strain out and discard the whole spices when they should have plenty of flavor left.
Wouldn't it be better if we used freshly ground spices?
Whole spices are suggested because they retain their flavor much longer, and thus tend to have richer flavors, even if they are not fully extracted. The reason for this is that they have less surface area, so volatile flavor oils do not evaporate away as easily, and other parts of the taste do not get oxidized. They are also easier to strain out of the mixture, so they don't give an overpowering flavor or leave a gritty residue.
So, yes, you are wasting some of the flavor, but in exchange you get more of the subtle flavor compounds that ground spices tend to lose. Note also that steeping in milk will extract considerably more of the flavor from whole spices, because a lot of the smell and taste comes from chemicals that are more soluble in fat than water.
As another option, instant chai blends dissolve completely, but tend to lack the more subtle flavors of the spices.
In other words, if I want stronger flavour I can use ground spices?
Hey you raise a very interesting point on steeping in milk. I always thought it was terrible etiquette to add milk first while the tea bag is still in the cup, but now there's actually a reason to do the milk first! Thank you, I'll try it and give it a go.
@lamwaiman1988: Yes and no. I'm no expert but I'm guessing over-extraction of the spices (like with coffee beans) could be an issue (so potentially bitter flavours maybe?), as well as harder to strain. You could also leave the whole spices in a bit longer. But, best solution is to try all combinations and see. Trial and error best for personal preferences.
To avoid wasting whole spices (especially cinnamon), you can reuse it for couple of times still there will be more flavor in it.
You can use ground spices if you want to. These recipes are traditional, and the people who brew them first most likely didn't consider wasting a clove or two a problem; they probably had whole bushes of the stuff growing in their back gardens.
The advantages of the whole spices are (beside the fact that they store better, which BobMcGee already mentioned) that you don't risk a cloudy tea (powder is hard to strain) and that you don't have to spend time grinding them. If you care more about using up less spices per cup than about storage and/or efficiency, and don't mind some powder left in the cup, it is OK to use ground mix. I would try using a paper tea filter for it, as it is likely to hold the powder better than a mesh strainer.
I personally use both whole spices and ground spices for making chai. It all depends on what spices you are using and the quantity. I always crush cardamom for chai to bring out the flavor. I crush or grate ginger. cinnamon and clove can be used as whole just for convenience. But imagine making tea for 10 to 20, I will just add whole spices for time saving.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.744385 | 2012-09-07T09:08:08 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/26039",
"authors": [
"J. Mwemezi",
"Luisa Adelia",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64595",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93505",
"keana delmotte",
"lamwaiman1988",
"redfox05"
],
"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
} |
34430 | Why would a pregnant woman not be able to eat soft cheeses?
I just finished preparing a wedding today and one of the specs was that the bride (who is pregnant) was unable to eat certain types of cheese. Goat cheese, Brie, and Camembert were all no-no's but hard cheeses were OK.
I should know why and I suppose I could google the info also but I'd prefer to put it to the floor. Why could this lady only eat certain types of cheese? I'm assuming the fact that she is pregnant holds a clue.
There's actually a perfectly sensible answer here that has nothing to do with pregnancy: hard cheeses have less lactose, so someone lactose intolerant might not be able to eat any of the soft fresh ones, but be fine with hard aged ones.
Also, I'm not entirely sure I agree that this is off topic - asking about dietary restrictions helps understand them and plan meals for people. (Obviously the best answer is always just to ask the person, but sometimes like in this case that's not practical.) But I don't think I want to open any cans of worms on meta just now.
In light of the reopen vote, I just want to state why I voted to close. The main reason I voted to close is because how the question is framed. To me it seems as though the question can't be answered without speculation. There's no specific reason why one pregnant woman is unable to eat soft cheeses while another can. It could be personal preference, it could be just that woman's specific intolerance. Whatever the case, this question can't be reasonably answered in its current form without perhaps some input from the specific woman involved which of course makes this a bit too localized.
@Jay If the question is on-topic and answerable if slightly re-framed, then shouldn't it be edited to do the necessary re-framing rather than closed?
@Jay,my inicial question was why can someone eat hard cheese and not soft,the fact that the person invloved was pregnant I thought might have something to do with it but what I was looking for was info on perhaps the difference between the two cheeses, perhaps one has a higher content of ??? and is therefor not good for some people who react badly to that component or ingredient, to have closed the question is one thing, to rename the question to as is done above is misleading and wasnt my inicial question
FWIW, you might find this question helpful: http://parenting.stackexchange.com/questions/5245/what-cheeses-are-ok-for-pregnant-women-to-eat
Everybody has different rules for what pregnant women should and should not eat, and you definitely should clarify with the individual.
Usually the concern with cheese is over bacteria. The typical rule about cheese is to avoid softer, raw milk cheeses for fear of listeria, which can affect the baby.
There is more information here: http://americanpregnancy.org/pregnancycomplications/listeria.html
Thanks for both your comments and answers and it would apear that may be more than one reason for this persons intolerence to soft cheese, I can go back to work today now and discuss and explain to our staff the reasons why this person was unable to eat this food.
On the topic being closed,I was quite surprised, I was under the impression that this forum was for food related matters that would enhance our shared knowledege of the business we love, as a chef with 25 years experience recipies is something I dont need, but the knowledge and experience of other interested people like you about important food related issues I am not fully upto scratch with would be very benificial!I will take into consideration my wording of the question however the next time
@chefsambob - This is a potential food safety concern. I have brought up the question for further discussion here. I also listed some further links there that may give you some helpful information.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.744652 | 2013-05-31T18:24:10 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34430",
"authors": [
"Andrew Keeton",
"Angelea Brown",
"Athanasius",
"Atomica",
"BWinCA",
"Cascabel",
"Jay",
"Shog9",
"SwedishChef",
"Theodore Murdock",
"chefsambob",
"egroj97",
"gusmally supports Monica",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18506",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9057",
"saipawan",
"scrozier"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
79142 | Haggis - taste difference between traditional and artificial casing
Haggis, though considered purely Scottish could possibly have originated in the North of England. It appears that the earliest known recipe/method is from the 15th century. Just after a hunt, the offal was mixed with herbs, placed in the stomach lining of the (now dis-embowled) animal and cooked (a way of using parts of the animal that would otherwise have gone bad before being transported back to the manor house).
However it is now prepared all over the world and consumed on all days of the year, not just Burns Night. Does using an artificial casing instead of an animals stomach change the flavor in any way? Is it necessary to obtain the stomach lining to match the taste of a traditional/authentic haggis?
So, this is a great question, but I'm not sure if "traditional/authentic" is what you really mean to ask about? Obviously it's not traditional if it's an artificial casing, but that doesn't mean there's a difference in flavor or anything else besides authenticity.
This question was edited by @Jefromi, however I disagree with the edit. What was wrong with my original question? Or am I missing the point here - should I take this to meta?
My first comment explains the issue I was trying to address. And like I said, the question is good, just that one bit was iffy, inviting opinions about what is and isn't authentic rather than the actual question of the effect of the casing. Feel free to ask on meta (or in [chat] since it's pretty simple) if you still don't agree.
I should add that I'm also happy for you to address that same issue in a different way! I'm not trying to dictate exact wording.
I'm positive the artificial casing changes the flavor because it tastes differently from natural casing. Besides, the stomach is bigger than most artificial casings.
So, it affects the flavor (not something I would worry about too much) and the size and therefore the cooking time.
Ah, hadn't thought about the cooking time - thank you for that piece of insight.
@dougal3.0.0 I'm not sure if overcooking it would be a problem.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.745084 | 2017-03-15T05:48:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79142",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Cascabel",
"dougal 5.0.0",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
79185 | Balancing Deep-Fried Tarantula Spider with chili sauce
Deep-Fried Tarantula Spider, is not as disgusting as it first sounds, in fact they have become quite a culinary sensation. I have been thinking about a chili dip, but I do not want the chili to over-power the spider, what type of chili pepper should I use in my chili-sauce?
Doug, no food pairing questions please, at least not on the main site. You could discuss the topic over in chat, of course, but I'm not sure how many users are online at this moment
The humour in making a kind of outlandish question stand rejected on such a banal reason ... admit it, it is tempting :)
If I should not ask about pairing, why is there a pairing tag?
Because the tag description reads: "Food pairing questions, but only very specific ones. Do not use for "what goes with X?" (off-topic)." Find more at the info page for "pairing".
I have changed the question, taken off the pairing tag as well, so hope that helps.
Just been edited by @Jefromi, again, basically changing what I asked to what he wants to be asked.
This isn't really a pairing question anymore, though I'm afraid it may not be a very interesting question; you can avoid overpowering it with any kind of chile as long as you use an appropriate quantity.
I changed your title from the original general one to match the body of the question, which I can only assume is what you want to ask. If you don't think it's a good summary, I apologize, and by all means edit it more. But please don't leave your title asking the off topic pairing question - that's part of why four users have already voted to close.
If the criteria for being put on hold are as above then I am surprised any questions get through.
Well, my edit was all about trying to help you avoid closure for the reasons Stephie pointed out, but it seems the community doesn't think it was enough to avoid all issues. (And we have plenty of questions that don't get closed - it's just that they're more in the vein of "how do I do X?" than "what should I eat?")
Whatever you like the flavor of. Chiles don't vary strongly enough in flavor (as opposed to heat) to really have to worry about some overwhelming it and some not, so you really can just use what you like. If you don't want it too overpowering, use a small enough quantity that it isn't - make a sauce, not a pure chile paste.
If you mean specifically keeping the heat under control, be sure to thoroughly remove the seeds and membrane, and if you're especially sensitive to heat, start with a not too hot pepper.
(The question of what goes best with it is really down to personal preference, so I won't attempt to answer in that regard - it'd be off-topic anyway.)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.745262 | 2017-03-16T10:38:09 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79185",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Stephie",
"dougal 5.0.0",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53089",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
63524 | How to pick good clementines and mandarins at the supermarket?
Sometimes I get some "dry" clementines with barely any juice, and sometimes they are juicy but bitter. How do I make sure they're juicy and not bitter?
Bitterness can come from underripe fruit (although a lot of times they'll just be sour or less flavorful), lack of juice is usually something that has been stored too long and dried out.
A ripe mandarin or clementine should be firm but not hard with a good, bright citrusy fragrance. Rubbing your finger on the skin should impart some citrus oil (unless it's waxed of coated...) I think usually the smell is the best guideline for flavor, although I have still sometimes had a fruit that smells great and tastes pretty bland. But I think usually if they are really fragrant that's a good sign.
The skin should be somewhat loose-feeling. If the skin is tight on the fruit, it is either not ripe or it is drying out (or it's not a mandarin or clementine).
Don't squeeze the fruit and bruise it, but when you pick it up, there should be a bit of give in the skin. Mandarins and clementines have very thin skins, but these still have the sort of spongy texture of other citrus. Because they are thin, they dry out quickly. It's hard to describe what drying citrus skin feels like - progressively rougher and harder than fresh, eventually turning into a crisp and brittle almost stony layer. I'm sure you would notice far before it gets to that stage, but it's not going to happen overnight. (But the fruit shouldn't be squishy or have soft spots, that is generally spoilage or damage.)
It should not feel dry and hard. A juicy citrus will feel heavy for its size, although for really small ones that's kind of hard to judge.
One more thing to note, though, is that most of the time, the whole batch of whatever type of fruit at the grocery store or at a particular market stall at any given time will very likely come from the same source. While there might be some better and some worse ones, overall they'll probably be pretty similar, unless you can clearly see that some are older or from a different source.
If you're not sure about a batch, just buy a couple and then get more after you see that they're good. (And if you find some great ones, buy a lot and freeze some for juice for later.)
The most reliable indicator of whether citrus fruits are sweet/bitter is their smell. Ripe citrus fruits have a distinct sweet odor mixed in with the citrus flavor.
Hold the fruit some distance away and get a feel for the flavor. The rind of citrus fruits is almost always bitter, so if you hold the fruit too close, all you would smell is the bitterness.
Another aspect is the skin of the fruit. It should be moist and somewhat yielding. Note that clementines bruise very easily because of their thin skins, so be sure not to press too hard. If the fruit feels hard or stretched, it has probably dried out.
Also, most of the weight of a citrus fruit comes from water, so a dried out fruit will feel much lighter than a good one. Dried fruits also tend to "rattle" a bit when you move them around, so make sure that there are no hollows or depressions under the skin.
And of course, there's always the color :). Green citrus is almost always bitter. Try to pick one that is yellow, orange or the like (depending on the type). Dried fruits also tend to go yellow though, so keep an eye out for that.
I also wanted to add that the bitterness seems to also come out as the fruit begins to turn and perish. This seems to be the difference between a mandarine/clementines and an orange... Oranges give off a distinctive smell as the turn, however a mandarine will only really seem "off" on the outside a considerable time after it has turned.
Note that they are two different fruits. A good mandarine is juicy, but not especially sweet. A good clementine is sweet, but drier than a mandarine.
There certainly are bad mandarines, which are dry in addition to being unsweet (I find them more sour than bitter), and bad clementines, which are not really sweet in addition to not being especially juicy. There are good specimens of each fruit, of course, and it is worth trying to find them. But they are good within the range typical for their fruit type. If this is what you were interested in, see the other answers here, they're pretty good.
But if you think of all mandarines and clementines you've ever had, let's call them "maclems", and insist on finding a fruit which is as sweet as the sweetest maclem, and as juicy as the juiciest maclem, this fruit does not exist.
Colour is not a true indication of ripening. Smell is a better indication by sounds of it. Mine a falling of tree half green. Other years have not. Might be due to lighter rains maybe.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.745492 | 2015-11-16T20:22:49 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63524",
"authors": [
"Adrian Hum",
"Anne Jackson-Wild",
"Elise Halford",
"GMI Brokerage Corp",
"Kyle Santos",
"Moo Moo",
"Rahimdm Rahimdm",
"Rita Leader",
"Sonot Goode",
"Tim Acton",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151253",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37369"
],
"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
} |
82043 | How much gelatine to use instead of xanthan or guar gum in ice cream
I bought a Cuisinart ICE-30BC ice cream machine and I am experimenting with it. Some ice cream and gelato recipes ask for xanthan gum.
I can't find any of it in my county, but I read that I can replace it with powdered gelatin.
My question is, if a recipe calls for 3g of xanthan gum, how much gelatin should I use to replace it?? Is it less or more?
I don't believe that gelatin is a suitable thickener for use in ice cream/sorbet, so unless the place you read that has some data on use in frozen confections, I'd suggest using something else, or just skipping it (or using recipes that don't ask for it, which is probably a better way to skip it, as those will have some other thickening in play, such as a custard.)
Exactly I will skip the gelatin part, but I think the ice crystals came from the skin of fruits because I didn't strain them at all. I just blended them and throw them into the machine
what country are you from? happy to send over some xanthan gum!
I am from Lebanon
Gelatin is fine for a stabilizer it was used a lot in ice cream back in the day. Not sure the percentage to use but using a higher bloom strength could be recommend 200-250. Maybe start off using .005 of mix for a starting point and -+ after that for what you want.
This link suggests to use 1/2 amount of xanthan gum for 1 amount of gelatine
so, 1/2 xanthan = 1 gelatine
so, for 3g xanthan you should be using 6g of gelatine
Sorry, this link is for something entirely different. It addresses the substitution the other way round, and it is not meant for ice cream. I hate it to place a downvote on somebody's first participation on our site, and on a personal level, I apologize for that. But the advice you give is factually wrong, and it is quite likely that it will fail.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.745882 | 2017-05-28T08:32:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82043",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"alim1990",
"canardgras",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54211",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
85029 | How do I avoid duck ending up tough?
I bought a small wild duck and I don't know how to cook it. I read that duck meat may be tough and hard to keep the meat tender after cooking. How do I avoid this? Should I debone it, or separate the breasts?
Any answers you get will be opinion based. For that reason, I'm voting to close. I suggest you find a recipe that appeals to you and try it. If you have problems with it, perhaps then we can help. And while there are many recipes for duck with orange sauce, there are just as many without orange sauce.
I think their might be something to be redeemed with this question. There are some general technique differences, between cooking a chicken vs cooking a duck. If you say, I have a small duck, and I'd like to roast it. I have heard that it is easy to cook it to be too tough. How can I best ensure tender meat? That seems reasonable enough to answer to me? shrug Even, on a more general note, why is duck harder to cook? would provide for some solid, non opinion based answers.
That said I might close it as a duplicate... See these related questions:https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50312/is-roasting-a-whole-duck-something-a-beginner-should-avioid https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49994/removing-breast-before-roasting-rest-of-duck
also: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11094/differences-between-cooking-a-whole-duck-vs-chicken-or-turkey
@talon8 I changed the question title.
I removed your question about orange sauce, and tried to focus on a single, answerable question. I left the part about the breast in, though as talon8 pointed out, it seems like a duplicate, unless there's something else you meant by it?
Possible duplicate of Differences between cooking a whole duck vs chicken or turkey?
If tenderness is what you are after, cook it sous vide to an internal temperature around 130degF for about 3 hours. It should be easier than roasting it to keep the meat tender.
Cooking meat in a temperature controlled water bath being one of the simplest ways to cook meat without accidentally overcooking anything.
You can fine many sous vide duck recipes online.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.746060 | 2017-10-16T10:43:38 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85029",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Cindy",
"alim1990",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54211",
"moscafj",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
79298 | My éclair (pâte à choux) was doughy
I followed the Pierre Hermé éclairs recipe:
60mL water
75mL whole milk
3g salt
3g caster sugar
56g butter
75g flour
A little over 2 eggs
I did the recipe and it called for 45 minutes of baking at 185°C.
I baked them for 40 minutes and left them in the oven for an extra 10 minutes before removing them.
The result was that the exterior was terrific, but the inside was too doughy and I couldn't fill it with crème pâtissière (custard).
Is skipping the 5 last minutes of baking the reason it failed?
Welcome to the site. "Doughy" as in uncooked, or something else?
it should be hollow from the inside right ? It wasn't. So when I fill it with cream, it pop to outside instead of filling the Chou.
Do you have a link to the recipe? How did you prepare it… exactly?
I suspect there's something wrong with the method, not with the oven
I got it from his book, pierre herme pastries.
I would suggest the last five minutes of cooking were important to help 'dry' out the interior. Just try it again and see what happens. Good luck!
It is not clear from the question itself, but from the "should be hollow in the inside right" comment it looks like your eclairs simply didn't rise. I am putting it on hold as a duplicate, whose answer is a very good troubleshooting list for eclairs. If I misunderstood you and you meant that they rose but something else happened on the inside, please edit in a more detailed explanation, and flag for reopening.
@rumtscho they rised properly but they still didn't dry enough from the inside
@droidnation OK, then we should reopen. How would you describe the interior? Was there no big hole to fill, despite them being larger than before baking? Or did the hole exist, but its walls were creamy instead of set? Something else?
They puffed normally to the desired size, but still not have big hole inside. Per example if I sliced them into half to put the cream, it will be like cutting a piece of bread
Even if it's not a duplicate, you should check out this question cc @rumtscho
Leaving it in a hot oven an extra five minutes would, I think, counterbalance the lesser heat from having the oven shut off the last five minutes of baking. A dish left in a hot oven does continue cooking in the residual heat, and I would not expect an oven to cool down enough so quickly (especially if unopened) to leave it under-cooked after forty minutes of baking. I would guess there was some other problem, not the baking time.
Yeah. I think I didn't cook the dough enough after adding flour, when it forms the ball I remove from the heat and start adding the eggs
I'm fairly certain that the last 5 minutes of baking would not have opened the texture of the interior.
Pâte à Choux is supposed to be very soft inside. It has ribbons of eggy material running through it. That is why cream puffs are usually scooped out before filling.
The material is very tender so, with eclairs, injecting the filling pushes it out of the way and the shell is firm enough to hold in the pressure.
When the dough is baking the steam inflates the abundant egg proteins in big pockets. This happens in the first part of baking and the rest of the time is setting the proteins and drying the exterior. If your interior truly has as tight a crumb as bread, this would have happened at the beginning of baking and the 5 minutes at the end would not affect it.
Pâte à Choux is very easy to make. I wonder about your process.
Recipes always consist of:
Combine and scald, or boil, milk, butter, sugar, and salt,
Add flour all at once and stir until it forms a cohesive ball that pulls away
from the sides of the bowl,
beat in the eggs one at a time.
I would make sure that your milk mixture was properly scalded and that your flour was mixed in well enough before adding the eggs. The flour should have gluten activated and its starches gelatinized before you add the eggs.
If you haven't been already, you might try using bread flour and see if the problem is lessened.
Thanks. Overall, testing is made key ingredient for success. It was the first time and I will repeat again.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.746488 | 2017-03-21T06:50:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79298",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Megha",
"alim1990",
"dougal 5.0.0",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
71816 | How do you make a cake with soft fillings baked inside?
I've seen cakes baked with soft fillings inside like a cream cheese of chocolate buttercream type filling that were obviously baked in there, rather than baking and filling when cold. What are the general techniques for doing this, and do they work with all kinds of fillings?
Can you give us some examples of the cakes you've seen like this? There may be many different methods so it may be very difficult to answer this question completely.
I've seen filled cupcakes (cut a cone out, then fill) -- typically cakes are torted and fillings spread between the layers. I've also seen cake pans that end up forming an area that can be filled, such as Wilton's 'Tasty-Fill' line.
Also Molten Lava Cakes
I think some folks are worried this was going to requires a book worth of cake-making advice to answer, so I tried to edit a bit to ask for the general techniques, and then once you see what the options are, you can ask a follow-up question about one of them if you want more detail!
Why do you believe the fillings were "obviously baked in there, rather than baking and filling when cold"? A buttercream, for example, simply cannot be baked - you'll end up with melted sweetened fat, not buttercream. On the other hand, you can do a lot of things with the suitable application of a piping bag. So, Occam's Razor and all that, if I meet a cupcake with a buttercream filling, I conclude that the buttercream was added after baking, rather than positing a strange buttercream-like substance that doesn't melt.
@Marti that doesn't mean it's not possible... many cakes (particularly bundt cakes) have fillings that are baked inside - Tunnel of Fudge, for example.
The answer is the easiest one: get a cupcake corer. A quick search on that term on Amazon should lead you right to it. I have two, and they make a complicated taste incredibly simple.
I think Marti and Catija are both right there: the OP might well have seen cakes that were (skillfully) filled afterwards and would benefit from asking about filling without messing things up, but it's also interesting to ask about what you can actually bake inside of a cake.
I've seen muffins with like a cream cheese inside or banana bread with cream cheese inside which look like they've been baked with cake mixture and then topped with cream cheese and then topped cake mixture. Wondering what else you can use instead of cream cheese and bake in?
I have a few recipes that are made like that, and the general technique is:
1) Fill the cake tin with half of the batter you would use for a cake;
2) Spoon or pipe the required quantity of filling;
3) Fill the tin with the rest of the batter;
4) PROFIT!
It doesn't work with all fillings, considering that you need to have a filling that is heat resistant (buttercream is a no-no) and that doesn't expand when heated (nothing too airy).
The recipes I have call for brigadeiro (which is a kind of chocolate fudge made with condensed milk, powdered cocoa and butter, previously cooked), dulce de leche, fruit jam and one of them uses a mix of cream cheese, sugar and Bailey's, and all of them work very well.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.746855 | 2016-08-01T19:30:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71816",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Cate",
"Catija",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Marti",
"Shalryn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48462",
"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
} |
79070 | Can fresh basil cause tomato sauce spoilage?
I added fresh basil to tomato sauce once it was bottled, just before sealing. Never done this before and I lost the whole batch within 2 weeks. Can fresh basil cause fermentation to continue? Should the basil have been cooked into the sauce before bottling?
Are you sealing with a pressure canner, or just a boiling water bath? And if the latter, are you adding sufficient acid (e.g. as described here)?
Or is it even open-kettle?
Yes. The cooking sterilizes the sauce, but adding uncooked basil afterwards has contaminated the sauce again with germs.
might replace with: pretty much certainly. And a worrisome lack insight on safe canning practices... Good thing they went bad in an obvious way, otherwise they might have killed someone.
@Ecnerwal True. I've edited accordingly.
Dry herbs and spices in canning are generally safe to play around with and change up. FRESH herbs on the other hand are not. Fresh herbs are considered low acid ingredients and will affect the acid level in whatever is being canned.
Without knowing more about how you canned the sauce, no one can say if it was or was-not ONLY the fault of the fresh herbs. They certainly played a part, however there could have also been other factors at play. Some of these may have been:
Poor acid levels (did you acidify correctly?)
Improper processing time or method
Improper headspace in the jars
A recipe that was not suitable/safe for canning
The acidification and/or recipe used and the possibility of improper processing are generally the main culprits when an entire batch goes off.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.747109 | 2017-03-12T06:33:34 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79070",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Ecnerwal",
"henning no longer feeds AI",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51242",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
66032 | What is "au sec"?
I am looking at making a variation of Alain Passard's egg, the Farm Egg with Corriander. The instructions are somewhat clear, with the key exception being the phrase "reduce until au sec". With a little googling, I can see that means "nearly dry", and in context, I would guess that means that there's very little of the liquid (water, lemon zest, vinegar) left.
So, what is the best way to reduce? High or low temperature? Whisk / stir?
Thanks for any advice!
How is lemon zest a reducible liquid?
I would read that to mean reducing to the point of it being syrupy. You can go with moderate heat until you sense it thickening, then you probably should turn it down to be very careful not to burn it. It's the kind of thing that will seem a lot easier the second time you do it with the same recipe.
Use your smallest saucepan.
You probably won't need a whisk, but keep one handy just in case. A wooden spoon is probably your best implement.
If at any point you feel like it's getting away from you (getting lumpy or otherwise weird), remove it from the heat and whisk it a bit.
Usually recipes will say to reduce by half or two thirds, or it will say until you have a certain amount left. Since this one doesn't, go with your gut. You're done when it has thickened and will nicely flavor a pint of crème fraîche without making it watery.
That term is used in recipes for Beurre Blanc; look at this recipe from Epicurious. It's the same idea.
Let us know how it goes. It's an interesting question.
No need to use a small sauce pan and waste lots of time. Nothing can burn, it is water and vinegar. Nothing to whisk either.
It's juice and vinegar. It most certainly can burn, and do it quickly. Someone familiar with the technique need not hover over it, but I got the impression from the question that reducing to syrup is not something the OP has much experience doing.
It will burn when there is absolutely no water left anymore. when reducing to one third or so, nothing can burn. You have to reduce to nothing AND stay heating up to burn this. I am sure the OP can see that there is nothing left in the pan and stopped before that.
You are correct, Jolenealaska; OP does not have much experience with reducing to a syrup. :)
I didn't forget about you! I just got to making this recipe today, and really, everything went very well. I was mindful and took my time; I don't know if I got it as reduced as the recipe was aiming for, but the end product came out great, and is delicious.
You are reducing water with peel and vinegar and juice, so nothing can coagulate or curdle, and you can make it easily and quickly.
Use a big pan with a lot of evaporating surface over high heat and stir constantly until you have just a little bit left, you are only doing this to concentrate the taste and not to thin out the cream too much.
You wont get more taste out of lemon peel by boiling it a long time. If anything, it is likely to make them bitter.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.747283 | 2016-01-30T04:48:35 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66032",
"authors": [
"Ayesha Saeed",
"Colin Lockhart",
"Delia M Cawley",
"John Ruggeri",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kim Graham",
"Louise Pearson",
"Marc Luxen",
"Martin Spencer",
"Sandra Billing",
"Sarah Clifton",
"Valerie Johnson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157984",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157986",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157987",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157989",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157991",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157992",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157996",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42989",
"object88",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
85371 | How to tell if fish is subjected to Ciguatera?
Is there any way to tell if fish is infected/subjected to ciguatera.
I understand that if you ingest fish that is infected with ciguatera you run the risk of becoming violently ill, and that subsequent ingestions will make you even more ill. Therefore is there any way to tell if a fish has ciguatera?
I ask as I know not to eat certain fishes that I have caught in the tropics, but still do not know enough about the subject.
I'm removing the link because the link is to your own site, and the content on that page appears to be plagiarized, and the question is clear enough to stand on its own, without a link to more information.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but if you would like to discuss whether it's okay to link to plagiarized content on your own ad/donation-supported site, please take it to [meta]. (Hint: it's not okay, and all you're going to get is a longer explanation of why not.)
Not without a lab to test the fish. Most outbreaks go unreported, or are spread too far apart. If it's local they would quit selling the fish for a week or two at a local market. That does not stop them from being shipped to a different location in 3rd world countries, or mixed in the fishing boats to be shipped wherever.
Thank you, however it is not just 3rd world countries, think of all the dolphin that goes into tuna cans.
Removed some comments about editing practices. If you would like to suggest an improvement, feel free to do so, or to suggest an edit directly. If you have questions about editing practices, take it to [meta].
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.747655 | 2017-11-01T14:19:38 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85371",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"dougal 5.0.0",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53089"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
79273 | Bananas - too many - so how can I preserve them?
It must be banana season as the supermarkets are full of them at silly prices. I am beginning to think that I have come across and tried every banana recipe known to mankind. Is there a method of preserving banana? The weather here is quite dry so I have thought about drying banana slices. How about preserves, is there a way to preserve banana without using any sugar? Unfortunately freezing is not an option for me, since my freezer space is at a premium.
Not possible, as I live on a boat and freezer space is at a premium.
dehydration is an option
It's always useful to mention in your question if there are obvious things you can't do, like freezing. Editing these things in help readers have all the information needed without having to read (potentially long) comment threads.
There are probably a thousand things I can't do. I want to know what I can do.
Well if you want to know what you can do, but there are common things you can't do, you kind of have to say so, or (as you saw here) people will suggest them. Kareen wasn't asking you to list a thousand things, just to edit the "no freezing" bit into the question, rather than leaving it as only a comment.
What do you qualify as 'preserved' ? Personally, I turn old bananas into banana bread. ... but it'll only get you a few days if you can't refrigerate it (at least with the recipe that I use ... it's possible that others might last longer at room temp, but I suspect you're going to have high humidity on a boat))
Humidity at 60% at the moment, so it's not a problem. Here in the Canary Islands it's pretty dry (apart from yesterday!)
Folks, let's use answers to answer, please. Comments aren't for answering (or recipe swapping).
Also, meta on close votes: https://cooking.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3357/is-this-an-off-topic-what-to-make-with-x-question
Again Jefromi sees fit to edit even though I disagree, even though it is my question. Boy oh boy! I will not get into an edit war, even though that is what he wants - mods do your job properly please.
@dougal3.0.0: Same goes for people asking questions. There's a million things you can't do, and a million things you can do. But when the question is about cooking, one expects a cooking environment, i.e.: A kitchen. Presence, absence, or limited amount of freezing capability is no more than a normal thing to add. Especially when one of the relevant parts of the question is about preservation.
@dougal3.0.0 I edited to use exactly the phrasing you preferred, including information that multiple people besides me have told you should be included in the question, with plenty of upvotes on their comments. What you're seeing here is me doing my job. So thanks for not getting into an edit war over it - that's not a reasonable response. (And I would prefer you refer to me as "they" - I'm not male.)
You don't mention what variety of banana you have access to. There is a host of banana varieties and they all have different characteristics in regard to flavor and texture.
I will assume that you are referring to the Cavendish variety that is ubiquitous in the west.
Cavendish bananas, when ripe, are very fragile. They go mushy easily and oxidize quickly. Before they are ripe they are more starchy but relatively flavorless with kind of grassy overtones.
Drying them is easy and great if you like eating a lot of banana chips. Recipes are easy to find. You want to use bananas that are slightly under ripe. If they are fully ripe they get leathery instead of drying crisp. Some recipes will call for spraying or tossing them in acid or other mixtures to improve the color or flavor. Obviously, living in a dry climate will help a lot making the drying process much faster and so reduce the chance of mold.
You don't often see banana preserves (chunks of fruit bottled in a syrup) because the ripe fruit falls apart when cooked and the under ripe fruit doesn't have a strong or pleasant enough flavor.
Instead, an option that is used often in SE Asia where there is a huge variety of bananas is banana jam. This is more like what I would call a fruit butter. The bananas are pureed and cooked with sugar and sometimes pectin and then bottled. Sometimes chunks of fruit are left but they are much more tender than your typical preserves. It tastes good and will keep almost forever. If you haven't bottled before, the bottling process is more involved than drying. It is easy to find recipes. Many of them will include lime juice or other acids to reduce the browning. Often spices are added which will vary according to the local cuisine.
The strangest preservable banana application I have seen was Filipino banana ketchup. Not bad but I can't imagine using enough of the stuff to preserve any quantity of fruit.
While writing this post I discovered that banana ketchup is made everywhere bananas are more common than tomatoes. It looks like banana ketchup from other cuisines has a greater ratio of banana and is appropriately yellow.
Sorry, don't really know, but they are quite small and not the 'standard' european ones. They are quite dry and do not tend to 'brown' go mushy that quickly, however they are also quite sweet. lot's of info above, will put brain into gear and get thinking on your answer.
Stack Exchange Asia? :)
http://www.straitstimes.com/world/africa/local-bananas-a-cheat-sheet-on-the-common-banana-types-sold-here is worth a read for some idea on banana cultivars. There's so many more though. My parents consider the cavendish (which they call a "morris" for some reason) to be practically inedible.
Banana jam (or something like) can be made without sugar, since Op asked for sugarless options. I've made it, just cooking banana down to a paste (though I didn't keep it long term), and it's pretty tasty... the sweetness of the banana is enough. I don't think the sugar is actually needed for structure if it is cooked thick, or preservation (assuming proper canning technique), it just tastes good.
You can keep them in the fridge for a couple of weeks.
You can fry them.
You can dry them.
You can comfit* them.
You can make marmalade.
You can make chutney.
*Comfit with m - sugaring
After "you can fry them, you can dry them" I was hoping the rest of the answer would be in verse... :(
Yup, the banana marmalade is an option, I will search for a recipe that does not include sugar (big no no here). Thanks
@Catija, I was feeling a bit like Bubba there
@rumtscho, comfit, with sugar. Frying to leave them dry as potato chips, yes.
Don't worry. It's comfit with m - sugaring.
Let us continue this discussion in chat.
Bananas don't do well on the fridge, they get the skin brown.
@roetnig You don't eat the skin. The flesh stays good for longer than outside the fridge.
You didn't mention your location in the question. There are lots of types of bananas in the whole world, some are consumed raw and some cooked.
I read in another comment that you are in the Canary Islands. Canary island bananas are Cavendish variety, with subtypes Gran Enana, Zelig y Gruesa Palmera. This varieties are mostly consumed raw.
Canary bananas are harvested throughout the year, and prices don't vary much. So it doesn't make sense to preserve it. Anyway.. If you have some leftover and got tired of banana bread, etc.. you can make jam, though I find it uninteresting from a culinary point of view :
1kg of Canary ripe bananas (weight without skin)
500g of sugar
1/2 tablespoon cinnamon
1/2 tablespoon of pure vanilla extract
juice of 1 lemon or orange
Put in a bowl the chopped banana, the sugar and the juice. Leave it to stand for 15 minutes to release a little juice.
Put a saucepan over medium heat and add the mixture from the bowl and the spices.
Cook on medium heat for about 45 minutes. Stir occasionally.
Once cooked, beat with a mixer to get a smoother texture.
🍌 🍌 🍌 🍌 🍌 🍌
They maybe harvested throughout the year, but at the moment they are seriously cheap, maybe a bumper harvest of some kind - I don't know. How long will your jam/marmalade recipe once jarred last for?
Months. As any preserve, depends on the conditions of storage and exposure to pathogens. If the jar is sealed with vacuum, stored in a dark cold place it can last for six months to one year or even more. Sugar acts as a preserving agent, and putting the jam in sterile jars helps to avoid microbial spoilage. Food preservation
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.747827 | 2017-03-20T13:31:41 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79273",
"authors": [
"AAM111",
"BaffledCook",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Joe",
"Journeyman Geek",
"Kareen",
"Megha",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"dougal 5.0.0",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"moscafj",
"roetnig"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
45762 | Chocolate seized during dipping, how to prevent it?
I used a double boiler (two pots) to melt chocolate for truffles but half way into dipping the truffles in the chocolate, the chocolate hardened and became very clumpy.
How do I keep the melted chocolate from hardening?
Hi Adrian, and welcome to the site! The problem you describe is called "seizing", and it is something different from "hardening", which just means that your chocolate becomes solid again. I edited your title to reflect that.
@rumtscho I agree that "hardening" is the wrong word here, but I would not expect a beginner to search for technical terms like "seizing". Is there a way to make the question title more search-friendly?
@metacubed if you have an idea, make the edit. But the question should not only be searchable, it should also not be misleading, that's why I edited. I thought of a totally different thing when it had the old title, and I needed to read the whole body to understand.
@rumtscho Agreed. That's exactly why I asked for clarification. I'm still getting a feel for this SE site, so I'll leave edits to more experienced hands for now. :)
@metacubed don't be afraid to edit. First, as long as you don't have enough rep, your edit gets into a queue waiting to get reviewed by a high rep user. Second, edits can be rolled back easily. Third, there are no negative consequences for you if you make a bad edit (unless you take a rejected edit as a personal rejection and have to deal with hurt feelings, but we hope you know better). Your rep doesn't suffer, and you don't get any kind of black marks. So, you can be daring in edits, if you make a mistake, it can be easily repaired and quickly forgotten.
@rumtscho I've been a member on the SE network for a while now :) just new to this specific site. Every sub-site has a different culture, and I do my best to respect that. Thanks for your comments!
@rumtscho Thank you for pointing that out, I didn't know what it was called and therefore I had a hard time searching for an answer.
There are two things to keep in mind while melting chocolate:
Keep a low uniform heat
I start off the melting process with low to medium heat. Once the chocolate fully melts, I reduce the heat to low and keep gently stirring all the while.
If you allow the chocolate to cool, it separates out into non-uniform areas of heat, and the cooler pockets start crystallizing. This causes lumps or spikes to form. However, if you go too high, the chocolate may burn.
Keep the chocolate absolutely dry
This also includes steam and condensation from the boiler. The water in the boiler should not splash over or steam into the chocolate. Also make sure that the dipped materials (truffles in your case) are totally dry.
Presence of water causes rapid cooling of parts of the chocolate, which again causes lumps to form. It also causes sugar to crystallize out of the fine chocolate mix. This is called "seizing", and such chocolate is very brittle and difficult to melt.
EDIT:
Here's a nicely written article on the different methods of melting chocolate: How to Melt Chocolate for Dipping
Really good answer. A hint how to recognize what happened: if the chocolate got grainy suddenly, within a few seconds, it was the second problem, water. If the chocolate slowly got grainy as it cooled down, then it is distempered because it was brought to too high a heat (first problem).
Thank you for your excellent answer I have marked it as the correct one! It is likely that my truffles we're damp as I refrigerated them before dipping - after dipping the 10th truffle all of a sudden the chocolate "seized" and all hope was lost.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.748503 | 2014-07-22T02:31:32 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45762",
"authors": [
"Adrian Carolli",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26076",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"metacubed",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
67776 | To salt or not salt broth for use in recipes?
Many recipes call broth, but broth recipes often omit salt and pepper or in some instances require only a small amount.
My question is this: when a recipe, let's say risotto for example, calls for broth, should I season the broth with salt and pepper before ladling it into my risotto? Or should I leave it unseasoned and just season the risotto? Or both? Or does it depend on the recipe?
Old question, but anyway... I hope it is useful to someone
My understanding is that the flavors of meat and vegetables pass better to unsalted water. So, if you are keeping only the broth, it is better not to salt it. If you are eating some of the vegetables, meat or fish and you don't salt the water, they will be tasteless.
On another hand, if you salt the broth, later is difficult to know how much salt contains your recipe.
When I cook, I estimate the serves that I am getting and I use a level teaspoon salt every two serves. So, I never salt the broth broth. I make the broth and I freeze it in portions. When I use a portion of broth on a particular recipe, I salt all together based on the number of serves I am getting.
Despite not salting the water, I eat the meat or fish and carrots. Cook the carrots in one piece and the vegetables that you are going to waste in tiny pieces (I use the mincer). This way you increase the surface contact between the vegetables (except carrots or other you like) and the water and they should release better their flavor. You also reduce the cooking time.
It depends upon how much you expect the broth to be reduced while making the dish, and how salty the other ingredients in the dish are. Risotto is a good example of a dish that should be made with a broth less salty than would be ideal for just drinking. The broth will be reduced significantly while making the risotto (so the salt will become more concentrated). Plus, most risotto recipes call for parmesan, which is salty. You want some salt in the broth because the rice will be better if it absorbs some salt, adding salt at the end with the parmesan can't make up for the rice being made without any salt.
In most cases, it's best to salt broth minimally for cooking. In other words, use enough salt so that the broth isn't terribly bland when tasted alone, but less salt than you would want in chicken noodle soup.
Canned "reduced sodium" broth hits that pretty well, although it can still be somewhat too salty for some applications. The most well known brand in the USA of reduced sodium chicken broth is Swanson. It contains 570mg of sodium per 1 cup of broth. So, every cup of that broth contains 1.4 grams of salt (salt is 40% sodium by weight). So, if you make broth that you might use in a number of different ways, I would recommend about 1 gram of salt per cup of broth. That's enough salt to permeate starchy ingredients without fear of broth reduction making the final dish too salty.
After that, just salt to taste at the end.
If that's "reduced salt" how much is in the full salt version?
@ChrisH one third more!
I wouldn't add salt and broth. For risotto, just the broth. You can always add more salt after the dish is prepared, if when tasting it you think it needs more. Sauerkraut and some cured meats are made with a large amount of salt, for preservative purposes. Using the risotto example, salt basically just adds flavor.
Welcome! I've edited out the health-related part of your answer, because we're just a cooking site and prefer to avoid health discussions.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.748814 | 2016-03-26T22:07:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67776",
"authors": [
"Andy Hay",
"Angela Milligan",
"Angie Kiely",
"Cascabel",
"Chris H",
"Eileen Younger",
"Jolenealaska",
"L SHEPSGROUP",
"Patricia Lambert",
"Terry Maisey",
"Tonya Sharpnack",
"barry moody",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162741",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162743",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162745",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162746",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162758",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162761",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"tracey graley"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
64118 | Is using vinegar a viable way to reduce burning? How would it affect taste?
In House, MD, in season six episode three the main character tags along to a cooking class with his best friend, Wilson. During the subsequent scene, they engage in a conversation which ends up distracting Wilson, causing him to begin burning his meatballs. As he notes, they're still raw inside, and he needs to continue cooking them without burning.
To combat this, House adds vinegar with a brush, stating that it would slow the maillard reaction because of the acidity.
Is this possible, and if so, how would it affect the flavor of the meatballs?
The OP's answer is correct that this theoretically should have an effect, but I have my doubts about its practicality for a few reasons:
The goal is supposedly to "reduce burning," which implies carbonization. Carbonization happens most rapidly at higher temperatures (over 400F or so) compared to the ideal temperatures for Maillard reactions. Thus, you can very easily go quickly from underdone to burnt at very high temperatures. Decreasing Maillard reactions is not the problem; it's too high of a temperature leading to carbonization. Wilson should just turn down the heat. Increasing Maillard will just make more of a thicker "brown crust" giving the meatballs more of a "fried" texture. Most people wouldn't find that too objectionable.
Vinegar is a rather dilute acid and is mostly water. Water will also inhibit the Maillard reactions by lowering the surface temperature of the meatballs. Effectively, before the meatballs can begin browning again, the water will mostly need to be evaporated, so the surface will "steam" for a bit at lower temperatures, again inhibiting browning. Anyhow, the larger problem with this from a practical standpoint is splatter. Introducing a bunch of mostly water onto a food right before frying will cause that water to vaporize when coming in contact with the oil and splattering. Also, the question is how much this acid will penetrate the meat surface and prevent browning vs. being effectively washed off during this vaporization and splattering. Unless you let the meatballs sit and absorb the acid for a few minutes before returning to the pan, I imagine most of the vinegar would just come off and be ineffective.
Even presuming that the acid stays on the meatballs and that we actually want to inhibit Maillard reactions (which I'm not sure we do), I don't know how effective a little bit of surface acidity is really going to be in this case. Keep in mind that many, many people prepare meat in marinades before cooking, which often contain acidity. While most people dry the meat before cooking, this surface acidity obviously doesn't seem to get too much in the way of browning and flavor reactions, or else people wouldn't put so much acid in marinades. The uneven surface of meatballs may lead to a little more absorption of acid than a solid cut of meat, but again I have some doubts about the magnitude of the effect.
Bottom line: I suppose this might delay browning for a couple minutes, at the risk of (maybe significant) splattering. It will NOT be very effective at stopping burning if the oil is too hot. The flavor of the meatballs shouldn't be affected (except from the direct flavor of the vinegar), other than the outside tasting like it was browned slightly less.
As OP's link in the answer notes, there are other ways to reduce the speed of Maillard reactions, notably reducing temperature of the pan and/or removing the meatballs and letting them rest (to cool the surface down a bit while some heat migrates inward) before finishing cooking. Reducing temperature seems a much easier and more effective solution in this case. Another alternative would just be to remove them from the pan and finish cooking in a low oven: the frying is to obtain the browned outer crust, and if that's done, there's no need to keep frying.
House's solution -- while technically intriguing -- seems overly complex and unlikely to be practical, but then again, that's why people tend to watch House....
I theoretically can answer my own question, although I'm not 100% sure as to how it would affect the flavor.
Yes, you can.
When doing research, I saw that the maillard reaction preforms much more quickly at a higher PH. As per this article, making the reaction more basic quickens the browning process. As noted, increasing the speed at which it browns increases the number of reactions that occur, increasing the strength of the flavor. But, one can assume that the inverse is true, and that reducing the speed would possibly reduce the overall flavor of the meatballs. Of course, that's independent of the actual taste of the vinegar.
The author goes on to state other ways to alter the maillard reaction, stating how often people unknowingly make conditions favorable for the maillard reaction to occur, and how it can heavily effect your food's outcome. Pretty interesting.
I'm not sure if this is a widely used technique (either to speed up or slow down the reaction), but if anyone knows a chef or if they personally use this method, I'd love to hear with what types of situations you use it for.
I think your link covers a lot of common situations/techniques where chefs deliberately speed up the reactions. If you search this site for "Maillard," you'll find plenty of other questions specifically discussing various situations where the reactions occur and how to increase them. (It's less common to want to inhibit them for culinary purposes, and generally if you do, you just turn down the temperature.)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.749134 | 2015-12-05T07:46:01 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64118",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Brian Joseph Madden",
"Chris Fawcett",
"Fred Nielsen",
"Gail Kehoe",
"Marie Keen",
"Vadim",
"Vikas Kalura",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152806",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152807",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152811",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152902",
"tlan siami"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
64651 | What kind of chocolate should I use to coat homemade turtles?
I am making chocolate treats with mini Presley's caramel and chocolate. Can I use a regular Hershey's bar or use baking chocolate or can I mix them to make a harder coating or will the regular harden?
There are certain kinds of chocolate that are formulated for coating. Couverture is one of the names. My local grocery store has discs of chocolate that come in packages that are meant for this. Here's a link to a good explanation of the differences.
http://gourmetcandymaker.com/select-the-best-chocolate/
Any couverture or compound chocolate (milk, dark or white) will work fine. Compound is cheaper and easier to work with, whereas couverture is the real deal and requires tempering if you want a glossy/snap finish. Feel free to use buttons, chunks, chips or whatever you can find.
Careful not to burn either. I generally microwave my chocolate at 50% power level for 45 second intervals to desired temperature or just to melt (depending on the application). Safest way is a double boiler.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.749586 | 2015-12-21T22:24:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64651",
"authors": [
"Doaa Ahmed",
"Erika Garber",
"Jodie Smits",
"Lawrence Busansky",
"Paul Vallard",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154282",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154346",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154347"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
64906 | Is garnish meant to be eaten?
Are sprigs of plants decorating meat dishes, or the slice of lemon/olive in drinks meant to be consumed? Are they at least safe to eat?
Hello Gnubie, and welcome! I'm afraid that health is completely off topic here, see also the on-topic list:http://cooking.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic. I had to remove that part from your question. The etiquette one is in a grey area (is there a universal etiquette of eating?), let's see what the community thinks about it.
This is a two-pronged question: — 1) Is it proper etiquette for a diner to consume the garnish? — 2) Is it proper etiquette to serve food or drink garnished with items that are not edible?
@ElmerCat I don't think I'd read this as an etiquette question, more what the culinary intent of the garnish is - is it likely something the chef thinks would taste good with the food, or is it purely visual? (Etiquette is generally off-topic, anyway.)
There are rules in many countries about what can be used to garnish plates, though... I believe, in the US, garnish must be made out of edible things, so you couldn't use a non-edible flower to garnish a plate or drink (in a restaurant).
I think it would be better to make this about food safety than about "health"... which I think fits the original intent of the asker.
I went ahead and edited out the etiquette part - seemed better than having to close it because of that. (I know @rumtscho left that alone, but I think we've pretty clearly established in the past that etiquette is off-topic. See for example http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/q/820/1672. Talking about presentation from the chef's point of view is fine, but about how to behave at the dinner table is out of scope.)
Garnishes should always be edible - there may be laws depending where you are, but in general anything on your plate should be edible or very obviously not meant to be eaten (like a skewer or a paper wrapper). Depending on the specific case, it might not necessarily be meant to be eaten, though. The defining characteristic is the appearance.
Springs of parsley or stronger herbs might not always be too pleasant to eat on their own, so there's nothing wrong with skipping them. I don't think whoever cooked your meal is going to be too upset if you don't like eating sprigs of parsley - but eat them if you want!
With lemon on a glass, you can enjoy the scent as you drink water without actually eating it, or you can squeeze it into the water if you enjoy that little hint of acidity.
So probably the best garnishes are ones that look good and are pleasant to eat. For example, a dish sprinkled with something small (finely chopped herbs or cheese or nuts or anything else that's already in the dish). Some garnishes are really all about the appearance, though. You'll have to use your judgment to figure out which is the case for whatever dish is in front of you!
I would expect that whatever is on my plate or in a drink could be consumed and in the case of a Lime, Lemon or Olive garnish in a drink, highly encouraged.
Garnishes brighten the plate, give a clue to the flavor of the meal, complement the taste of the dish or fill empty space on the plate.Garnishes aren't just for show. You can eat lemon slices or other citrus garnishes only if they are peeled and can be eaten with a fork.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.749826 | 2015-12-29T22:00:05 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64906",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"ElmerCat",
"John McDonough",
"Leah Orris",
"Lothar Doberenz",
"Marsha Devine",
"Mary O Mahony",
"Mike Davis",
"Thereasa Ingram",
"gordon pugh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155052",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155057",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155058",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"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
} |
39915 | Is there a typical ratio for Herbes de Provence?
I know that Herbes de Provence generally contains savory, fennel, basil and thyme. Unfortunately, pre-packaged mixtures in the US usually also contain lavender. I hate lavender, it smells like my grandmother's underwear drawer. I need Herbes de Provence for a recipe I'm making soon, so I'll just make my own sans lavender. So, simple question: Typically is the mixture equal amounts of the other herbs, or should I use more or less of some of the herbs?
There is no standard recipe, but you can easily find recipes by googling.
I edited the title so it can be answered with a simple "no" instead of being closed as a recipe request. @SAJ14SAJ you can post this as an answer.
@rumtscho But I still get away with underwear drawer, huh? :)
You are free to have all the associations your neurons see fit to supply you with :)
@rumtscho : asking about a 'standard ratio' significantly changes the meaning, simply because it can be answered with a yes/no ... It might be better to reword the question to ask about substitutions for it.
@joe I am not sure why she would be interested in a substitution when she actually wants to know how to make the original. Also, what is wrong with a yes/no question? By the way, if there is one standard ratio (so a yes answer to the yes/no version) it is not considered recipe swapping to give the ratio. If there is no standard ratio, this is valuable information too, even if it is a very short answer.
@Joe What you say may very well be true, but I'm happy with the question as it stands since "standard ratio" addresses my intent, if not my words.
I don't think I can be considered impartial on this question, so I will leave all flags and edits for other moderators to handle.
I tried to nudge this back toward the original intent - it's not so much about whether there's standardization as what's typical.
How do you know what your grandmother's underwear drawer smells like? :unsure:
Wiki's cited entry on Herbes de Provence is interesting. The ready-made spice blend "Herbes de Provence" did not come into existence until the 1970's, as a product marketed by the French company Ducros. If there's a standard blend ratio, it would therefore be what's in the Ducros' product - though since it is a generic term rather than a trademarked one, other manufacturers and cooks have their own recipes and interpretations.
Ducros' own blend breaks down like this, according to the "My French Cuisine" blog (who also has the McCormick blend breakdown and a home-made alternative blend sourced from a French cookbook):
Rosemary (romarin) – 26%
Savory (sariette) – 26%
Oregano (origan) – 26%
Thyme (thym) – 19%
Basil (basilic) – 3%
Suggesting that the first commercial formulation of past regional practices is somehow cannonical is spurious. It is like saying that the first company to package a curry blend defined what curry is.
@SAJ14SAJ - The cited Wiki article (which cited a primary source) says there was no "Herbes de Provence" herb blend as part of traditional Provencal cooking. It's a modern culinary invention.
No, actually it didn't say that. It said that there was no commercial product, not that there were not complex blends of herbs being used in provence. It is very much analogous to the curry case.
SAJ14SAJ : no, it's not like curry, it's more like chili powder, where the only place the majority of people get it is from a jar ... yes, there are variatons, but you can give generalized answers of what to use
@SAJ14SAJ - And I quote - "..the famous mixtures of herbes de Provence... were unknown to my Provençal grandmothers, who used, individually and with discernment, thyme, rosemary and savory gathered in the countryside." Try again.
Oh ... and you can also give answers as to what's in italian seasoning
I'm going to clean up these comments, leaving the ones that are discussing this answer. I won't try to migrate any discussion onto meta - the discussion is diverse enough that it's not really clear what specific question I'd post there or how much I'd be able to shoehorn into it.
And just what were you doing in your grandmothers underwear drawer??
I love the lavender in herbes de Provence, and I consider a judicious pinch of fennel seed is both authentic and enlivening.
But Richard Olney who was highly authorative on Provencal cuisine, like you, hated lavender in the mix, and he also rejected rosemary and sage. His recipe is simply dried thyme, oregano, savory and marjoram, in descending proportions, preferably freshly personally collected, dried, crumbled in a food processor and then seived.
There is no single standard ratio for herbs de Provence, but you can easily google many recipes for specific interpretations.
This is a very unhelpful answer.
@RISwampYankee I disagree entirely; the question was is there standard, and there is not. I googled about 10 variations in seconds when researching this.
While I agree that at some point we have to just say "go find a recipe you like", this could be a better answer if you mentioned typical ranges of ratios.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.750145 | 2013-12-02T01:53:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39915",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Mien",
"Omaoma",
"RI Swamp Yankee",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97935",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97939",
"rumtscho",
"user97939"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
62888 | What does it mean if human DNA is in hot dogs?
According to this report on hot dogs by Clear Food, some hot dogs have human DNA in them.
2% of the overall samples had human DNA present.
What would cause human DNA to end up in the hot dogs? Does this have any food safety implications?
Aside from manufacturing negligence, I don't know how anyone is suppose to answer this question.
And this were 2% of 345 samples, so probably 7 cases. A hair, someone touching something without gloves... minor incidents, especially compared to international "standards". Ever seen meat being sold in a third (or even second) world country?
As for exaggeration: Ask yourself who publishes the data - a company specializing in testing food on a molecular level and selling their services to the food industry. Every lab will confirm that whatever substance you test will probably contain traces of other things. But Human DNA sounds really spectacular, doesn't it? And did you find an entry on how much DNA was found? This company specializes on finding traces... Don't imagine a finger in the hot dog but a skin cell or so, which we humans shed continuously and copiously.
The question was marginal at the beginning, but I think that with the edit, it became unclear enough to be close worthy. What does mean "Is the problem exaggerated"?. I don't see a problem defined anywhere. And many of the problems which might be on your mind (but we can't know which they are), such as "does this mean the hot dogs are not vegetarian anymore?" don't have an objective answer and are as such not a question appropriate for a Stack Exchange site.
Ever meet someone who works in a food processing plant and doesn't have all his fingers? What do you think happened to the finger?
I reopened this after editing it to ask much more simply for facts, without any assumptions. Also removed the "two thirds" claim; that was a pretty blatant error in the original version of the report which has since been corrected.
There is definitely no food safety concern here. While the report you cite makes a big deal out of this, implying that there's some kind of serious problem being detected here, in their FAQ they say:
The most likely cause is hair, skin, or fingernail that was accidentally mixed in during the manufacturing process.
It is unlikely that human DNA is harmful to consumer health. In general, we consider human DNA a hygienic issue that degrades the quality of food more than a public health concern. Human DNA in products in our opinion speaks more issues [sic] of truth in advertising, pricing, and overall transparency.
What most people don't know us [sic] that some amounts of human DNA may fall within an acceptable regulatory range. That means that some human DNA is often allowed, regulatorily speaking. The amounts we detected in our research all fell within the acceptable regulatory range as we understand them.
It seems they're saying that this is all totally safe and allowed (by the people whose job it is to keep our food safe), and that the issue is one of transparency. I guess they think that food manufacturers should tell us that, as permitted by regulations, there are possibly tiny and completely safe amounts of human cells in food. But that seems pretty over-the-top; it's true about all food, so we'd have to slap that label on everything we eat.
Bottom line, food is not produced in a clean room environment. It's not a bunch of workers in bunny suits, being careful to not let a single skin cell float into the air and end up in your food; that'd be incredibly expensive and not provide any real benefit. So naturally, there's an opportunity for small amounts of human skin and hair to end up in your food.
And as Stephie pointed out, this is basically a DNA testing lab. Of course they have very sensitive equipment (which they also brag about in the FAQ), so they're able to detect things at a level that really shouldn't concern you. So as Lars also mentioned, it's kind of incredible that they were only able to find human DNA in 2% of samples. That means that 49/50 hot dogs are actually produced to a significantly higher standard than required!
Frankly, I think that report is presented fairly dishonestly. They deliberately neglected to mention in the initial results section that this is all safe, and instead implied that it was a problem you should worry about. Saying in the FAQ "What most people don't know..." hammers this home; they know that most people don't know this, and still didn't bother to say so.
Considering that food is not produced in a clean room environment, I'm surprised that it's only 2% of the samples. Humans are still involved in the production of food. The pig is turned into meat by humans. Humans clean machines. Humans take random samples from the production process. Humans put the ingredients for the sausage into a mixer. Humans stock the machines that will combine bread and sausage. Humans stock the machines that do the packaging.
And the person removing the Hot Dog from the package and doing a DNA test on it is also a human.
Agreed. It is absolutely indicative of how sensitive testing for DNA can be. The test no doubt was specifically looking for human DNA mixed with massive amounts of plant DNA. // Can we do a head count on the product line please... Fred? Fred?? Has anyone seen Fred?!?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.750551 | 2015-10-27T17:56:56 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62888",
"authors": [
"Alex Swift",
"Cascabel",
"Ch Sushma",
"Charlie Greenhill",
"Eric Foley",
"Jay",
"Lynn Baird",
"MaxW",
"Nancy Persico",
"Nellea Dovin",
"Paul Bairstow",
"Sean Hart",
"Stephie",
"Wendy Walsh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149628",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149631",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149994",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149995",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150030",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150033",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"jeff",
"rumtscho",
"spacebean",
"uhlry1"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
32390 | Why is commercial sandwich bread so popular in the US and UK?
Why is commercial, sliced, sandwich style bread so popular in the US and UK, as opposed to more traditional European loaves (like this Slovakian bread)?
simply because of convenience and laziness
so, do you mean that people in Central/Eastern Europe are less lazy?
i think that they are culturally less inclined towards convenience, which, to me (a souther european living in the U.S.) is more than obvious.
See: http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1701/anthropology-versus-culinary-questions
I cannot speak to the historical trends in the UK, but in the US, the rise of commercial, sandwich style bread is part of a larger set of food trends that took place after World War II, into the 1950s.
Housewives were looking to reduce the amount of labor they spent in the kitchen, such as baking from scratch, while simultaneously there was a trend towards processed "scientific" products that were seen as pure and wholesome at the time. See this article from Smithsonian Magazine for more information.
I would argue that the modern is actually moving away to this with the "slow food" and "whole food" trend, and the rising availability of more traditional loaves in regular grocery stores, and increased awareness again of home baking. In fact, recently, whole wheat and whole grain bread has passed white bread in popularity according this article from the Chicago Tribune.
To put it bluntly, convenience, price and availability. While more artisan or rustic breads are available in supermarkets (where the vast majority of westerners shop, especially the US and UK), they are generally more expensive, a less convenient shape and size for sandwiches, and don't keep as well.
Having said that, in recent years in the countries mentioned, there has been an increasing interest in home baking of all kinds, including bread.
It's worth pointing out that some western countries like France and Italy still have a strong tradition of buying fresh bread daily.
Firstly the shortage of flour after WWII had a major impact of the way bread was made in Europe. The introduction of the spiral dough mixer was the beginning of the demise of traditionally processes for making bread. The wheat quality changed as higher yielding varieties were required. New processes were devised to make bread. One being the Milton Keyens method. More junk was put into flour to exelerate aging, improve flour strength, a classic one being potassium bromate.(good stuff that) The art of bread making slowly died. Supermarket chains offered a cheap fix. And customers are now gladly paying and eating a toxic meal. It's called evolution.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.751013 | 2013-03-03T17:11:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32390",
"authors": [
"Derfder",
"Mithilesh Das",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Smectic",
"Walfie",
"amphibient",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17085",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77459",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85371"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
32502 | How can I fix my tasteless baked flounder?
I fixed flounder fillets in a bed of yellow onions and mushrooms in a 425°F oven -- as the recipe says -- and the fish does not taste like anything. The Hollandaise sauce did not help either. Is there anything that I can do to improve the flavor or is trashing it the only option?
Some clarification as to the recipe may provide some help
Most fish is pretty mild, and flounder is no exception. You shouldn't expect it to have a terribly strong flavor of its own; that's why you've made a recipe that cooks it with onions and mushrooms and adds Hollandaise sauce. If you eat it with all of that, it'll taste like mild fish with mushrooms, onions, and Hollandaise - hardly tasteless. If you think even with all the other stuff there's not enough flavor, you might want to add a bit of salt; salt increases our perception of flavors, and if you're used to it, undersalted food will taste bland. But otherwise, it sounds like you just don't like fish, mushrooms, onions, or Hollandaise sauce and you should make something different next time.
And maybe this is subjective, but I can't imagine that this could possibly be so tasteless that you'd rather throw it away than eat it, accepting that it's not your favorite food.
Well done making something out of a borderline subjective question @Jefromi.
A decent oven recipe I've used has been Anthony Bourdain's, from Kitchen Confidential.
You essentially rub some salt (your choice), make a bed (and blanket) of sliced lemon and garlic, cover and seal the whole thing in foil so the steam doesn't escape (if you don't like foil, use a Dutch oven).
It only takes about 20 minutes. Anthony says it's a $40 dish (in jest). Done right, this is a nice and tasty dish.
Flounder is my favorite fish, flakey and mild. Imagine putting onions and mushrooms with let’s say Fresh Mozzarella… to harsh, you lose the wonderful mild flavor. IMO flounder is best when kept simple.
2 to 3 tbsp. of EVOO coat the fillets and center in shallow small pan. Dice a tomato and surround the flounder. S & P with ½ tsp. of chopped parsley (optional). Sprinkle top with Paprika (optional but delicious). 3 Tbsp. of dry white wine or dry vermouth. Lightly cover with foil and cook in oven 400 deg. F for 10 mins, remove foil and cook for another 5 mins. A squeeze of lemon with it comes out and that’s it. Generally there will be a lot juice in the pan from the fish and tomatoes. Make enough rice or pasta. My husband who is a big fishy fish eater loves this dish. I get a big yumooo from him when he is finished.
Variations: Add some diced red pepper to the tomato. Press 1 garlic clove add to the tomatoes and add some shrimp. Add chopped spinach to the tomatoes. Instead of rice or pasta, add “toasted” not just dried bread seasoned bread crumbs the last 5 mins. I thinly sliced 3 Brussel sprouts and sprinkled on top with a dollop of butter. Whatever you choose, don’t add too much and overwhelm the fish. Simplicity is key.
The question is not a recipe request, and if it were, it would already have been closed (see the [faq]). The fish is already cooked.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.751266 | 2013-03-07T22:56:06 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32502",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"mfg"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
80813 | Is shime saba safe for 2 days only?
I have read various recipes for making shime saba, the pickled mackerel commonly found in sushi restaurants. All of these recipes require starting with a fresh caught fish and recommend keeping for at most 2 days refrigerated.
This sounds potentially difficult to do for restaurants. Is there an alternative method for doing this (whether under home or commercial conditions)? Is it possible to extend the shelf life, or can no more than 2 days pass from catching to eating for it to conform to safety rules?
This isn't an answer, just a bit of interest and photos for people and how to make your own - thus only a comment. Good question. Link: http://food-in-japan.com/2014/04/japanese-marinated-mackerel-shime-saba/
Hello Drisheen, the question is OK from food safety perspective. We cannot tell you what restaurants do, though. I have edited the question to remove the restaurants out of the equation.
If there is somebody working for or owning a sushi restaurant here (not me) and willing and allowed to answer it - why can it not be told?
@rackandboneman an answer about how one restaurant does it is not an answer to the question "how do restaurants do it in general". We do not do poll question in the sense of "let's have several restaurant owners tell us how they do it in their restaurant only". So one owner telling would not be considered an answer. An answer to the original question would need somebody to make a representative study of the practice among a relevant population of restaurants (world-wide?) and a user knowing of this study would have to summarize it here. Which in my opinion is not contained in our scope.
@rumtscho I am not asking for a poll. I am asking for somebody who is familiar with the usual practices in sushi restaurants in the United States, not the world. Just because you don't anything about how sushi restaurants prepare fish, doesn't mean that noone else on the site doesn't know either..
@DrisheenColcannon it is not about me not knowing it, it is about "the usual practices in sushi restaurants" being off topic on the site. The original question would have to have been closed, that's why I changed the meaning.
I've tried to edit to compromise a bit here. I think it's fine to ask what's possible for restaurants, and the important thing rumtscho was aiming for was to avoid directly inviting speculation about what methods restaurants are likely to use. Even in this form, answers like yours about freezing and the FDA's guidelines are still totally what the question is asking for, so it seems like you can maybe both have roughly what you wanted? Please feel free to edit further though, I'm sure it's not perfect in every way.
I did some more additional research on this question and what I found out was that in the US all raw seafood is frozen due to FDA recommendations. The FDA rules are only recommendations, but the restaurants nearly all follow them, because of legal liability. In other words, if somebody got sick and the restaurant did not follow FDA "recommendations" it could open them up to a law suit.
There are two basic types of freezing. In high-end restaurants they use nitrogen flash-freezing, although this style is becoming more common even among common purveyors. In lower end restaurants or supermarkets, the fish is frozen with dry ice down to -5 F or below and kept that way for at least a week. This will kill parasites such as anasikiasis.
Once the fish is deep frozen and sealed from sublimation, it will last essentially forever, so the sushi you are eating in a restaurant might actually be months or even years old. To thaw it, it is soaked in water. Once it is thawed, it has to be prepared immediately.
In Japan freezing is less common and the most high-end restaurants serve fresh fish. This does result in a significant number of cases of parasite problems in humans.
Let's not have a meta discission in/on an answer on main. I think we can come up with an edited version of the question that everyone is happy with, and if we need much discussion, let's use chat or meta.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.751527 | 2017-04-11T03:53:02 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/80813",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Drisheen Colcannon",
"dougal 5.0.0",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53089",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
43727 | Dehydrating cake?
I've recently purchased a book on desserts. Many recipes involve baking a cake and then dehydrating it over night (at 50° C) using the appropriate equipment. I wonder: What kind of kitchen equipment can be used to dehydrate cake?
I am referring to various recipes from the book "Elements of Desserts" by Francisco J. Migoya. (It was originally in English, but I purchased a translated copy.)
For example, he created red velvet truffles. The outside of the truffles is covered in dry red velvet crumbs, as seen on the cover of the book: Amazon Link
These crumbs are created using a "dehydrator". I only know this kind of equipment for drying fruit, not cake. Can I use the same thing for cake?
I have never heard of this technique can you provide more details? And what do you mean by kind of kitchen?
50C sounds like a dehydrator, maybe? Are you translating from this book or did they actually call it desiccating, without mentioning equipment?
50 C is about 125 F. I am now wondering if these are recipes for meringue or dacqoise layers, which often are dried overnight.
@SAJ14SAJ I added some more information to my post :-)
For the specific application of creating dried cake crumbs to use as a coating on the outside of other cakes, or confections like truffles, no specific equipment is required.
A low oven is sufficient, perhaps by heating to a moderate temperature like 250 F / 121 C, then turning it off. The remnants would be crumbled and spread out on a sheet pan, and placed in the oven until quite dry to the touch. Overnight would be quite common; the crumbs would dry out in the cooling oven.
The specialized equipment to do this is called a food dehydrator and is no different than the one used for fruit. It would certainly be effective, but is not necessary.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.751859 | 2014-04-27T20:30:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43727",
"authors": [
"Alisha Wagner",
"Cascabel",
"Chic Derm and Aesthetics",
"Dominick Pastore",
"Henrietta Chomicki-lapinski",
"Lane",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sandro",
"Spammer",
"Sven",
"felicia ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102547",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102548",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102647",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102648",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102650",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102652",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"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
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.