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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
79082 | Freeze cookies before or after baking them?
I need to make many batches of cookies for a party next Saturday, and I would like to start baking them now. To make sure they're still tasting fresh six days later, I want to take advantage of my freezer.
I can find advice all over the internet on how to freeze dough for baking later, and how to freeze cookies after baking, but not much on which is better! Should I bake first then freeze, or freeze now and bake the day before?
(The specific recipes are snickerdoodles, peanut butter, and chocolate chip; if you need more details to judge freezer-appropriateness, please let me know.)
If the oven time is not a limiting resource, I would freeze and then bake.
There are a number of sources that strongly advocate for aging cookie dough before baking, which affects the absorption of moisture in the dough and changes flavor:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/09/dining/09chip.html
Personally, I normally do not have the patience for aging dough. If I am making cookie dough, I want to bake it and eat it immediately. You, however, have the time built in to age your dough before baking. You may even want to leave the dough in the refrigerator for awhile first before freezing.
Also, I think cookie freshness suffers more after baking than before, but I don't have references for that.
For what it's worth, I have frozen homemade cookies (choc. chip, & sugar cookies anyway) many times (right after cooling down from out of the oven), and they seem to retain their taste, freshness & texture perfectly. (Good to eat while still frozen as well). Also, in my experience, baking frozen cookie dough gives a noticeably different result from what you get when you bake immediately after mixing. Not terrible, but not better either. Have not tried baking dough that has been frozen and then thawed.
I just read an interesting study (if you're into that stuff) about how moisture migrates between from crumb to raisins at frozen temperatures.
But in your case, peanuts and chocolate are pretty inert. If I were you I would bake then freeze because having baking ingredients at room temp is ideal for consistent results.
Even an air-tight lid with rice and baking paper in the bottom would do.
*I know my profile says I'm a programmer, but I used to be a fine dining chef
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.752159 | 2017-03-12T17:39:52 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79082",
"authors": [
"Lorel C.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
66327 | How to use slow cooker for cooking meat without it turning into soup or stew?
I was surprised when I completed using the slow cooker for the first time and it did not look like the ingredients anymore but the water I had added per the directions has turned into a thick brown broth.
Essentially, the beef, potatoes, and vegetables that came ready to go per a costco "slow cooker platter" that cost me $20, ultimately turned into a beef stew by the time it was done.
I did not like it at all and now I have over $18 of food I don't know what to do with because I don't like it.
But individually I love all the ingredients. When I cook those ingredients in the toaster oven it comes out great and I love it.
It's not the softness that bothers me, I like it being tender. It is the stewyness that bothers me and I didn't like that at all. Meat slathered in BBQ sauce is good. But meat with watered down gravy-like sauce is bad.
I would like to be able to actually use my slow cooker to make new things, but I hate stews and soups and don't want to use it for that. How can I use my slow cooker to make foods that do not turn into stew or soup?
It sounds like you ended up with what your Costco slow cooker platter was supposed to make. I'm guessing you'd probably do better with recipes that use larger pieces of meat, like spare ribs. Depending on what aspects of "stewyness" you don't like, you might not want to put and potatoes or vegetables in the cooker.
Related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/23232/1672 (I know you've already seen it, but having the link here is helpful)
I don't mean this to be facetious, but have you looked around online for non-soup, non-stew recipes? It's certainly possible to use a slow cooker to cook meats, but the specifics will vary with what you're cooking. If you're looking for ideas of what you could cook, that gets into recipe-request territory.
As logophobe suggested in the comments, look for slow cooker recipes that aren't soups or stews. There are plenty, mostly in the direction of roasts. The general idea will be that you put a large piece of meat (and maybe some vegetables) in a slow cooker, with a very small amount of water (maybe half a cup), and you'll end up with some liquid in the bottom, but not a huge amount.
That liquid will generally be pretty flavorful, so most people would probably eat it somehow. One might eat it with the meat, turn it into a gravy, or use it in a different soup or stew. You should be able to make something pretty delicious; I wouldn't think of it as "watered down". But if you don't like liquid, you can throw it away.
If you don't like any of those ideas but it still seems wasteful (it is), I guess you might want to pick a different way to cook meat. Slow cookers are pretty much capable of stewing and braising, which can give you something pretty much like a roast, but there's always going to be at least a bit of liquid involved. If that's really not an option for you, the slow cooker might not be the best choice for you.
I once encountered a recipe for a roast cooked in a slow cooker that was specifically designed to prevent the meat from being soaked in broth at the finish producing a slow cooked dry heat result. The instructions included placing a disposable aluminum loaf pan upside down in the bottom of the slow cooker, and placing the meat on top of that, the idea being that all the liquid produced by the cooking process would be sucked into the inside of the bowl removing the chances that it will envelop the meat. When they removed the meat and the aluminum vessel all the water spilled out from under the aluminum pan. This is just a suggestion- I myself have not tried this method. If you dotry it I'd like to know how it works. Also starting with room temperature meat and searing the meat before you place it in the slow cooker might also give a little help. Hope everything works out.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.752347 | 2016-02-08T19:05:30 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66327",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Elizabeth Spencer",
"Gail Ali",
"Janice Cousins",
"Lindsey-Anne Bridges Lindsey",
"Lynda Mayo",
"Ross Ridge",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158803",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158804",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158884",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
22971 | How can I make my homemade potato wedges crispy?
How do I make my wedges go nice and crispy in the oven?
I usually season them with a cajun mix, add a tiny bit of oil, and cook them in the oven on fan-bake at about 200 degrees (celcius). They come out okay, but not amazing.
What can I do to make them come out a lot crispier, while still using a normal household oven? Would more oil improve their texture, or do I need to crumb them maybe?
While it's not directly potato wedges: I love the crunchy potatoes of Mr. Oliver. Parboiled, shaken in the pot, then pushed a bit and baked: http://www.jamieoliver.com/recipes/vegetables-recipes/perfect-roast-potatoes/ You could of course season them to taste with some cajun powder.
You could put them in a pan of boiling water for 3 or 4 minutes (not so to they're cooked through) before putting them in the oven. The potato on the outside of the wedges will soften and cook a little bit which will help the outsides crisp up a little. Make sure you allow them to drain completely before you put them in the oven.
Agreed, but I'd do it for more than 3 or 4 minutes - more like 8. The fluffier the edges the crispier the skin. Boil them, then drain well and allow them to steam dry in the pan for ten minutes, then shake gently to break up the edges; these broken edges will then crisp nicely in the oil
I was taught to shake in a collander to fluff up the outsides. This is easier with less cooked potatoes. Over boiled and they tend to fall apart. Certainly, the fluffing works wonders for a crispy outside.
I would also agree with other people's suggestions of par-boiling for 7-10 mins, followed by a shake. In addition I would get the oil hot before adding the potato. Either put the tray with the oil in the oven a few minutes before cooking or pre-heat the tray & oil on top of the hob before transferring to the oven (make sure your baking tray can withstand hob temperatures).
After boiling for a few minutes in water, drain, put the lid on and shake (but gently so the wedges don't break). This will rough up the surface. The resulting bumps can heat through more fully and lose more moisture, leading to crisp.
I usually par-microwave the whole potatoes, then cut them into wedges and let them steam out for a good few minutes. You can actually see the potato going whiter and drier near the edges. Microwaving seems to me highly preferrable to boiling at this stage to minimise water. Then I shake them in a bag with some olive oil to coat, then sprinkle with Caribbean seasoning. Then bake. Baking long and lower works better than too high a heat, too. I've had them get so crispy before, they are almost like shards of glass, it's awesome!
Cook them hotter. I cook mine at 425 or 450 F, which is 220 or 230 C. It makes a difference. I toss them in oil, sometimes with salt and rosemary, and put them on a silpat baking sheet. I keep them a little apart, trying not to have any touching, so the steam can get out. They get browned, even blistered, and crunchy, like roasted potatoes do.
To be clear: I don't parboil, I don't coat them in anything other than oil. The oven temperature and the rubbery sheet on the baking pan do the trick.
What everyone has said.. par boil them then season when cooled coat in corn flour and a bit of oil and bake at about 200. If ur wedges are extra big reduce the heat but cook for longer to stop the outside burning
Also try and bake then spread out well on baking paper. My sweet potato fries come put perfectly like this x
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.752688 | 2012-04-12T04:59:28 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22971",
"authors": [
"Alex",
"Brenda Briggs-Baio",
"Deane",
"Ed Truesdale",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Kathleen",
"LJO",
"Magnus",
"Mark J Sheffield",
"Mel",
"Nima Sakhtemani",
"Xunie",
"eckes",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1761",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51897",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51904",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51907",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51908",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51911",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98268",
"jibe",
"loner"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
67459 | What sour spices are there?
Are there other predominantly tangy/sour spices, similar to sumac? I'm thinking of things for dressing roasted vegetables, where you might use something like lemon juice, but a dry spice can be more convenient.
I'm confused what aspect of lemon you're trying to match. Sumac matches in that it's tangy/sour. "Zesty" isn't too clear but it seems like maybe just about every spice is zesty if these are? And none of these are hot.
Tangy/sour. Sorry I don't know the terminology well
um ... sumac ? (is there a reason you don't want sumac?)
I do want sumac but I also want to explore its likes
I am sorry, but it seems you are asking for a list of all sour spices, possibly shortened by "goes well with roasted vegetables". Lists questions are not accepted, and "goes well with" is also not a real criterion, it's opinion based.
@rumtscho How broad is that actually? I asked about amchur substitutes (using it for the tanginess) and it got very few answers and stayed open.
With the editing by @jefromi, it's more close to a Replacement/Substitute question than a List question. To me, it's fair game this way.
Amchoor (mango powder), anardana (dried pomegranate), and, if you include pastes, tamarinde come to mind.
They all have a tangy/sour taste, and are used quite often in Indian curries, and cooking in other parts of (South East) Asia.
Apart from mango powder (which is rich in citric acid, I use it as a replacement for lemon when I want sour, but no additional juices), I don't have any experience using them outside the realm of curries, so you'll have to experiment your way through them ;)
I've seen tamarind available in powder form before ... but I've never used it, so can't comment on how well the sourness holds up.
Heh, didn't know it existed. I only know the blocks of pressed fruits (to soak & squeeze for making your own paste), or the pre-made paste.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.753302 | 2016-03-16T01:23:44 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67459",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Dearbhail Lyons",
"Domingos Lamas Rodrigues",
"Jessica Davis",
"Joe",
"Pete Graham",
"Rebekah Bell",
"Stephen Hodgson",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"amphibient",
"bewtifulfreak",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161908",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161924",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161943",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"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
} |
50436 | What kinds of grocery stores tend to carry guava?
I cannot find guava in the grocery stores near me. The only grocery store that was selling guava closed last week and since then I have been to Food Lion, Wegmans, Walmart etc. but I cannot find guava.
Does anyone know what type of grocery store carries them?
Yep, it's gonna get closed. Your question is unanswerable... as we don't even know where you are. If we did, this would be too specific and still get closed. Sorry, region specific forum maybe. Or try an Asian grocery store...
At best, we can provide a generic answer to where guava can typically be found. That's how I tried to craft my answer below. The only people who can tell you for certain whether they carry guava are your local grocers.
Simply unanswerable.
Try stores with a large Latin American inventory.
The title did make this look pretty bad, but even the original form asked what type of stores carried guava - I think that general answers like logophobe's are actually pretty useful, and applicable across pretty much the whole US if not other western countries.
I agree with @Jefromi. This is a valid question and logophobe's answer captured it pretty well. The OP did not ask for a specific name of a store, simply what type of store may carry them. Perhaps we shouldn't be so quick to jump on the idea of closing and downvoting - at least not without proper consideration.
Usually good ones do.
Suggested rephrase: What ethnic and/or social groups eat a lot of guava, and where are the stores these people frequent typically found?
It's really difficult to say for certain which of your local grocers will carry guava; depending on your location, they may be a seasonal item or simply not locally available. In my experience, guava is fairly common in southeast Asian and Central American cuisines, so you could try an ethnic grocery. But that just changes the question to whether you've got an Asian or Latin market around.
Guava juice is frequently available in co-ops and natural foods stores, and can be ordered in cartons online (though it's not cheap). You might also find it in the ethnic aisles in big-box groceries.
Finally, if you're really desperate, Wikipedia tells me that:
They are one of the few tropical fruits that can grow to fruiting size in pots indoors. When grown from seed, guavas can bear fruit as soon as two years, or as long as eight years.
So there's a potential long-term solution to your supply problem... but if you want to know about that, you're best off asking on another SE site.
You can also sometimes find frozen guava puree even when fresh aren't available (I've seen it in Latin stores).
Generally, Indian and Mexican grocery stores carry guavas. In Nothern California, there is a store called Pacifica that almost always carries guavas.
Guava can mostly be found in offline Indian store shops or specialty stores as well as international grocery shops. If there is none available around your place check online stores like Amazon, Quicklly, Instacart where it can be found easily.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.753502 | 2014-12-08T20:03:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50436",
"authors": [
"Cara Marsh",
"Cascabel",
"Cindy",
"John Holte",
"Jolenealaska",
"Marissa Cooper",
"Melissa England",
"Neil Meyer",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120711",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120712",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120713",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120730",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120731",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"logophobe",
"rackandboneman",
"talon8",
"user120712",
"user2333729"
],
"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
} |
34684 | How do I baste barbecue chicken while grilling?
I am going to barbecue 1/2 chicken on a gas grill. I want to use a water mixture with cider vinegar and salt, to baste while grilling. Can you give me any tips as I do this, like time and temperature?
Can you explain what you're trying to achieve with this basting? Are you trying to keep the chicken moist? To add salt and vinegar flavor to the outside?
Hi Gerry and welcome. I'm not 100 % sure what you are asking here. You want to know how hot the basting liquid should be or the grill itself? And you want to know when you have to baste or what did you mean with "time"?
Basting with such a liquid would actually be very unusual. It sounds more like a Carolina style pulled pig sauce that is added after the pig is pulled, or even like a brine for before cooking. It doesn't sound like something you would apply while grilling.
Try a 'Beer Can Chicken' stand. Use an empty (or not) beer (or soda) can to hold your basting liquid and properly place the chicken on the holder (as pictured) and put that on the grill.
As the chicken cooks your basting liquid will steam your chicken to a wonderful effect. IF you keep your lid down the steam will have the effect of continuously basting your bird.
The beer-can method is all psychological. It's fun, but it really doesn't work the way people think it does. Why Beer-Can Chicken Is Bad for Barbecue | Epicurious
This basting method (cider vinegar and salt) was popular in the midsouth in the 60's. It does have a flavor similar to Carolina pork bbq sauce. Use a temperature of 400 to 450. Apply baste using cotton bbq mop (available on Amazon). It will usually take 30-45 minutes for split/half chicken. Tastes best if you baste each side twice.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.753765 | 2013-06-14T19:21:00 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34684",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Devorah",
"John Parnell",
"Jonathan",
"KKunz",
"Michele Pedersen",
"Mien",
"Ray Butterworth",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Thys Mouton",
"hopingsoul",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80903",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80904",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80907",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80908",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80916",
"paleo diet",
"user80908"
],
"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
} |
63780 | How do I thicken tomato-based pasta sauce without adding starch?
I like to cook from scratch and I like to make my tomato-based pasta sauce (marinara) by cooking fresh tomatoes with herbs etc. However, the cooked tomatoes are always too runny for my taste and lacking the thickness that jarred supermarket alternatives do add to the pasta.
I have tried cooking the sauce longer to get more water to evaporate but never was able to reach the "processed" level of consistency/thickness. I am familiar with other forms of thickeners, such as roux or corn starch, but I'd rather not add starch. Is there another thickening agent I could use in my home-cooked marinara sauce?
What type of stove? I've gotten my tomatoes down past "crushed" thickness nearly to paste, without burning. That's on a gas stove. Modern electrics may not be up to the job. Many electric elements now do pulsed power, rather than reduced, constant, voltage.
Fresh tomatoes are insanely watery, so you're starting at a pretty big disadvantage here. Trying to fix it with a thickening agent alone might not be the best plan.
That said, if you want a short answer: use tomato paste, whether homemade or storebought. It'll thicken and improve the flavor. Watery tomato sauce usually has watery flavor, not just watery texture, so any way you thicken besides tomato paste is likely to leave you with a thick sauce that still lacks flavor somewhat.
First off, try to make sure you're using more pasty less juicy tomatoes. It's hard to give very specific advice since this depends a lot on exactly which varieties you get. But everyday supermaket tomatoes are generally too juicy, with the plum tomatoes often (but not always) being somewhat better.
From there, the most common options leave something to be desired:
Remove some of the juice before cooking. This costs you some flavor, though.
Cook longer to reduce the sauce. This costs you the fresh tomato flavor.
Puree the sauce, so that the pulp gets spread around and thickens the liquid. This doesn't fix everything, but it helps a bit. You get this for free with longer cooking and reasonably small chopping, but you can also use a food mill, or grate the tomatoes, or find another way to thoroughly smash them.
So the best option, if you're looking for a totally fresh tomato sauce might be something like:
Make your own paste (nice and thick and rich). It's easiest to reduce without burning in the oven, but you can do it in a pot too with some care. This is the time-consuming part, but if you do it in bulk, maybe not so bad.
Make your own quickly-cooked puree (so you keep the fresh flavor as much as possible). If you have a food mill you can save a lot of time here by just hacking up the tomatoes and bringing them to a boil as fast as possible and cooking for 5-10 minutes, then using the food mill to get the skins and seeds out.
If you want chunkiness, either mix in some fresh tomatoes just before serving, or if you want the chunks cooked, accept that you'll need more paste to make up for their water.
Add paste until it's thick enough.
Then since that's all a bit time-consuming, you can save time by buying paste (it's cheap and easy). If you don't have a food mill, peeling and seeding is kind of a pain if you're making larger quantities, so you might consider just chopping reasonably finely and tolerating the skin and seeds.
There's a much longer writeup, "How to Make the Best Tomato Sauce From Fresh Tomatoes", of essentially this technique with an awful lot more attention to detail at Serious Eats. I personally find the lazier versions to be a better balance of time spent and resulting sauce quality, but you might think it's worth it.
Cascabel has already given a thorough answer, but I'd like to offer some advice about reducing the sauce.
Any time you are trying to get rid of liquid, you want as much surface area as possible. As suggested in Cascabel's answer, you can reduce the tomatoes in the oven on shallow baking trays (and if you're doing a larger quantity this is definitely the way to go), but if you are doing it on the stove top, use your widest frying pan, not a sauce pan or stock pot with tall sides. You will need to stir to make sure the parts on the bottom are not sticking and burning (baking tends to avoid this for the most part by giving a much more even heat, although the pan will generally get hotter than the contents).
Reduce the sauce before you season it. Cooking for a long time to reduce the liquid will be hard on most herbs and spices you may use. Also, if the flavor is balanced when the sauce is watery, it will no longer be when it is reduced. I would start with gently frying any onions (and garlic) until translucent then add the tomatoes and reduce it from there. If you are including meat or if you include other vegetables that you don't mind being cooked to unrecognizable mush, things like bell peppers or mushrooms can join in the reducing stage, too, just add them with the tomatoes. But get it to the desired consistency before seasoning it.
I was also going to recommend roasting (baking) the tomatoes first to reduce the amount of moisture. (I first saw this done on Good Eats years ago)
I simmer my marinara very gently for around an hour, in an open pan, as you suggest, scraping down concentrate every now and then, and adding any volatile components towards, or after, the end of cooking time. Too thick is OK - a splash of pasta water when finishing pasta in the sauce fixes that.
First blanch tomatoes in boiling water and cold shock them in ice water, then peel/rub off skins. Next, squeeze skinned tomato to release excess water. That water can be saved to reduce or added later to loosen the sauce. Put solids in another pot. Process the seeds out using a tomato grinder if you have one. Heat crushed tomatoes slowly, you could even use the oven uncovered and forget it, except to peek, for 4 to 5 hours.
Grated parmesan or romano cheese helps thicken it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.753965 | 2015-11-23T23:39:39 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63780",
"authors": [
"Angela",
"Christine Morrison",
"Devin Nakata",
"Emanuel A. Jimenez-Moreno",
"Fibonatix",
"Joe",
"Julie L",
"Lynne",
"Robin Betts",
"Trudi Vickery",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151854",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151856",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151858",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151932",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jennifer button",
"Антон Рабович"
],
"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
} |
67168 | Beans rated by cooking time
I'm quite a bean aficionado and have noticed that different kinds of beans vary widely in the amount of cooking the require to achieve an equal level of tenderness. E.g. while I cook small lima beans only about 1.5 hrs total, it takes up to 3 hours to get a similar tenderness from favas. Red beans somewhere in between. All examples assume having soaked them overnight to prep them for cooking.
Is there a list of different bean varietals that ranks them by how hard they are and how long they usually require to be cooked?
I'd suspect that it's likely correlated to size of the beans.
And also how long they've sat around drying out.
There are so many types of beans. I suspect , it will be very difficult to make a complete list
How old the beans is will also effect it. We just got some new pinto beans, which were very old, and they took about twice as long soaking and cooking.
Because older beans, and larger beans may take different amounts of time to reach the desired softness, it is impossible to tell exactly how long beans need to be cooked for. Nevertheless, the tables found here and here can offer great information on how long to cook different types of beans.
(I have merged both of them below)
Black Beans
Soaked: 1 1/2 - 2 hours
Unsoaked: 2 1/4 - 2 1/2 hours
Black-Eyed Peas
Soaked: 1 - 1 1/4 hours
Unsoaked: 1 1/2 - 1 3/4 hours
Cannellini Beans
Soaked: 1 - 1 1/4 hours
UnSoaked: 1 1/2 - 1 3/4 hours
Chickpeas
Soaked: 1 1/2 - 2 hours
Unsoaked: 2 1/4 - 2 1/2 hours
Great Northern Beans
Soaked: 1 - 1 1/4 hours
Unsoaked: 1 1/2 - 1 3/4 hours
Lentils
Unsoaked: 20 - 30 min
Lima Beans, Large
Soaked: 3/4 - 1 hours
Lima Beans, Baby
Soaked: ~1 hour
Navy Beans
Soaked: 1 - 1 1/4 hours
Unsoaked: 1 1/2 - 1 3/4 hours
Pink Beans
Soaked: 1 - 1 1/2 hours
Pinto Beans
Soaked: 1 - 1 1/4 hours
Unsoaked: 1 1/2 - 1 3/4 hours
Red Kidney Beans
Soaked: 1 - 1 1/4 hours
Unsoaked: 1 1/2 - 1 3/4 hours
Small White Beans
Soaked: 1 - 1 1/2 hours
Soybeans
Soaked: ~3 hours
Split Peas, green
Unsoaked: 1/2 - 3/4 hours
Soaking can be done by either covering beans with water, and leaving them covered overnight, or, boiling the beans with water for ~2 minutes and then removing them from head and letting them sit covered for ~1 hour.
Making the cooking environment basic also helps speed up softening. If you add a teaspoon for every pound of beans when soaking and cooking it goes faster. Only use for dishes where the beans can be mushy though! Hummus, black beans, etc.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.754472 | 2016-03-07T06:01:39 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67168",
"authors": [
"Brandon Carlson",
"Joe",
"KACornish",
"Keisha Chitwood",
"Kerry McCuaig",
"Marie Sampson",
"Terra Rannis",
"That One Actor",
"Tim De Spain",
"Tony Candy",
"Vadim Hesin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161153",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161971",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33740",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37981",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"thrig",
"vastra360",
"vladiz"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
18213 | What are the major menu differences between Canadian and American Thanksgiving?
We all know that Roast Turkey is the canonical dish in both countries.
Cornbread figures prominently in the Southern US.
What are the other significant differences?
I wonder if this would be best served by attempting to describe the most common Thanksgiving dishes in each country, since the number of people who really know both countries' traditions is fairly small. Of course, wikipedia does cover a lot of the most common US side dishes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanksgiving_dinner so maybe the Canadians have a shot.
I would also wonder about regional differences within Canada and the US. In Canada for example, does it vary from the Maritime provinces, Quebec, Ontario, ...?
From my experience, there are no major differences between Canadian and Northern American dishes. We have most of the normal Turkey (or Goose/Duck), yams, potatoes, stuffing/dressing, pies etc... There are probably more differences with in the United States itself (southern vs northern), for example the cornbread you mentioned.
In other words, when I watch American Thanksgiving food/cooking show specials, the large majority of the dishes are very familiar and relevant to my experiences up here.
I would suggest that most variations come from families' countries of origin/culture.. For example, my mom usually cooked some special Chinese dishes, but clearly that isn't a Canadian thing. (Also, Southern influence, coastal influence, Latin influence etc..)
Canadians are less likely to feature the green beans with fried onions thing, and to put marshmallows on their sweet potatoes. Other than that, it's standard "fall harvest" fare and plenty of it!
There are many regional variations within the United States. In Miami, where I grew up, we always had Cuban style black beans and rice. Friends from Haiti would add Haitian dishes. My family in Georgia would have dishes that were unique to the South, etc.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.754791 | 2011-10-05T16:19:29 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18213",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"CoreyH",
"FrustratedWithFormsDesigner",
"Henry Maina",
"Joao Leme",
"Jodie",
"Kate Gregory",
"crypdick",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39344",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39354",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7501",
"skybluecodeflier"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
51780 | How to choose the right kind of flour?
I love to cook but I'm not too much into baking. My mom is currently visiting from overseas so there is more baking going on in the house. Unfortunately, she doesn't really know English so it's hard for her to evaluate different types of flour that are available in the supermarket. I got her the King Arthur All-Purpose the other day and she baked some rolls with it but said they didn't rise as much despite using baking powder.
I use flour mainly for making frying batter for fish as well as for roux when I cook stews.
I noticed that, in addition to the differentiation between bread and all-purpose, flours also differ in whether they are bleached vs non-bleached.
I would like to learn more about different kinds of flour and what makes them different and what the best kinds are for different uses.
Also, the deal about your mom's rolls might be best posted as a different question. There are a lot of other things that could be going on besides flour, and helpfully answering that is going to require a bit more detail - a rough recipe would be good (usually rolls means yeast, not baking powder).
let's keep it here for now
So, assuming you add in a recipe so that people have a chance of figuring out what happened, you're inviting answers that say both "here's what bread/all-purpose, bleached/unbleached are for" AND "the problem with your mom's rolls could be X, Y, or Z (which might be nothing to do with flour)"? Really seems like two questions in one, and we do put things on hold when they're too broad.
See also: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/356/1672 - it answers bread vs all-purpose, but not bleached vs unbleached.
It might also help to know where your mother is from - perhaps someone familiar with flour offerings there could contribute recommendations that would be meaningful to her. I'll also comment that King Arthur AP flour is a magnificent flour - I probably have 10 different types of flour in my kitchen and use KA's AP flour for more of my baked goods than anything else. Unless your mom needs pastry flour for what she's baking, it's hard to go wrong with KAAP. Having said that, how old is your baking powder? If you've had an open canister for a while, that could be part of the problem.
Please see this question and the accepted answer. It has a great deal of information.
Without really knowing the reason why there were differences, I learned several years ago that there are most definitely major differences between brands. In my area, for most uses I buy Gold Medal. However, I will never use that for biscuits or rolls. They turn out way too heavy. For making biscuits and rolls I buy either White Lily or Snowflake.
Not sure where you are located, so I have no idea what brands may be available. This page gives some good information and has this chart that lists info for some brands/types of flour.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.754970 | 2014-12-19T23:02:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/51780",
"authors": [
"Beverly Watkins",
"Cascabel",
"Chantel Nightingale",
"Charlito jebulan",
"Les Tibbetts",
"Sandra",
"Stephen Eure",
"adele decaro",
"amphibient",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122730",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122731",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122732",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122733",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122775",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27244"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
36429 | How much nutrition dissolves in boiling water?
At what temperature does all nutrition dissolve in water? I want to help people that can't eat solid food, by giving them liquefied food.
This question is too broad; there are many nutrients, some water soluble, some not. Can you narrow the focus?
@SAJ14SAJ I think it's still possible to provide a general answer. I tried; please do contribute/edit if you'd like.
In that case, pureeing with a blender or immersion blender is probably as key to the actual goal as is the tendency of various nutrients to dissolve.
Consider also that some vitamins are destroyed by heat (eg, C, pantothenic acid, folate).
It's not about temperature; it's about the type of nutrient, and sometimes a combination of temperature and time.
So if it's sugar, you're basically done - a little bit of heating and stirring is all it'll take. Starches take time, not just temperature. Imagine trying to dissolve rice into water - you'll have to boil it until it's not just cooked but mush. The fiber which is soluble will behave similarly, I believe.
Proteins are pretty variable. Some, like whey protein, will readily dissolve. Others never will; good luck dissolving chicken, for example.
Fat, on the other hand, will never dissolve. But some of them will turn liquid, at which point they could be emulsified with the rest. (For example, cream has plenty of emulsified milkfat in it.)
But if all you're trying to do is create liquid food, what you should be trying to do is grind/blend things until smooth, not actually dissolve anything. With some effort, you can turn pretty much anything into a (maybe thick) liquid.
The other main approach would be to buy powdered forms of the soluble nutrients to use as ingredients (like the whey protein I mentioned) but I would caution you that unless you really know what you're doing (talk to a nutritionist!), it'll be really, really easy to make something nutritionally incomplete like that.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.755230 | 2013-08-30T12:57:01 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36429",
"authors": [
"Abdulhamid",
"Andrew Ogden",
"Annie eclair ",
"Carey Gregory",
"Cascabel",
"Dee Francis Padamadan",
"Lovesredwine",
"Rodrigo",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"errata",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85503",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85506",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85856",
"tiftik"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
24184 | How can I make carrot cake more fruity and fresh?
I am planning to create a carrot cake that should be a bit different from what people usually think of when they think of carrot cake.
Please note: This is not a recipe request!
My carrot cake recipe consists of the usual stuff cinnamon, nutmeg, walnuts...and of course carrots. The frosting is classically cream cheese.
The purpose of this question is more to ask for classic flavor combinations or well knows flavor combinations. I want to be creative, but not too bold. Basically I just want to add different textures and bit of a fruity and fresh flavor to it, so:
What do you think about a layer of raspberry gel inside the cake?
What do you think about a layer of orange gel inside the cake, maybe with a bit of ginger?
What do you think about a passionfruit layer? Maybe together with the orange?
Do you think a bit of lemon and basil or mint in the frosting could be used to create a refreshing aftertaste?
http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1645/should-we-close-questions-structured-like-what-compliments-does-not-work-with
Culinary Artistry by Andrew Dornenburg and Karen Page has a large section on food pairings. For carrots they mention orange, ginger, lemon, basil and mint. I think any of these could work well, if done right. My suggestion would be first to use really good, flavorful carrots—preferably from a farmer's market. Second, I would tone down or even leave out some of the usual carrot cake spices so that you don't cover up the carrot flavor or the subtle flavors of your possible additions. Maybe fresh or candied ginger in the cake itself would be good. Orange or lemon curd and/or zest would work particulary well in offsetting the cream cheese icing. I'm thinking basil and mint might be better saved for another dessert.
Thank you! That seems to be a great book, I just ordered a copy.
It's a great resource—you'll enjoy it. I got a copy after seeing it on the bookshelf of a well-respected chef.
Orange is an amazing flavor but I also really like maple in the frosting
I would make the standard cream cheese frosting with finely grated orange rind sprinkled on top and the juice from that orange in the frosting. Yummm.
Pineapple, ( tinned crushed pineapple works best) the pineapple works great and helps kept it moist as well as adding a nice flavour.
Orange and ginger are already a classic combination in a carrot cake so that would work well.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.755422 | 2012-06-03T15:23:38 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24184",
"authors": [
"Antonio Jimenez",
"Belsheen",
"Callithumpian",
"Emmamom",
"Holland Wilson",
"Peggy Dreher Doran",
"Praveen Kumar",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sven",
"Tj Krusinski",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54971",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54978",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80820",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80831",
"stfcodes"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
64823 | Tamales with rendered turkey fat and clarified butter - No pork?
A friend of mine is coming back into town tomorrow and I have been planning a dinner for the occasion. I have been planning on making tamales out of leftover turkey. We talked earlier and she told me that she loves tamales, but she reminded me that she doesn't eat pork.
Oops, it's a good thing that I haven't made them yet, I would have used lard mixed with some bacon fat I have in the fridge. I don't have shortening, but I have about half the necessary rendered turkey fat, and I have plenty of butter.
For the tamale dough I plan to follow Rick Bayless's recipe.
Would a mixture of rendered turkey fat and clarified butter be an appropriate substitute for the lard in that recipe? Is clarifying the butter necessary step?
[Edit] after discussion in comments and in chat, I'd like to add one thing. I like tamales per Rick Bayless's method. I'm really not interested in reducing the fat, only in not using pork fat.
I would think that using the schmaltz by itself would be fine. Is there a reason you're planning on using butter? I wouldn't think that the water in the butter would be significant (one of the reasons for clarifying butter), as you're also adding other moisture from the chicken stock.
@Joe I don't have enough schmaltz, I am considering butter to make up the difference. The only other fats I have in the house are vegetable oil and olive oil.
I would think temperature/consistency of the fat and its melting point would be more significant ... so unless you have solid shortening, coconut oil, or similar ... or are prepared to clarify the butter, then let it set back up to the right temperature ... I'd just go with it as is.
What's the purpose of all that fat? I knew a couple of old ladies from Cuba who made delicious tamales, and I don't think they used very much added fat, if any. The broth can add most of the flavor — so there's where you can use your leftover turkey to make a rich stock. The recipe you linked to is not unlike a variation of cornbread, steamed in husks instead of baked, isn't it? Do you think all that lard is really necessary to make it work?
@ElmerCat There's more than one kind of tamale. Mexican ones tend to use lard, from what I know. I believe it makes the texture lighter. You can get away without it for a pretty thin layer of masa, but if you want bigger tamales I think they'd come out pretty dense without it.
@ElmerCat I'm sure that there are tamale traditions that do not include as much fat. I have experimented with my particular method to reduce the fat, and I have always found the results to be lacking. Perhaps my taste in that regard relates to what I do with cornbread. I slather it with butter.
Your guest says she loves tamales, but that she doesn't eat lard. I don't suppose you can find out what kind of tamales she's experienced before?
This might be helpful: http://www.themijachronicles.com/2012/02/five-truths-about-tamales/
Not an exact duplicate, but discusses fat substitutes: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/6473/1672
If you go the turkey/butter route, you'd definitely need to clarify the butter or the amount of fat in the masa dough will be very off.
I recommend clarifying the butter first, and then using it for your tamales. Butter is about 16-18% water, which could significantly affect the fat content of the dish. If you do that, it should work fine from a mechanical perspective; the melting points and viscosity are similar enough. I think you may run the risk of being slightly distracted by the flavor. Maybe that's a good thing? I make butter/flour tortillas all the time and those are freaking delicious.
The safer bet, of course, would be to try and find some chicken fat. If you can't, I'd definitely use the clarified butter though. Who knows, it might be your new go-to secret ingredient for tamales!
::Columbo voice:: Just one more thing.
If this person is avoiding pork because she's eating kosher, using butter with meat is likely a no no as well!
Good luck!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.755647 | 2015-12-27T00:01:25 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64823",
"authors": [
"Angela Elder",
"Bev P",
"CMB92",
"Cascabel",
"ElmerCat",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Mrs. Charlene Osawa",
"Yukie Kanomata",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154780",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154787",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154805",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54783",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"mark anthony"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
35706 | Cooking oranges to put in a cake
I found some recipes like this one for orange cake where the oranges are cooked in whole for 45 minutes up to two hours before they get pureed.
What does cooking oranges do to them - does it remove the bitterness of some layers of the peel?
Is there a recommended cooking time?
Will this work with other citrus fruits too?
Related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16190/ (see my self-answer; the other claims that you can't use the whole peel and that's clearly false)
I've made a similar cake before - note that it uses clementines, not just any oranges. This is an advantage because their skin is thinner and less bitter than larger oranges.
The cooking softens the peel enough to puree smoothly, and helps release the orange flavor from the peel. It's not really about reducing biterness; some of the bitter flavor may be drawn out into the water, but the same is true for the good flavors. Most of the flavor (fortunately) stays in the oranges. The end result is still a bit bitter, but bitter orange isn't an entirely bad flavor, and the sugar covers it a bit.
The best time probably depends on exactly how thick and tough the peel is. But it won't really hurt to cook them on the long side - they're not going to disintegrate or anything in just two hours. If you want to save time, you could poke them periodically to see if they're softened up enough.
As for other citrus fruits... it definitely does work best with things like clementines, which have thin skin that isn't horribly bitter to begin with. With thick-skinned oranges, eating the whole peel isn't such an exciting idea, but I guess it's mostly just that you'll end up with some additional mostly flavorless pith pureed in. Looking for variations, I'd be more inclined to try something like thin-skinned limes, though not in the same kind of recipe, since you'd need a lot more sugar to cover up the acidity. It'd also work incredibly well with things like kumquats, whose peel is sweet and if anything more pleasant to eat than the sour center. There is a decent amount of variation in bitterness of citrus peel, even between varieties of the same fruit, so it's probably prudent to taste the peel first before you invest time baking a cake out of it.
Thanks for your answer. Actually, the recipe that says to cook oranges (not clementines) for two hours is this one. Interesting that there is probably a lot of bitter taste left.
Even with a normal orange with a bitter peel this would taste like marmalade. Not everyone likes the bitterness of marmalade. I love it.
Disturbing the cells as little as possible during processing is what prevents the bitterness. There is a non-bitter substance in the cells that starts being converted by enzymes as soon as the cells are broken. It becomes more and more bitter until all of the substance is converted. When eating the fruit we don't taste the bitterness because there's not enough "conversion" time involved. Cooking the fruit, i.e. boiling in water (covered completely by the liquid), without ANY cutting or poking at all, will result in almost no bitter taste in my experience. I'm able to add less sugar after cooking citrus this way.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.755969 | 2013-07-31T06:05:29 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35706",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"FriskySaga",
"Juliet Ames",
"Rob Myers",
"Sobachatina",
"Sven",
"Tom",
"Wendy",
"Wolfram Arnold",
"a11s",
"apg",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83617",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83628",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83629",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83633"
],
"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
} |
23794 | Basil - to wash or not to wash? Best practices?
I know that washing basil weakens it's flavor significantly. I often buy it from local supermarkets where everyone can touch it, that's why I just have to wash it. But even when I buy organic basil, I still feel the urge to wash it.
How do you deal with that? Is there any way to 'wash' the basil without weaken it's flavour?
How do you wash your basil?
I put it into a small strainer and rinse it with lukewarm water. After that, I dry it with paper towels.
Where did "I know that washing basil weakens it's flavor significantly" come from? I have never heard of that.
Actually, a well known chef said this to me, that's why I always thought it is true.
Well known chefs love the "old wives tales" :-)
@rumtscho Better yet, where did the idea of buying an "organic" version of something negates the need to wash it come from?
People generally wash fruit and vegetables (organic or not) to remove surface contamination ,and the bacteria it may host, from the farm and supply chain
This includes soil (ground based animal faeces), compost (rotted vegetable matter), airborne dropped bird faeces, road dust (often high in animal faeces), and other surface contamination that can host bacteria
A short and simple wash by hand in a bowl or sink of cold tap water will remove large amounts of these surface contamination from most fruit and vegetables. Some may require light brushing or scrubbing. And for best results rinse in running cold tap water after washing. Shaking water off usually works better than trying to blot it off with a tea towel
Gentle washing will NOT remove any significant flavour or aromas. Think about what happens when it rains :-)
If you feel the urge to wash it before using, then wash it. The stress of not having washed it is not worth it.
I used to work in the Adelaide Central Markets, and having seen what some people did before touching the produce, I habitually wash goods that were within reach of the public before I use them. When you've seen customers stick their hand in their pants to scratch their butt and straight afterwards pick up the fruit, you get a bit paranoid.
I accept that most of the time, I don't need to wash the produce. I also accept that that does not matter to my brain what I tell it, if it wants me to wash the stuff before using it, it's not worth arguing.
When I do wash my ingredients, I don't dry them immediately. Instead, I leave them in the dish drainer on the sink while I do another part of meal preparation. Most of the water will drain away without having to put in any effort, and what's left can be shaken off or blotted, depending on how fragile I feel the ingredients are.
The other way you can deal with feeling the urge to wash produce before using it is to grow your own, or acquire it from a friend or relative. I get my basil from my Dad, who always grows about ten times as much as my parents will use.
+1 for growing your own or getting it from a trusted source.
Washing basil DOES remove flavour, as the oils accumulate on the surface of the leaves. Unwashed leaves taste like basil, and washed leaves taste like grass clippings (i.e. chlorophyll). This can be confirmed by any Italian nonna, or even just by tasting your basil plants after a good rain (or, before and after a wash); the flavour is noticeably diminished.
You can just use more leaves to compensate for the lost oils with most dishes, but pesto is virtually ruined with anything but unwashed leaves, getting that unmistakable grassy/banana-y/chlorophyllous taste. That said, I defo wash store/market basil regardless; use the coldest water and least agitation reasonably available to you...it's still gonna suck tho.
Of course, the only way you can (relatively) safely omit washing is to grow your own, ideally using an inert growing medium like a peat-based potting mix. A raised bed would give you an extra layer of protection from the feces of ground-dwelling critters like dogs, cats, raccoons, etc.
Washing basil (or indeed, anything) in lukewarm water is going to do very little to remove germs; in fact, you're probably just giving them an excuse to party.
Basil is easy to grow in a pot on a warm windowsill, so perhaps you could grow your own and avoid any misgivings about the hygiene aspects that way?
I thought washing produce was more to remove dirt, fertilizers, and pesticide than to reduce bacteria count.
@Sobachatina: I'm not so sure about that. I very quickly found several sources saying that washing removes bacteria; for example, the FDA says it does. I believe this is partially because a substantial amount of the bacteria that might be there will be living in the (possibly invisible) dirt that's on the surface, not just on the vegetables itself. (The bit about bacteria growing in room temperature water is the reason you wash right before using.)
Do you have a source for your claim that washing in lukewarm water will do little to remove germs? That seems counter-intuitive.
I think the confusion here is over the fact that washing meat is generally useless. It's different for produce because of a combination of the other comments here - most of the bacteria and other nasties you might find on produce live in/on the soil. Wash the surface, get rid of the soil, and it's generally safe to eat afterward.
I would wash my basil leaves in salted water. Salt, whose chemical composition is NaCl, when put in solution (water) dissociates into Na+ and Cl- ions. These ions will then attract the dirt, bacteria, etc. Then i would rinse them and dry them on paper towels.
Do you have anything that can corroborate this statement?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.756265 | 2012-05-16T20:39:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23794",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Callithumpian",
"Cap'n Benny",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Christopher Su",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Flimzy",
"Lillian Mitchell",
"Pac0",
"Sarah",
"SnakeDoc",
"Sobachatina",
"Sven",
"TFD",
"chefdavekCEC",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53971",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53977",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54520",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6498",
"kchoi",
"mbaytas",
"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
} |
33048 | Substitute for refined white flour to make fried potato wedges crispy?
I used to make potato wedges using refined flour, using this recipe. Basically refined flour and corn flour is used to provide extra crisp to potato wedges. The parboiled wedges are coated in a mixture from the flour and some seasonings, then frozen and deep-fried.
But while net surfing I came across harmful effects of refined white flour. Is there a substitute for refined flour? Or are there other ways to get crispy wedges?
Perhaps you can transcribe the recipe (or at least describe the use of flour in it) so we don't have to sit through the video?
I sat through the video so I gave a somewhat longer summary of how the flour is used
We're not a health site, so this (my comment) is off-topic, but... you're worried about the health effects of a relatively small amount of flour in something you're deep frying ‽
To be clear about what it means that we're not a health site, there is a second question, not explicitly asked: are the claims about flour being harmful true? That is outside the scope and expertise of Seasoned Advice. So you won't get an answer to that part here. But it may be the case that it isn't true, unfortunately I don't think the network has a good site to ask that on.
@derobert i am asking for substitution...not about harmful effects, i mentioned it as a reason for not using it further.
@SunishthaSingh Understood, just want to be clear about it, in case some future visitor sees the question and, not seeing anything talking about the health effects, assumes we've vetted them.
Sunishtha, when I edited your answer, I fixed a lot of things, and left the meaning completely intact. We really do like to have good writing on StackExchange sites, and community editing is one of the ways we accomplish that. Is there some reason you rolled it back?
@Jefromi that is due to server slow n my system was hanged....i didn't wished to rollback...m thnkful to your help in fixing my question.
You could substitute any flour you like, the purpose of the coating is to give it some extra crisp when frying. I would suggest maybe rice flour or you could use whole wheat flour but the taste may be different.
IMO, I would skip that step altogether though. A potato wedge is just a french fry cut in a different shape and we don't dredge french fries.
Any starch really... many people do dredge or batter french fries. It is not the most common method, but it is out there. CF Burger King on the fast food front.
While you can make wedges without this step, using the aromatic flour will give you a different result than without. It would be about the same difference as between a schnitzel and an escalope - similar, but not the same. If the OP likes the taste, I would suggest to not leave it out.
Yeah true, i forgot about that atrocious "fry".
You can add the aromatics to the wedges post-fry as a seasoning though.
@Brendan Did not say I liked them....
Good on you for that!
The coating of flour serves two purposes at once. First, it carries flavor - the flour-seasoning mix sticks better to the potatoes than a seasoning-only mixture could. Second, it gives you a crisp texture, absorbing oil, without letting much oil through to the actual potato, to prevent it from getting greasy.
For both, the closer you get to pure starch, the better results you will get. You can use a refined flour or starch made from practically any tuber or grain with good results. Which one you choose is probably a matter of practicality, as not all of them are equally available everywhere.
If you want to come away from the starch, whole-grain flours will also work reasonably well. Choose finely ground ones and be aware that most of them will introduce their own taste. This can be an advantage or disadvantage, depending on whether you like the taste combination. I would refrain from the strongest tasting ones such as maize flour.
I would advise against legume or nut flours. They contain even less starch than whole grain flours, but exactly for this reason they will fail at the two roles I noted above.
If you are asking yourself why you would want to go to alternatives with less starch: most of the concerns this article has about "refined white flour" (which happens to be about 90% wheat starch) are commonly expressed for all kinds of starch (except for numbers 5 and 6 which are wheat-specific). So, if you believe the article, you should avoid everything well-suited as a replacement for the flour, and look for alternatives which deliver an acceptable result while introducing less starch into your diet. While researching this, don't forget that the potatoes will deliver the largest starch amount in this recipe anyway, so if you decide to reduce starch consumption, you should probably remove this from the menu altogether.
FWIW, we used Taro root powder at the restaurant I used to work at.
I find whole oat flour provides an excellent crispyness to fried veggies. I mill my own from steel cut groats, but you can probably either buy the stuff, or make it in small quantities from groats or oatmeal with a spinning blade type spice grinder.
ty for the option will try it out n get back to you with experience.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.756828 | 2013-03-27T15:53:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33048",
"authors": [
"Brendan",
"Cascabel",
"DMW",
"Immortal Blue",
"Karim Graham",
"La Esposa",
"Lucy",
"MindSwipe",
"Nathan Grant Peterson",
"None",
"Patricia Kirby",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SassyInTexas",
"Stuart.Sklinar",
"Sunishtha Singh",
"User1000547",
"derobert",
"dpodatabased",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76464",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76465",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76466",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76470",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76472",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76473",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76529",
"littlefeltfangs",
"lmrta",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
43665 | How to catch culture out of yogurt?
When I make yogurt, I freeze some of the yogurt for the next time. However, I concentrate the yogurt by pouring it into a cloth, and extracting the yogurt whey (I do not know if it is called whey like cheese).
Is the culture in the yogurt whey? Do I lose culture by concentrating the yogurt?
Is salt harmful for the culture? Do I necessarily need to store the culture before adding salt to yogurt?
The culture is everywhere in the yogurt, and you are not losing all of the whey anyway. If you'd managed to press out all of the moisture, you'd end up with yogurt powder.
Salt interferes with all kinds of microorganisms. It is much better to not add salt to culture.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.757291 | 2014-04-24T02:36:47 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43665",
"authors": [
"ONCE MEDICAL spam",
"Pam Tedder",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102394",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102395",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102407",
"status duniya status duniya",
"wdwdwe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
37057 | Can liqueurs be reduced?
I'm thinking specifically about Frangelico, but Kahlua is another one that I use quite a bit. I don't care about alcohol content, but I would like stronger flavor and less liquid.
Many of the aromatic qualities of liqueurs are due to volatile substances that will likely evaporate while reducing the liqueur. So it really depends on how volatile the substances are that you want to keep.
I performed a simple experiment with Frangelico. So, what I did is (over low heat for 20 minutes) I reduced 1/4 cup of store bought Frangelico to cca. 1/8 cup hazelnut and caramel flavored sugar water/syrup. It tastes pleasant, but the hazelnut aroma is a bit weaker - which might suggest that some of the hazelnut aroma evaporated together with the alcohol and water (wouldn't be surprising) or that the alcohol helped with distributing (hence perceiving) the aroma better or that the sweetness and other flavors now overpower it.
Anyway, as stated above in many cases the aromatic substances in mixtures are aromatic because they are highly volatile - we can smell them cause they escape from the mixture.
So, what can you do? Some techniques that I have used in the past come to mind:
Distillation. Where you separate aromatic substances depending on their boiling points and catch them after condensation. However, the heat might not be good for some substances.
Rotary evaporation. Which became a "hot" technique in molecular cooking =) Here the idea is similar to distillation, but the method is gentler in terms of temperature as it operates under reduced pressure - however it requires special equipment - a rotary evaporator. I successfully used it to separate the aroma from walnut liqueur and to make whiskey syrup.
Freeze distillation. It has been suggested for separating menthol and other stuff from the alcohol medium (you might find suggestions for similar techniques by searching the internet for "homemade [whatever] essence/extract").
Making your own liqueurs/alcohol extracts - with more concentrated aroma than the commercial ones - so you have less volume for the same amount of the aromatic substance. This might be possible as the amount of alcohol in the solution might be able to accept more of the aromatic substance than there is in the commercial liqueur. However, it is very likely they are adding a concentrated/distilled essence, which gives a more clean and stronger flavor than what you can get from just extracting it (from say hazelnuts) with alcohol.
However, as perviously suggested by @TFD you can just want to avoid all the hassle and buy commercially available essences/extracts or use some alternative flavorings as @razumny suggests. Or simply try the reduction technique if you don't mind loosing some of the volatile substances - and if the result is satisfying enough.
That said, I made very tasty reductions of some liqueurs with very strong flavors (homemade wild blueberry liqueur and Terrano liqueur) to pour over deserts, where I mostly just wanted to get rid of the alcohol taste and to thicken it a bit. So, the results will vary from liqueur to liqueur and your best bet would be to just try it out with small quantities to see how it goes.
WOW...did you perform that experiment to answer this question? Or had you already done it?
@Jolenealaska I did it just for you ;-) and out of my effing curiosity - I (read: silly man) even walked down to the corner to get the Frangelico ... hehe
You should get BIG TIME extra rep points for that!
@Jolenealaska I signed in just to upvote him :-) ps: and I don't even know what Frangelico is.
While you could reduce it, you would most likely remove a lot of flavour too
Try a "home brewing" shop for a essence of Frangelico
e.g. http://www.beaudeserthomebrew.com.au/Still-Spirits---Top-Shelf/
What do you base this on?
Brilliant! http://www.amazon.com/Home-Brew-Ohio-Hazelnut-Frangelico/dp/B0064OGGI6/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1380103699&sr=8-4&keywords=liqueur+essence I'm not bothered at all by the negative reviews, they obviously didn't know what they were buying. I need to place an Amazon order soon anyway, so I'll give it a shot (so to speak). I'd still like to know more about possibly reducing the real stuff though.
I have not tried reducing liqueurs myself. However, judging from experience with reducing red and white wine, you will likely intensify the stronger base notes, while the finer notes are more likely to be lost in the mix. (Note that the finer flavor notes are not gone, they are simply drowned out by the stronger base notes).
I found a list of Alcohol Substitutions at About.com: http://homecooking.about.com/library/archive/blalcohol6.htm
I left 3 centimeters of Disaronno Amaretto on the side in a glass with cling film on top, left it for 2 months (by mistake, I was saving for some meal I never made), it turned into a thick sticky syrup with next to zero alcohol (but all the flavor).
I also got a "sugar sweet" left in the middle (small badly formed sugar cube).
I think it could not have been quite air tight and the water/alcohol evaporated. It was not in direct sunlight nor in shade.
I assume something could be done with others! (not vodkas or whiskeys, etc)
Many culinary triumphs have come out of accidents! For my purposes, a sticky syrup would be cool.
@Jolenealaska I am also thinking Cointreau or Southern Comfort, pured over some kind of (ice) cream, banana, toffee desert thing - it came out like honey.
You may be able to reduce Frangelico, as it is only 20% alcohol by volume, and so may not be terribly likely to create a fire hazard. However, as Razummy has indicated, this may not leave it tasting at its best.
Normally, you use liqueur in recipes as much for the aroma as for being a direct flavoring, so the among is small already: a tablespoon or two, perhaps a quarter cup at the outside.
You must ask yourself, why is reducing liqueurs not a common, or at least a known technique? The answer is almost certainly that the results are not very good.
If you are wanting more flavor than the liqueurs provide, for a primary flavor component, you would be better off using essential oils or extracts.
For example, hazelnut extract is available from a number of sources. Similarly, you can obtain essentially oils intended primarily for flavoring candies but useful for other purposes in a wide variety of flavors. The main vendor these days appears to be LorAnn.
Reverse Osmosis is already in use to concentrate the flavorants in wine. There's no reason to think it wouldn't also work for Frangelico or Kahlua.
Membranes that pass water preferably to ethanol are available(Powerpoint), but AFAICT, haven't yet been applied to liqueurs. Barring such an experimental approach, you'd have to add pure ethanol back to your concentrated flavorants.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.757405 | 2013-09-25T09:00:35 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37057",
"authors": [
"Caithlin Kearns",
"CiaranWelsh",
"Csilla",
"David",
"Francesco",
"JBRWilkinson",
"Jolenealaska",
"Martin Turjak",
"Mikhail",
"Prabhjot",
"Recycled Steel",
"RogergR777",
"Socob",
"Valerie Snyder",
"Varan Sinayee",
"Varna",
"cal",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20402",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87057",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87058",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87137",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87338",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87442",
"l2silver",
"opr",
"razumny"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
37294 | What is yellow rock sugar, for pho?
I love pho and will soon try making it myself using an authentic Vietnamese recipe. I'm clear on all of the other ingredients and techniques, but "yellow rock sugar" has me stumped. Is this what the recipe means? If so, does it really taste different from regular sugar?
What's in the picture looks about right. This brand is commonly found in Asian grocery stores around here: (your mileage may vary). It is essentially crystallized cane sugar. If you really can't find it, you could probably substitute regular sugar. The flavour is a little different though, as well it isn't a refined white sugar.
According to "this guy" (random search), there is a difference and the yellow rock sugar often includes a few other sugars (unrefined brown sugar), and that you shouldn't ever use the clear/white rock sugar for pho.
LOL, I came across the same "this guy". Otherwise I might have just substituted white sugar because the ingredients in my picture (visible with the magnification tool) just say cane sugar and water. Your picture does look like mine, so I think I'll just go ahead and add it to my ever increasing Amazon order. If I'm going to spend all the time to make "real" pho, I might as well do it with traditional ingredients.
In "this guy's" recipe, there is 1/2 c. of rock sugar to an 8 quart stock pot. Unless there is something exceeding special about that rock sugar, taking into account the fact that it would not crystalize if it is was not nearly entirely sucrose, the percentage in the entire dish is going to be trivial. I would not worry about this.
Yeah, actually I only noted that link because it was different than what I had priorly assumed. Assuming it's a crystalized version of an unrefined non-white cane sugar, there would be some molasses present? (no idea if this is correct, which is why it's not in my answer) Because most of these rock sugars come from some Chinese Factory, they don't often list a lot details... You could add some brown sugar if that is true.
A touch of molasses, the ingredient that makes brown sugar brown, should fix you up. Not sure how they get it yellow like that, maybe some weird extraction process, or even FD&C Yellow 5.
Unprocessed lump sugar is readily available in our area of madison /sun prairie wi. Woodman's, multiple Asian groceries, you may even be able to use Mexican piloncillo. That tastes similar or same, but I think it may be harder?? I wouldn't use brown sugar, sugar in the raw and definitely not white sugar, the yellow rock is smoother, richer and non-cloying. Turbinado, sucanat or dehydrated cane juice would all be better than white or brown.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.757952 | 2013-10-03T01:51:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37294",
"authors": [
"Chuck Wood",
"Janette",
"Jolenealaska",
"Marsha Stroik",
"Qrzysiek",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sophia Mrimi",
"Spammer",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138705",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87657",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87658",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87659",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87665",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87667",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87668",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87669",
"rbialon",
"talon8",
"user14280458",
"v3nt"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
75177 | Can one bake a cake with a cooked egg instead of a raw one?
This recent question about a person who wanted to bake a cake but only had a cooked egg left suggested me an even stupider one: is it possible to bake a cake with a cooked egg instead of a raw one? After all, the egg is going to end up cooked inside the cake anyway.
I imagine that it's going to be tricky to mix it with the dough, but with a hand mixer and a sufficient amount of violence everything is possible.
Or are the chemical processes of boiling an egg and cooking it inside the dough fundamentally different?
"with a hand mixer and a sufficient amount of violence everything is possible" - I think I've just found my new motto.
I am in no way an expert on this site so I have decided to comment but if you apply enough violence on the cooked egg alone and mix it with just a little water then would that get you at least 75% of the desired result?
I used a cake mix once that required no egg (and the mix contained no powdered egg either). I suppose you could mince a boiled egg and combine with the batter, but my personal opinion on this is yuck.
@MonkeyZeus what do you mean "75% of the desired result"?
@rumtscho I will preface this again with "I am not an expert". My understanding is that an egg acts as a binder for ingredients so would the process I described bring back 75% of the eggy-ness properties for use in the recipe?
@MonkeyZeus An egg acts as many different things, so I didn't know which of them you mean, if you can even categorize them in that way. And if you were to pick something like "binder" and assert that it is the same over different recipes, how do you find some kind of numerical value for it, even an idealized one (the problem of measuring it in reality would be yet another level of difficulty). In short, I am very confused when I try to understand your question.
I went ahead and edited your title - it sounds like you're just interested in something that was actually supposed to have raw egg in it, not whether there's some cake that you can just stick a cooked egg in.
I would say no. The function of the egg in the cake is to go in raw, mix with the other stuff, and once the raw egg has penetrated and coated the other ingredients thoroughly, bind it all together with that bouncy, sticky solidified eggy property which comes into existence as the egg cooks.
Cooking the egg first all by itself, then adding to a cake would be like drying some crazy glue, then grinding up that hardened crust and putting the resulting powder between two things you want to stick together. The gluing action is all over when the glue has dried.
The crazy glue analogy is golden!
It is possible, but only if you do not want it to act as glue.
are the chemical processes of boiling an egg and cooking it inside the dough fundamentally different?
As mentioned in earlier answers - no, but the point is that you need these processes during baking.
One notable exception is shortcrust pastry
You can use boiled egg to bake it. It is meant to be crusty, fragile. That's why you mix flour with fat first - to prevent gluing. When you use a boiled egg yolk instead of raw one, you have one less factor for gluing. It's easy to make pastry too delicate that way, but it is doable. I did it with success.
It's a lot easier to separate the yolk from a boiled egg too :)
@OrangeDog But I find it easier to separate an egg from its shell when it's raw.
@Arthur then use raw, works both ways!
+1 - Ovis Mollis are shortcrust cookies made with boiled eggs
While I tend to somewhat agree with the previous answer, raw eggs have more properties than just taste or binding. They have a binding effect, a rising effect, thickening effect, etc. Additionally they are part of the liquid ingredients in a cake.
You can't replicate the effects with only a cooked egg in
place of a raw egg. Now, that doesn't mean that you can't replicate the effects. It only means that you can't do it with just a cooked egg.
I'm sure that with the addition of the right liquids and the additional ingredients required to create the desired result, a cooked egg could be used.
"used" in what sense? Sure, there are egg replacements, which work more or less well. But you are still better off using these and nothing else, than using them and adding ground cooked egg.
No you can’t: chemical reactions do happen to the egg (not necessarily with the other ingredients) as the proteins in the egg are changed during the cooking process.
As a metaphor you can’t make a wall with pre-set cement as it can’t bind with the sand and bricks. When baking a cake, the egg acts like cement in concrete.
The chemistry is definitely important. Once cooked, the properties of the proteins change. (And this is very different from what happens with powdered eggs, so references to those in other answers/comments are not relevant.)
If shortcakes count as a cake, then I'd say yes. I've made James Beard's shortcake recipe several times, and it calls for two hard-boiled eggs (none raw), and the results are deliciously flaky. As mentioned above, this might better fit into the pastry category, though.
In Italy we go as far as cooking salty cakes with boiled eggs, they are decorative but can be peeled and eaten. We indeed put them in the oven with all the shell.
The recipe is from Naples, and is called Casatiello Napoletano Salato (Casatiello stays for little house, don't ask me why, the other two words mean neapolitan and salty).
Cfr.:
http://www.lucianopignataro.it/a/ricetta-casatiello-napoli/70835
The cooked egg will work as a filler/texturing/flavoring ingredient, it will not have the baking (leavening, binding..) properties of the raw egg, so a recipe that is really dependent on these properties (some are, some are not really and will come out with a different but acceptable texture) will fail.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.758213 | 2016-11-01T19:32:57 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75177",
"authors": [
"Agos",
"Arthur",
"Cascabel",
"Joshua",
"MaxW",
"MonkeyZeus",
"Mołot",
"OrangeDog",
"flith",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51652",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51663",
"rumtscho",
"user2338816"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
32930 | Is it a good idea or a waste to fry with olive oil?
A NY Times article says it's a waste:
After I’d heated them, none of the olive oils had much olive flavor left. In fact, they didn’t taste much different from the seed oils.
But How to Cook Everything says it's a good idea:
There is a myth that olive oil is not good for frying; on the contrary, it adds a delicious flavor to many savory fried foods.
OMG which one is it?
In my experience it is a.) a waste of good olive oil, because you won't taste much of it that way, and b.) depending on the kind of oil and the temperature, a slightly burned taste. However, in the end the bitter taste won't matter much in most dishes—although it doesn't add anything either. I believe the proper Mediterranean way is to sprinkle good olive oil on your food right before serving. That's how I and many others do it. My impression is that frying in olive oil is mostly done by people who like the idea of it rather than the way their actual food tastes.
See Why does my olive oil smoke/burn when I fry with it? and Can extra virgin olive oil be used for stir frying, roasting, grilling?.
Also Why should I use olive oil? I don't think there's much more we can say about this topic that hasn't already been said.
For what it's worth with respect to your version of the question, Harold McGee (the author of that NY Times column) actually carefully tries things, so you can generally trust him.
Right. If you dig deeper, you'll notice a conspicuous lack of evidence from the folks claiming that olive oil is just super awesome for everything, whereas the ones saying that heating basically destroys olive oil generally have research and experimentation to back up their claims.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.758682 | 2013-03-22T22:04:20 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32930",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Cascabel",
"Cerberus",
"Healthyfax",
"Kim J. Osorio",
"Medical Doctor Ernesto Diaz",
"Nicole O",
"anonymous",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76153",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76155",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76156",
"val - disappointed in SE"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
91758 | How to ensure quality control when cooking with or eating crickets?
Eating crickets seems to be a growing trend in the USA. I am quite familiar with beef, chicken, fish and their internal temperatures when cooking. I also understand that you don't need to cook crickets to eat them; they are fine to eat raw.
I am curious though if there are other observations that can be made that will determine if a cricket is good to eat or not. Are they specific breeds of cricket that are more quality than others? Do some breeds have more issues than others?
Could a discoloration of a cricket indicate that is spoiled and should not be eaten?
@sdarb: Thank you! (I wouldn't call myself an authority as I've only worked in Africa for a few months but I'll try anything once except hard drugs...) ;-)
better than nothing and more than I know about cookin bugs!
After doing a quick literature survey; I've found out that, The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations has published a report: Edible insects: Future prospects for food and feed security
Chapter 10 in this report discusses, food safety and preservation techniques.
Even though, the house cricket (Acheta domesticus), one of the few species in the document listed next to superworm, yellow mealworm, wax moth and butterworm, is found to be free from pathogens like Salmonella and Listeria. They conclude:
It is unlikely that these insects attract microbial flora that pose risks to humans
However they would still advise that:
These insects should undergo a transformation to render inactive or reduce their microbial content. This could involve cooking (e.g. boiling or roasting) or pasteurization (Giaccone, 2005).
As no one is answering, I can only give you anecdotal evidence from back when I was still working in Africa:
Insects were always fried live except for honey ants¹ and something the locals called butterworms².
Frying makes sense as:
frying is done at a higher temperature than boiling
these critters are too small to be roasted
you're sure of the freshness
any and all diseases they might carry would be surely killed.
Note¹: These were "popped" like pop corn, but without any fat: just thrown in an earthenware jug that had been sitting in charcoal for a while before any ants were thrown in. (These were the only insects I ever actually liked)
Note²: These were beheaded by biting their head off and then their internals smeared over a piece of unleavened bread-like substance made from manioc. (Nope: didn't try those; too gross even for me)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.758966 | 2018-08-17T16:02:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91758",
"authors": [
"Fabby",
"Sdarb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49752"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
5976 | How to properly freeze kefir grains
I have been making kefir regularly for a couple years. Lately, however, my family's interest in it has waned and I have been using it less often and so feeding it less often.
I want to store some kefir grains so I don't lose them due to my own negligence. I've heard that grains can be frozen but I'm scared to kill some in the experiment.
What is a proven procedure for freezing (and subsequently rethawing) my kefir grains such that they stay viable?
As a side-question, how do you prevent the kefir from developing little tiny, useless curds, and instead evenly thickening into something like yogurt?
@BobMcGee, agitation and stirring should be enough to homogenise it if it is just a couple of days old. Otherwise, I would add more milk, ferment for half a day, strain off the curds to keep as a starter, and you should have a good smooth kefir.
Less complicated than the other method, but similar steps at the beginning. I have used two methods and both worked. I have heard success stories for grains in the freezer for over a year. No milk powder involved.
Wash the grains in both cases.
Methods:
Put in fresh milk (the same you used before to make the kefir) and then freeze in a plastic container or so (I used a plastic bag)
Let the grains dry. Not just with kitchen tissue, but actually leave it dry for an hour or two. Finally put it into kitchen tissue and wrap that in a plastic bag or so for freezing.
For thawing I left the grains in the fridge for half a day and then gave them directly into milk.
I tested both methods, as stated. Both worked just fine. In my case the max. time was more than 2 months. However, when "reactivating" the grains it took both some time and the results of the first two or three batches were not consumable (well, I guess they were, but just not pleasurable as kefir proper).
Thank you! I had read the instructions but was looking for personal experience.
One method for storing kefir grains for periods of up to 2 months, is by freezing spare grains.
To freeze effectively, wash the grains with pre-boiled COOLED water. Pat-dry the grains between pre-ironed cooled white toweling to remove excess moisture.
Place the grains in a jar or in a plastic bag, seal and put in the freezer. With milk grains, first add some dry milk powder, [DMP] adding enough to completely cover the grains with the DMP, seal jar or bag and then freeze.
DMP is mixed with the milk kefir-grains as a cryoprotectant agent to prevent freezer burn. Although I've found that kefir grains are viable for up to one year with this method, this length of time may completely remove the yeast component found in healthy kefir grains [if frozen for longer than 2 months, but not specifically]. Because of this potential, freezing kefir grains as explained above, is best performed for a period of no longer than 2 months.
If DMP is omitted for freezing milk kefir-grains, then a period of no longer than 1 month is recommended. Otherwise the yeast component of kefir grains may become damaged, especially if continual partial thawing and freezing due to poor freezer mechanism is involved.
To reactivate frozen kefir grains, thaw by placing the grains in a glass filled with cold water for a few minutes. Place the grains into a strainer and wash off any powdered milk that's adhered to the grains with cold water. http://users.sa.chariot.net.au/~dna/Makekefir.html#Storing_kefir-grains
Have you done this?
I'm interested if anyone has proven this method.
Sobachatina, reading Janelle's answer, in the 4th paragraph, it sounds like she's used this and found keffir grains were viable for 1 year frozen but with loss of yeast component. She recommends 2 months max for best results.
I've successfully frozen and defrosted milk kefir grains. The defrosted kefir grains worked the first time culturing in fresh milk. I washed the kefir grains in filtered water till water was clear. Packed the washed kefir grains into zip lock snack bags with some plain filtered water and heat sealed the bag. I double bagged and heat sealed each bag. After 5 months I took the bag of frozen kefir grains and defrosted at room temperature overnight. In the morning I fed the kefir grains with some warm fresh milk and left to culture for 24 hours. They haven't looked back. Making beautiful kefir every day.
Thank you for your experience! It's good to know that it works.
I have been making kefir for many years now. I always freeze grains using the dry milk powder mentioned above. Four days ago I cleaned our freezer of expired foods and found grains frozen 5 years ago. I was curious it they might be revived after so long since I've never left them for over one year. I rinsed them with tapwater (I admit to being abusive to my grains) then left them in milk at room temperature. I was certain they were dead, but my husband bet they were still viable. Less than 48 hours later, they cultured the milk. After being frozen 5 years they are alive and working well. I'm really surprised. Since I've read frozen viability is much shorter, I wanted to share my experience. Good luck culturing!
To freeze milk kefir grains, I place the unwashed grains in a pint glass bottle and fill the jar 3/4 full with fresh milk, put on the lid and place in the freezer compartment.
To freeze water kefir grains, I do the same thing only I fill the jar 3/4 full with sugar water, (the same type as I use to make water kefir), put on the lid and place in the freezer. Leaving enouh room for the ice to expand safely in the jar.
When I want to reuse either of them, I take the jar out of the freezer and sit it on the refrigerator top until thoroughly thawed and then use as normal.
When I first reuse them, they always work immediately as if they had not been frozen at all.
I have frozen dairy kefir grains in a 1/2 c canning jar with no rinsing, adding in a little kefir to surround grains. When I was ready to use, I left jar in refrigerator overnight and added to fresh milk in the morning. My grains have been frozen several times and reused in this manner. So far so good.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.759462 | 2010-08-25T19:27:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5976",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Jude",
"Kelly Lamb Havlik",
"Ryan Conner",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33982",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54484",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"user110084"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
14600 | How can I bake normally fried foods?
A lot of frozen, convenience foods are foods that are traditionally fried can be prepared by baking.
I'm thinking of, fish sticks, french fries, tator tots, jalapeño poppers, etc.
I'm lousy at deep frying. I don't want to buy a fryer because I don't do it enough to make an expensive bulky appliance worthwhile. When frying in a pan I don't like monitoring the temperature of my oil. My food, therefore, comes out much more oily than it should. I also don't like cleaning and storing a gallon of frying oil.
I know that these foods are different when baked rather than fried. However, my homemade french fries are much worse baked than commercial versions.
How can I make jalapeño poppers at home that can be baked like commercial frozen products?
How are your homemade fries worse than the commercial versions? Are they soggy? Taste bad?
The flavor is ok but they just don't get as crispy. Breaded foods, in particular, stay soft and bready instead of become crisp.
Conventional oven or convection? Deep-frying is essentially a form of convection, so you won't get such good results with a conventional oven.
FYI, a lot of those frozen convenience foods are fried at the food plant before they freeze them. So you're actually re-frying them, or reheating already fried food.
I would recommend borrowing from the principles found in this post, which details how to "fry" chicken in a kettle grill: Kettle Fried Chicken.
Two key takeaways here: 1) high heat, and 2) all (or nearly all) your food's surface area is exposed to heated air. You'll just replace "kettle" with "oven," and put something under the rack on which you're cooking your food to catch the stuff that drips away from it, and you should be good to go. It may require some experimentation to find the right mix of time and temperature for the food item you wish to cook, but it shouldn't take more than a few attempts to get it right, if not the first one.
The link is dead.
Apart from the high heat, this article recommends (1) Breading, i.e. covering in alternating layers of flour (or cornstarch etc.) and some fluid such as egg white or oil, for two or three layers of flour/cornstarch in total, and (2) Oiling the outer surface.
Thanks for identifying the broken link. It is fixed now.
The link is dead again :(
Fixed again. :)
You can bake a great many fried things without changing the recipe at all. Take jalapeño poppers for example. My typical jalapeño popper recipe is as follows:
Halve and deseed some jalapeño peppers
Fill with cream cheese
Dip in egg
Dredge in breadcrumbs (panko or italian seasoned)
Freeze for at least 30 mins
Deep fry until golden brown
Step 5 is important when deep frying something with a cheesy or otherwise gooey filling. If you were to deep fry room temperature cream cheese it would liquify nearly instantly and likely leak out into your oil, making a giant stinky mess. A similar thing happens when deep frying room temperature Snickers or Mars bars.
By starting with a frozen cheese, it will get just hot enough to melt but still have structure.
To translate this step to baking step 5 simply becomes optional. You could bake these at around 325 F (160 C) until golden brown (probably 10-15 mins or so?) without freezing. The oven will be a much gentler heat, and if you do get a little cheese leakage, it won't be that bad. If you froze them then you'd simply bake them longer (probably 25-30?).
So how does this apply to other typically fried things? I think it all comes down to the breading. If it requires a wet breading then it's not going to translate well to baking. e.g. deep fried snickers
The best breading to translate well to baking is a simple egg (maybe a bit of milk) dunk and a dredge through some bread crumbs. I think the important factor here is that, besides the egg, the breading is already cooked. So whether baking or frying you're really just heating up the food.
Wet batters containing raw flour, on the other hand, need to be cooked. The frying process nearly instantly steams all of the moisture out of the wet batter causing a fluffy fried shell. This reaction cannot occur in a baking environment, plus your batter would pool on the bottom of your pan.
This should translate well to the other things you mention, but I'm not so sure about fries. I could be wrong here (I don't buy frozen fries), but I believe that frozen fries are already partially pre-cooked in some manner. I'm not sure whether it's a partial fry or a par-boil, but I don't think they're completely raw. Same thing goes for tater tots.
"A similar thing happens when deep frying room temperature Snickers or Mars bars" - you're Scottish, aren't you? :-)
@Rory: Nope, just a hungry American! I've only had the Snickers version. We don't have Mars over here anymore.
Breaded items have to be fried, period.
Potatoes are a different matter. You can make oven fries pretty easily - use enough fat so that each piece is generously coated, use a pan that's big enough to spread them out without crowding, and bake at 400 F or so.
Not true. Many breaded items can be baked / oven cooked. Just one that I use http://www.birdseye.co.uk/range/Products/Cod%20Fillets%20in%20Breadcrumbs
why do breaded items need to be fried period?
Some considerations when trying to convert from deep-fried to baked:
Batter-dipped items don't work. You'll need to convert to a breading, instead.
If it's not coated, you often still need some oil; either toss in a bowl with oil before hand, or spray with an oil mister.
Airflow is very important; set items on a wire rack, and make sure that there is plenty of space in between so they don't steam each other. If you have convection oven, turn on the fan; if you don't, you may want to open the oven a few times to let steam escape.
Oil holds a lot more heat than air. You may need to par-cook items so they cook through fully before the outside / coating browns. (and oven cooking is much slower).
And one trick:
for relatively flat items (eg, egplant slices), pre-heat your sheet pan, then set the items (coated in oil, or breaded) onto the hot sheet, then toss it in the pre-heated oven. (I think I got this trick from America's Test Kitchen ... you could also sauté in an oven-safe pan, then finish it in the oven)
You'll have to play around with it ... some items do better partially cooked, then breaded and finished in the oven; some are better started at high heat to partially brown, then finished at low heat; others are better started at low heat, then finished at high heat or under the broiler.
My deep fryer died. I tried using the basket in the middle of the oven and it works well. I place a sheet pan on the bottom rack to catch drippings. For fries I cook at 475F convection. I toss them in a bowl of spices and a very tiny bit of oil first. Breaded items seem to work well, too.
A lot of convenience foods have instructions for baking or grilling instead of frying. Even potato wedges. Maybe you can look at the packaging on different brands to get an idea of what's possible?
why didnt I think of that?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.759956 | 2011-05-09T16:23:47 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14600",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Awet Mengsteab",
"Becky Nelson",
"Ching Chong",
"Craicerjack",
"Evgeni Sergeev",
"Martha F.",
"Martin Jevon",
"Minnow",
"Rory Alsop",
"Sean Hart",
"Sobachatina",
"derobert",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141441",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18969",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31028",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69248",
"john minister"
],
"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
} |
24072 | Can I can bacon?
This question is my wife's. Of course, I wouldn't want to save bacon for later.
I have seen commercial canned bacon for long term food storage and camping, etc.
Is it possible to can bacon at home? Does it have to be pressure canned or do the preservatives in the bacon make that unnecessary?
How is the taste/texture of bacon out of a can? It's not worth doing if it will end up unappealing.
Why can it? How long are you (is she) hoping to keep it for? Why not just freeze it?
@talon8- In general canning is helpful because it saves freezer space, doesn't need to be thawed, and stays good during a power outage. Many things are better frozen but some things- like beans and stew meat for example- are nice to have on hand in bottles.
I found a site that demonstrates canning it raw...
http://www.tngun.com/how-to-can-bacon/
I did a little digging and ran into a Backwoods Home Magazine article on canning bacon. It is apparently possible, even easy. Basically, the process seems to be: lay bacon strips on paper, put another piece of paper over them. Roll this up (and possibly fold it) and put the roll in a mason jar. 90 minutes at 10psi (I'm quoting here, I'm not a canner myself) and voila, canned bacon.
I found one review from avclub.com of a commercial canned bacon product. It was not flattering. Not even a little bit. I don't know what that says about the possible taste of home canned bacon, if anything.
Removed the shopping site and added an actual product review of a canned bacon product.
Wow. That review is very unflattering. That does greatly reduce my interest in the idea. Still if it is that easy to do I might just throw some in the next time I have the pressure canner out and see how it is homemade.
http://www.emergencypreparationforum.com/canned-bacon-the-review-1650.html These guys seem to like the canned bacon.
I wonder if vacuum packing would be a better solution - I had vaccum-packed bakkwa that was quite tasty, but I'm not sure about shelf-stability.
Pig candy. Look that up for ways to do this. Once cooked lightly & coated. It can be stored in plastic sealed bags or jars. in a cool place. We use red cane sugar some salt, powdered hot peppers. For this. Canada makes something like this with maple sugar. Not sure how she makes this. The hot pepper is Asian stile.
Can you actually describe what this product is rather than telling us to go search for it?
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how this answers any questions about home-canning bacon.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.760512 | 2012-05-29T19:53:06 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24072",
"authors": [
"Carlos Garcia",
"Catija",
"Cindy",
"Luciano",
"Queen Charming Fortalejo II",
"Ruth Ann Slenker",
"Shadoath",
"Sobachatina",
"Val",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54676",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54722",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54724",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54732",
"philosodad",
"talon8",
"user54675"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
20336 | What animal parts can be included in head cheese?
I know that head cheese is traditionally made with flesh from the head of a large animal but I have read that sometimes other scrap meats are included.
Are there any portions of an animal that are more or less suitable for making head cheese?
Can I make head cheese with chicken feet?
Haha +1 for the cool/gross-ness of this question.
Should this really be tagged cheese? It's more of a jelly/terrine.
@Jefromi: Well, I just re-tagged it.
To address this, I think we should examine why head cheese is made from a head in the first place.
There are two main reasons, the character of the meat attached to the head: paucity, toughness, and (lack of) accessibility; and the large amount of gelatin that can be obtained.
The meat on a head is well-exercised, and, with the exception of cheeks and jowl, thin, full of connective tissue, and wrapped around an oddly-shaped skull. It's difficult and not exactly worth the effort to try to remove it raw; after a good deal of work, you would end up with small shreds of meat that would probably best be braised anyways. Much easier to braise the head in its entirety and pick off the meat once it's soft.
The potential for gelatin is abundant in a head, especially assuming that the skin is left on (which it is for pig's heads): the skull of course contains plenty of albumen, the ears and snout are made of cartilage, and there's tendons around the jaw and heading into the neck.
Considering this, to make a substitution for a head, we should look for other parts of the animal that have these characteristics. The most obvious choice is the lower legs: pig trotters are in fact often added to the pot when making head cheese. Shanks all the way down to the ankles, and clean hooves from other animals, if available, would be perfectly suitable. The chicken feet you mention have the characteristic of yielding a good amount of gelatin, so they are a candidate. Tails are also a fine source of gelatin, with skin and plenty of connective tissue. Skin on its own would also be useful. For the meat, any of the usual well-exercised cuts should be suitable; a jowl on its own, the shoulder, possibly a diaphragm (hanger) from a cow.
In fact, one could very well make a delicious head cheese-like terrine using commercially-prepared gelatin with a full homemade stock, and any flavorful cut of meat that was available.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.760758 | 2012-01-10T21:36:54 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20336",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Denis",
"Jay",
"Mateusz Piotrowski",
"Michael",
"R__raki__",
"Steve",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44589",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44595",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44634",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"nazia tabassum"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
21684 | Why add malt to bread?
Several bread recipes that I have been looking at recently call for rye malt.
I know that malt is sweet but what other effect will malt have on a bread recipe?
Malt syrups and powders come in two forms, Diastatic and Non-Diastatic. The Non-Diastatic kind is just sugar, and is only useful for adding a little sweetness and flavor.
Diastatic Malt Syrups and Powders are made by taking grain (usually barley, but others can be used, like rye), allowing it to sprout, then toasting it lightly to halt the sprouting process. The little roots and stuff are rubbed off, and the grain is ground into a powder, or soaked into a syrup. This is very similar to the process used to convert grains for beer-making.
The syrup is rich in enzymes that are created by the sprouting grain, for the purpose of converting the seed's starch reserves into sugar for the young plant. Non-Diastatic versions have these enzymes deactivated by heat, leaving the syrup "inert".
The enzymes and sugars do three important things
Provide nutrients for yeast.
Facilitate the conversion of starch into sugar, making bread more flavorful.
The little shot of extra sugar also gives yeast an initial boost.
Here is an article on malt syrups and powders and how to make them yourself:
http://artisanbreadbaking.com/flour/malts/
And King Arthur Flour sells a version of the powder, along with some recipe examples:
http://www.kingarthurflour.com/shop/items/diastatic-malt-powder-16-oz
To much, will leave the loaf gummy. Flour mills calculate and correct their flour to produce the best results. Unless you are engineering for a flour mill, it's best left alone.
I managed to obtain diastatic barley malt and used it to make pizza dough using peter reinharts overnight baguette dough recipe. a revelation! the dough is incredibly light, extensible, and rises almost uncontrollably. the pizza crust had great structure, not getting flabby under the weight of ingredients, and was holey and delicious. It definitely made a huge difference. I formed the dough by hand, and usually i roll it, and this was an added plus.
A few people have flagged this as "not an answer". I think it does address the question, but unfortunately it's not very reliable because there were clearly other differences between your most recent and previous attempts. An actual A/B comparison (with malt vs. without malt) and a more objective-sounding assessment ("great structure" and "delicious" don't tell us much) would have made this a lot more helpful.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.760989 | 2012-02-24T14:59:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21684",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Optionparty",
"Veda Johnson",
"a25bedc5-3d09-41b8-82fb-ea6c353d75ae",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48137",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48157",
"stephanie"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
24074 | How can I cure and store bacon in a warm climate?
I know bacon was originally a meat preservation method. Now it is just for flavor and manufacturers take shortcuts that make it need refrigeration. I have read in other answers that it is possible to find fully cured bacon that does not need to be refrigerated. Bacon curing recipes indicate that the process must occur in a "cool, dry place".
I live in Texas. It is rarely dry and never cool. Do I need to have a temperature controlled fridge to cure bacon? Is there bacon that can be safely stored at relatively warm temperatures? Say up to 85-90F?
Bacon used to be a staple of cowboys, so was it historically more like jerky?
Rice and beans used to be the staple! Meat products have always been luxury items until sometime in the last century
@TFD- This is surely going to vary by country. In the American west in the mid to late 1800's bacon was a staple. It was frequently carried by cowboys and westward moving pioneers and was so common that some journal entries record dumping huge quantities of it on the trail to save weight. Additionally, in the US, pork has always been plentiful and bacon is often found in cuisines from poor areas. Bacon and cornbread was eaten so exclusively by the poor in the south that it caused a nutritional epidemic at the start of the 1900s.
You must have read different history books than me? From what I remember, meat was rare, and usually beef jerky. Cowboys after all where herding cows. The main protein source was beans. And all other foods where dry too (biscuits, fruits etc)
Whatever they made 100+ years ago, they also contended with all kinds of foodborne pathogens. Every recipe I've ever seen clearly and carefully states that the curing process for meat should be done 33F-40F (1C-5C), even if smoke is part of the process. That goes for bacon, country ham, corned beef, pastrami, sausage, duck, salmon -- you name it. Given that refrigeration is widely available in Texas, I have a hard time envisioning a reason to flirt with danger.
@Bruce- I'll get started on my modified refrigerator/cold smoker. Actually- that sounds like it would be awesome.
@Sobachatina, Listeria, among other bugs, can survive smoke, not to mention salt and acid, which is why doctors tell pregnant women to avoid deli meats. I'm not sure whether Streptococcus, Staphylococcus, or Pseudomonas will survive, but I don't want to find out the hard way: Their toxins can survive cooking. The only way I know to ensure that meat is shelf-stable at room temperature is to dehydrate it, but I'm not sure bacon jerky will be all that good. So, I wouldn't merely start bacon in a fridge, I'd keep it there.
Most bacon home curing methods you will read use a semi-dry cure where the bacon is covered in a cure mixture then allowed to sit in the resulting brine made of salts, sugars, and exuded liquid from the meat. This is probably due to the fact that most people are more comfortable using their fridge and are also only making a small amount of bacon. The key to what you are looking for is dry curing with drainage. By using a cure mixture which includes nitrates (traditional) or nitrites (modern) as well as a draining board or table you produce a quickly cured meat product that is stable and can be produced at higher than fridge temperatures. The drawbacks are that the final product will have a greater loss of meat weight due to the loss of water, the product will have more pronounced flavor, and will be saltier but it will also be better preserved. This method is best for meats that will not be cooked but smoked and air-dryed or just air-dryed. It is the best curing method for people living in hot climate or having no refrigeration.
In the South, bacon and ham production is something that was traditionally done in the late Autumn to take advantage of the natural cooling to reduce spoilage during the air drying portion of the curing process. The second traditional foodway that allowed bacon to be a staple in the South was the use of root cellars.
Method:
To guarantee continuous supply of salt and uninterupted curing of the meat, the dry curing is performed in a few stages.
The cure ingredients should be thoroughly mixed. The mix should be rubbed into the meat at a ratio of 1:100, curing salt mixture to meat, by weight. During this initial salting of the meat, it is important to thoroughly cover all surface of the meat piece with the salt mixture, because the high salt level and the cooler temperatures are the only means of protection against the growth of spoilage bacteria.
Then the meats would then be packed tightly in a container with larger pieces like hams on the bottom and smaller pieces on the top so that each piece will retain its shape. The meats are packed skin down. Liquid drawn from the meat will accumulate on the bottom of the container and if the holes were made it would drain off. (If you want to experiment with smaller amounts of meat you can perform this part of the process on a flat tray set at an angle to allow juices to drain away or in a perforated pan.)
The rule of thumb is 2 days of curing for each pound of original meat weight. Flip the meat after 3 days, and then again every 7 days thereafter, making sure that there is salt covering the entire surface. (For bacon that would be stored for a long time or subject to higher temperatures they would most likely overhaul the cure, replacing the salt mixture 1 or more times during the process.)
After curing is complete, the meat pieces must be rinsed in fresh water to remove any crystalized salt that accumulates on the surface that would prevent sucessful smoke penetration. Blot dry then hang the meats or place on wire mesh to dry overnight. Store meat in a refrigerator or cool root cellar overnight or for up to 2 days. Allowing the bacon to dry uncovered in a cool place the night before you plan to smoke it encourages smoke retention through pellicle formation.
At this point you would smoke the bacon and then let it air dry in a cool barn (during Autumn and Winter) or a root cellar. Like country hams, the bacon would likely be stored by hanging it in the root cellar in a muslin sack.
Bacon produced this way is saltier than modern bacon. If you find it too salty, you can blanch it in simmering water for 30-60 seconds immediately before frying to reduce the salt.
Curing Methods Info
This is a truly inspirational answer. Thank you.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.761223 | 2012-05-29T19:59:26 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24074",
"authors": [
"Annie",
"Bruce Goldstein",
"IluTov",
"MartyD",
"Sheila Marie",
"Sherri C. Schoolcraft",
"Sobachatina",
"TFD",
"dan harris",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54681",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54743",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8158",
"user27594"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
89965 | Is it possible to Pickle meat at room temperature?
My gf wanted to make a pickled pork for dinner. According to the recipe, she prepared the brine (consisting of 3l of waters, 3 tablespoons of salt, pepper, garlic, allspice, bay leaves). The recipe called for placing the raw pork in "cool place" after placing it in brine.
After concluding that the kitchen is "cool enough" the meat spent the whole night on the kitchen countertop. Upon checking the sources today I found that pickling is best done in the fridge. The kitchen temperature now is about 20 deg. C (68 deg. F).
Is the meat safe to eat or should I break the sad news to my gf?
EDIT: This question differs from a very general one posted here. I am not asking for a general case of meat left out of fridge but whether meat pickling is safe in room temperature.
Nevertheless, If anyone wonders, we've decided to throw the meat away. Yet, I am now curious whether pickling in room temperature can be safe.
Possible duplicate of How do I know if food left at room temperature is still safe to eat?
Three tablespoons of salt in 3l water? Sorry, that’s by far not enough preserving effect to differ from our generic Q/A.
I (obviously) think the edit makes the question not a duplicate and is answerable.
Refrigerated pickled pork recipes might require a longer brine. Eg, Alton Brown's recipe takes 3 days; some call for even longer.
Pickling meat and fish was done for millennia before the advent of refrigeration.
Pickling and smoking or drying/curing were the only reliable ways to preserve meat before freezing and canning were invented relatively recently.
The problem is that the term "pickling" is a bit ambiguous. It is a generic term that is used to describe preserving with salt. It can refer to curing or lactic acid fermentation depending on the salt concentration.
When meat or fish is pickled it is packed in salt or in a concentrated brine. The salt inhibits harmful bacteria. In very high concentrations the meat will be "cured" and be dry. In lower concentrations lactobacilli will still grow. The bacteria produce lactic acid which finishes the preserving of the meat.
Neither method requires refrigeration, of course, but modern home recipes generally call for refrigeration anyway to remove risk. Modern recipes sometimes also reduce the salt to a more gentle level which then does require refrigeration. Corned beef and ham are the canonical salt-cured meat recipes in the US.
It is rare to see home recipes that allow meat to ferment. I think we've lost the taste for it in most contexts. Fermenting meat is still often done commercially where the variables can be controlled better. Pepperoni and various Norwegian fish products are examples.
As a rule of thumb, only use food preservation recipes from trusted, modern sources. It is not uncommon to see antique recipes that are unnecessarily risky.
If you are interested in the history, chemistry, and politics of salt-cured meat, the book "Salt" by Mark Kurlansky is amazing.
As Stephie noted in her comment, you were right to throw away your meat. Your recipe did not seem to use enough salt to ensure prevention of harmful bacteria growth. Pickling brines generally call for enough salt that an egg floats.
Sauerbraten is still a common German dish, AFAIK.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.761861 | 2018-05-24T09:34:02 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89965",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"Joe",
"Sobachatina",
"Stephie",
"The Photon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
99529 | How can I make my sourdough bread more sour?
I am having trouble getting my German Farmer Rye Bread (Bauernbrot) to taste sour enough. I have a good rise and good structure but the flavor is not sour enough. I tried making the starter less watery and letting the finished dough rise in the fridge overnight but it still lacks the classic German Bauernbrot sourness. Comments? Thanks!
I think we need more information about your sourdough starter. How long have you been keeping it? Where did it come from?
And with what ratios and timings are you working? What sourdough process? One-step (just refreshing) or multiple ones (e.g. working with different temperature levels)?
Hi I made the starter myself with equal parts water and coarseground Rye Flour. In the fridge for 5 days with regular feedings --- bubbled up nicely and had a nice smell. I live in Sweden BTW so I don't have access to German bakery to buy starter. I took the starter out once to feed and left at room temp for several hours.
@Paul- I hope you don't mind but I changed the title to be a question. The question doesn't seem to be about the fact that the bread is German.
I've just been dealing with a similar issue. My sourdough starter wasn't producing sour enough bread. In my case Russian black bread which is also rye. It was rising well but tasted like regular bread.
I did a some research and experimentation and fixed it.
I'm sure you are aware that a sourdough starter has both yeast and bacteria. The yeast consume sugar and produce CO2 and the bacteria consume sugar and produce acids including lactic and acetic. Acetic acid in particular (ie. vinegar) is very pungent and sour.
The type of bacteria you have will strongly affect the flavor and acidity of the bread.
After feeding, yeast is active early. As the acidity rises the yeast activity falls off and the bacteria become more active.
Yeast is also more active at cooler temperatures.
As your starter was bubbling well your yeast was obviously active. If it isn't sour then you either have mild tasting bacteria or they aren't active enough or both.
Several variables made a noticeable difference:
I started keeping my starter in a warmer place.
It was early spring and my kitchen was cool. The yeast was active at those temperatures but the bacteria were very slow.
I introduced different flours.
I started feeding my starter with freshly ground wheat flour and rye. I was trying to get new microbes. The day after feeding with a new flour the starter changed flavor noticeably.
I fed my starter less frequently
The recipe I was following said to feed the starter twice a day. This meant that my yeast was just finishing up their most active period when I fed again. The bacteria never really had a chance to take over. I read several articles that recommended leaving the starter a little longer and not feeding until the starter actually fell. The yeast weren't as active and the starter collapsed. After this point the starter would rise less but would become sour very quickly.
While I'm still not an expert, I found that I can now tweak these variables to tune my bread. If I feed more often and keep the starter cool it will rise more vigorously and be more mild. If I feed less often and in a warmer place then the bread will rise more slowly but be much more sour. I'm still trying to find a balance that I like but I know what variables to tweak.
The black bread I made this week was startlingly sour and delicious.
Addendum
I saw some blog posts that suggested that since the strongest flavored bacteria were producing acetic acid that one could simply add vinegar to the bread dough to achieve the same effect.
I tried it.
As you would expect it tasted sour but also flat and boring. I won't be cheating like that again.
Good point - interestingly, many US sources suggest feeding a sourdough twice a day (I have even seen every few hours, which would absolutely push the balance towards yeast) and use roughly equal ratios, while German sources say once a day, but with way less starter.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.762143 | 2019-06-13T12:25:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99529",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Paul",
"Sobachatina",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76015"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
81950 | Substituting maseca (corn flour) for ap flour in waffle cones
I want to make a maseca based waffle cone but I am not sure what to use as the binding agent in substitute of flour. My first assumption was to mix in a .7% ratio of vital wheat gluten. Any suggestions on binders/stabilizers? The end product will be served warm around 52-55c (120-130f). Ideally I would like it to have the same crunch as a standard cone but with the corn flavour. The sweetness is not an issue but because the overall dish will be savoury I hope to have it no sweeter than a basic cone is now.
+1 for creativity. Have you tried just replacing the flour with the maseca? What happens? Also, what is your goal? Is this for flavor?
Most corn bread recipes are a combination of both AP flour and corn flour... have you tried a mixture of them?
Maseca is not strictly corn flour, rather it is instant masa...that is, the corn has been nixtamalized before being dried and ground.
the end product will be a savory dish that looks like and ice cream cone with whip cream, sprinkles and a cherry on top, but turkey mole theme. Plantain-coconut milk hot sponge ice cream, turkey and epazote espuma whipped cream, chipotle pickled mexican cucumber, pepitas-sesame granola sprinkle, and a mole ganache dipped around the masa waffle cone. My first try was similar to a conbread/waffle cone hybrid spec and didn't work, there was no structure. I used a 90/10 ratio of maseca/ap. my kitchen has been too busy for me to have my mad scientist play time to do proper testing
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.762472 | 2017-05-24T07:49:57 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81950",
"authors": [
"Adam James Carroll",
"Catija",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58116",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
44152 | How long is too long to cook chicken?
How long should I cook my chicken?
I never get it right when I cook it so what's the right time? The very last time was three weeks ago and I completely forgot about it and it burned.
Hi Gerome. The big thing we are missing here is what exactly you are preparing. Are you talking about roasting an entire bird? Baking a quartered chicken? Grilling some chicken breasts? There are tons of options here. Generally speaking, though you're looking for a temperature. Different cooking methods will get you to that target temperature at different times.
If your chicken burns, the issue is likely not that you cooked it too long, but that you cooked it too hot. How long to cook it depends on the total amount of meat, the size of pieces that it is in (anything from bite sizes pieces for a stir fry up to an entire chicken), and how you're cooking it - oven, saute pan, braising ...
Roasting in the oven or braising in a stew are generally the most ignorable techniques - if you overcook a roast it may dry out, but won't burn, and if you overcook a stew the meat (especially chicken) may dissolve into shreds but burning is less likely.
Since undercooked chicken can be unsafe, you should choose cooking techniques that are sure to fully cook the chicken without burning it.
Cooking chicken, like anything else, is not about time, but about outcome.
In the case of meat, the most important factor is the internal temperature to which it is cooked. This should be measured with an instant read thermometer.
White meat should get to about 155-160 F depending on your tastes; dark meat to about 165 - 180 F depending on your tastes.
Note that dark meat, depending on the cooking method, can tolerate a fairly long cooking time, even when the temperature does not rise: during that time, the connective tissues (collagen) will convert to gelatin, and it will become more unctuous and almost silky in texture.
How long this will take depends on the size of the pieces (or whole chicken if cooking whole), the temperature, and the cooking method. Thighs in a 375 F oven might take an hour to an hour and a quarter; being braised, maybe 30 minutes, for example.
See also:
What makes a moist steak (or roast)?
Temp and times for roast beef 2.3lbs
Is there a general algorithm for calculating the amount of time to roast meat for?
I think you've missed a significant factor here--that protein reactions are not all strictly temperature bases (what some have called "fast reactions"); some reactions do require time as well ("slow reactions"). The notable example here is collagen, which I think is quite relevant to your mentions of dark meat and chicken thigh in particular. Cooking a thigh until just done will yield meat that may be perfectly moist, but intertwined with very tough, chewy connective tissue.
@Ray As my other answers indicate, I am well aware of the significance of collagen and gelatin. However, it is far less significant in chicken than it is in, say, beef. Since most cooking methods are not instantaneous, in practice, any method that brings them to temperature is going to a minimally adequate job, and we don't find some connective tissue in our chicken completely objectionable. This is illustrated by chicken braises which have cooking times on the order of 30-45 minutes, as opposed to beef or pork braises at several hours.
I agree, your other answers do tend to be quite clear on this point; perhaps why I noticed it missing here :)
My comment was intended for folks who might drive by and think your answer to be the whole picture here. I don't mean to cast doubt on your (clear) expertise.
@Ray Perhaps I have oversimplified here.... chicken is just so much more forgiving in that way, than say is a chuck roast. Given the starting point in the question, I thought it was a good level of detail. I have added some more comments, but it is a lot to try to compress. A 75 minute baked thigh (my go to convenience meal, with cajun spice) does't have the same texture as a 45 minute braised thigh, but both are quite good in their own way.
Cool.
First things first. DON'T PANIC! Chicken is one of the world's great saviours, and yes it is possible for things to go horribly wrong, but on the whole that tends to happen to low grade products cooked for short periods of time. ie: cheap fairly old or freezer burnt chicken breasts which are diced or cut up for a fairly instant sweet and sour or stir fry, you will be picking bits of chicken 'string' out of your teeth all night! The question is a bit ambiguous, so I will give two answers. First, do you have a pressure cooker, if not, go out and buy one (there's some advice on my site here). Believe me, once you start pressure cooking chicken you are onto a winner.
If you use a pressure cooker, follow the manufacturers instructions, however here are a few timings to get you started.
Chicken, breasts, with bone in, 2 to 3 lb (900 to 1400 g) 8 to 10 mins
Chicken, cubes 5 mins
Chicken, drumsticks (legs) or thighs 5 to 7 mins
Chicken, ground 4 mins
Chicken, frozen, breasts or thighs, boneless 7 to 10 mins
Chicken, liver 2 mins
Chicken, strips, boneless 5 to 6 mins
Chicken, whole, 2 to 3 lb (900 to 1400 g) 12 to 18 mins
Chicken, whole, 3 to 4 lb (1.4 to 1.8 kg) 18 to 25 mins
(all on high setting)
You can leave chicken in the pressure cooker for much longer, as it doesn't dry out...
so, cooking your chicken with other methods. Frying, if you are starting out on your cooking 'career', then think about how much patience you really have, if the answer is 'little', cut your chicken into strips and pat dry with kitchen paper. Use a good quality oil on a nearly hot setting (about 7/10), place your chicken in the pan, resisting the temptation to squash it flat, give it a couple of mins, then turn over and give the other side a couple of mins. There you have it, not too complicated, and served with a salad and maybe a few few potatoes would be fit for a king. Hope this helps...
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.762627 | 2014-05-15T14:23:09 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44152",
"authors": [
"Carolyn",
"Dan Jacobson",
"Merk",
"Papit Dadmal",
"Preston",
"Ray",
"RustyShackleford",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Shade Set Shutters spam",
"Spammer",
"Will.Octagon.Gibson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103696",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103697",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103702",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103703",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103738",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
76243 | How long should I let my bread dough rise the second time?
How long should I let my bread dough rise the second time?
I am really having trouble with a lack of rising after the first rise. The finished product is fairly flat and a bit on the dense side.
Any ideas are appreciated.
I'm using a rich recipe:
2oz. butter,
2 egg yolks,
1/3 cup of sugar,
and 1 cup of whole milk.
No water at all.
Maybe use less or fewer rich ingredients?
You are not giving the full recipe: How much flour, how much yeast? How do you process it? And of course a picture wouldn't hurt either.
A second rise is optional; as @Stephie says, more detail is required, but options include only rising once, giving more time for a second rise, and altering the ratio of ingredients and/or how you process / handle / form the dough. Presumably you are going for a very sweet bread with that ratio of sugar to liquid; but that's no bar to the bread rising.
@Ecnerwal : or reducing the time of the first rise, if the sugars were exhausted (not likely the case in this one). Or making sure you're only punching down and not fully deflating the dough between rises.
Unless you are doing this as a way to use up egg yolks when using the whites for something else, whole eggs (and a bit less milk if you want the same volume; or use one egg rather than 2 yolks) would be fine, most likely.
Since you didn't say you have a problem with the first rise, I will assume that your yeast weren't simply dead.
There are a few factors that go into rise times:
How much yeast?
How much water is available to the yeast?
How much of yeast-inhibiting ingredients such as salt and sugar?
If there isn't enough water in the recipe or if the water is tied up by salt and sugar the yeast will only be able to divide slowly.
How warm is the dough?
Yeast, like everything else, work faster in a warm space.
Therefore, to increase the rising speed, you could make a wetter dough, add more yeast, use warm milk, put the dough in warm oven, reduce the sugar, etc.
It may be that your recipe just takes longer to rise.
Alton Brown's cinnamon roll recipe has a lot of fat and sugar and not as much water. The recipe recommends making them the night before and letting them rise overnight. Dough that rises longer generally tastes better.
I would recommend letting the dough go in a warm place and see how long it takes to reach the fluffiness you like. If that takes too long you could start tweaking the variables above.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.763113 | 2016-12-08T18:27:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76243",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"Joe",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"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
} |
25392 | Can most sour fruits be jelled by cooking with sugar?
I make jam all the time, using pectin. But the recipes only list a few dozen common fruits.
Recently, I wanted to make crabapple jam or jelly, and I found a recipe that essentially had me cook the whole fruit in water, juice it, add about an equal amount of sugar to the juice, and cook it to slightly above boiling (220 F).
I have some juiced oregon grape, and I want to make it a jelly, and I've found a page that sounds like it's the same idea as the crabapples: about equal amounts juice and sugar, boil to a jell stage.
So, can I do that with most sour fruits? I guess the question is essentially, do most sour fruits have enough natural pectin that they will jell without adding pectin? Is there any danger in experimenting? Or do I need to stick with normal fruits or at least existing recipes?
Fruits that are high in pectin are not necessarily sour and sour fruits are not necessarily high in pectin. However, pectin is typically found in high concentrations in firm fleshed fruit such as apples and in the skins of citrus. Unripe fruit has even more than the ripe. So- I can see why you would come to that conclusion.
It is easy enough to find charts of pectin levels in various fruits.
As you may notice many of these charts list not only fruits high in pectin but those high in acid. This is because acid is necessary to make pectin gel as it removes a charge on the pectin molecules that prevents them from tangling with each other. Low acid fruits, even if they are high in pectin, need extra acid for this reason.
If you are feeling all scientific about it, you can test pectin levels yourself.
There is no danger in experimenting. At least no danger of illness. You might end up with grainy jam if the pectin is too high or syrup if it is too low but it will all taste great.
Nice. Testing the pectin levels is useful, especially for something like oregon grape, because no list of fruits will have that one.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.763323 | 2012-08-01T00:27:10 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25392",
"authors": [
"Michele StPierre",
"Sarah Motto",
"Sharon Strong",
"Toby",
"Vegetable Finish",
"chrisfs",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58108",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58110",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58111",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58113",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6512",
"thursdaysgeek"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
25662 | Why didn't my clarified herb butter solidify?
I was making spicy clarified butter but wanted to avoid the flecks of red or black that can throw off the color of a dish. I decided to steep some basil and a few other herbs with an habanero in the butter and then remove them.
The butter did not come out nicely AT ALL. Despite letting it cool for some time, the butter never re-solidified. I was rushed and didn't have cheesecloth so I might have done a poor job at removing the solids. At the normal temperature of my kitchen, butter, clarified or otherwise, will solidify - but not this stuff.
Is it possible that the oils from the herbs and pepper prevented it from setting up?
I wouldn't think a handful of herbs and a singular hot pepper would have enough oil to prevent 12+ ounces of clarified butter from setting up.
(1) A few hours really isn't all that long to wait; and (2) it's a reasonable question, but you could be a little clearer. You say "it did not come out that nicely" and then we have to read on to figure out that you apparently mean that it didn't solidify. Perhaps you'd like to edit it?
I never mentioned the amount of time I waited because if the reason the butter didn't solidify is due to the oils from plants, then it's never going to unless the oil's unsaturated carbon bonds reduce (gain electrons) miraculously. Is...240 hours enough time to wait? With one sentence separating my 'it didn't come out nicely' and the explanation for it not coming out nicely I can't think of anything I could edit to make it easier to understand.
@woot- My suggestion for added clarity. My apologies if I inadvertently altered your meaning in any way.
We've been chatting about this. Did you leave that out of the fridge or did you leave it at room temperature?
@BaffledCook it was left out at room temp. However, the last ten pounds of butter I clarified (at left at room temperature) come out nicely so I was scratching my head as to why this didn't come out right. I suppose I won't worry about it too much unless it happens again.
@wootscootinboogie: I was talking about your (now gone) impatient for answers comment, not the amount of time you waited for it to solidify.
I can only guess that something from the herbs has "disturbed the balance of the mix" and is preventing it from setting.
Putting my chemist's hat on, the problem is similar to what happens when a solid reaction product forms an emulsion and refuses to precipitate. When that happens, there are ways to induce precipitation, but not all of them can be applied to food.
Try adding a pinch of salt - mix, and wait.
If that fails, smear a knife blade with some fresh butter and stir the mix with it.
If that fails, try cooling it.
If that fails, try mixing in a pinch of bicarbonate of soda.
There are other suggestions, but I assume you want to eat the butter once it solidifies. Ideally, you want to find that happening after one suggestion has worked. If it takes a succession of suggestions to find a way to solidify it, this is about as far as you can go without the product starting to "lose its intention".
+1 for bicarb of soda, overly acid fats tend to stay liquid, so some strong, but relatively flavourless alkaline should do it. Cooling it too quickly tends to make it go cloudy and sort of lumpy
I've been using it for caramelizing onions and once it's melted you can't tell how ugly it was anyway :). The sodium bicarb is a good idea.
Take out the ghee in a dry and clean stainless steel pan, melt the ghee on low heat until it’s clear liquid, and carefully pour it back into the jar. Alternatively, you can simply fill a pot with hot water and submerge tightly closed ghee jar in it to melt the ghee. Keep the water level below the lid. The idea is to melt the ghee completely until it is transparent liquid.
Immediately place the jar in the refrigerator (do not freeze) overnight.
Take out of the jar from refrigerator next day and leave it on the counter-top. Ghee will stay solid now even at room temperature.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.763512 | 2012-08-14T18:27:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25662",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Barron Gould",
"Cascabel",
"Marian Lacey",
"Matt M.",
"R. Goldstine",
"Sobachatina",
"TFD",
"Tamamo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11015",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58827",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58828",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58829",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58847",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"kowsalya",
"user61034",
"wootscootinboogie"
],
"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
} |
101002 | My fudge is getting thick when I start to stir in marshmallows, chocolate chips and nuts
Using carnation famous fudge recipe, when I add the marshmallows, chocolate chips and nuts it gets thick and the marshmallows are not melting completely. Am I cooking it too long or not long enough, or do I need the temperature higher or lower? I have it medium heat. Stirring constantly to full rolling boil, and then cooking for 4-5 minutes stirring constantly.
Sherry, welcome! As this is an international site, you should assume that not everyone knows “carnation famous fudge recipe” and you would help the community a lot by including the actual recipe - you can always [edit] your post. As for all new users, I recommend the [tour] and our [help] to learn more about how the site works. Again: Welcome!
Most likely you need to turn up the temperature a little before adding the new ingredients. All those ingredients are about room temperature, and there are a fairly large quantity of them compared to the mixture in the pan. This means that they cool down the mixture considerably when added. The cooling means that the temperature is not sufficient to melt marshmallows any more, and the fudge begins to set (thicken). Increasing the temperature slightly will help the marshmallows still melt.
Good points. The key word here is "slightly". If the temperature is increased more than slightly the texture will be wrong but the recipe doesn't give temps, just times, so it's impossible to know how much "slightly" is.
The fudge is cooling too quickly but heating the syrup further is risky.
During the full boil you are boiling out water to reduce the sugar syrup to a specific concentration that cools to the fudgy texture*. Heating the syrup further will indeed give you a little extra time to mix in other ingredients but it will also make the fudge set up harder. Too hot and it won't be fudgy anymore.
Really, without a target temperature you can't tell just by looking at the syrup if it will be the correct texture. It will take some experimenting to figure out how long to boil it.
You might try reducing the quantity of additives, adding the marshmallows before other additives, and stirring faster.
Personally, I wouldn't bother with any fudge recipe that gives times instead of temperatures. There are just too many variables involved and it will take some experimenting and luck to get the texture right.
*Ignoring the creation of crystals for brevity
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.763954 | 2019-08-28T05:52:01 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/101002",
"authors": [
"Sobachatina",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
91675 | How can I quickly shell pine nuts?
I recently acquired about a pound of raw pine nuts. They were collected and are smaller on average than the pine nuts I can buy.
They are a pain to shell. The shells don't come away easily and since they are small there is a lot of work to do for a small reward.
What is the best way to shell these?
Should I roast them in their shells first?
This is how you can do it:
Place your nuts into a super-strong plastic food storage bag and close it securely after squeezing out all air from the inside.
Put the bag flat on a hard surface like kitchen counter. Starting from the bottom of the bag, roll a rolling pin over the bag upwards and back.
Repeat untill the shells crack.
Take out the nuts and remove any remaining shells.
With the nuts raw or roasted?
Preferably raw - but you can try and dry roast in a pan stirring frequently to avoid burning if you find the raw ones hard to crack.
Just saw this a year later. I had the same problem about 15 years ago, before the computer had tons of ways to do things. So this is what I learned from someone back in Colorado.
First option: Put the nuts in some thick cotton or wool socks with rocks in them. Tie off the end. Put in the dryer on no heat. Tumble. Take out. Pour out nuts. Most of the shells will have stuck to the sock. Clean sock.
Second option: Place nuts on a small towel. Fold over. Use rolling pin. Again nuts will be mostly free as shells will stick to towel. They are so much less expensive if you buy with the shell on, but you have to know the easiest way to de-shell.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.764174 | 2018-08-13T16:55:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91675",
"authors": [
"Ess Kay",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69382"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
24829 | How can I make Turkish dondurma?
Turkish ice cream is called dondurma. Besides milk and sugar it also contains:
Salep- a flour made of ground orchids and
Mastic- a resin that produces a gum.
Because of these ingredients dondurma has a unique texture and flavor. The flavor is described as piney or floral while the texture is uniquely gummy. It melts very slowly because of the gum and sometimes it is thick enough to eat with a fork and knife.
Unfortunately, it seems like salep is rare and is no longer exported from Turkey.
My question is twofold:
Where can I find Salep and Mastic? My normal online sources have yielded nothing.
Are there more accessible ingredients that I can substitute to approximate dondurma?
Have you tried a local Turkish restaurant? They might be able to get you some of each ingredient.
@Elendil- I'll give it a try.
Salep is essentially glucomannan; you can subsitutue Salep with Konjac GM (not konjac flour as it might impart a fishy flavor). And this is the key ingredient in Dondurma.
When it comes to mastic, you can try to omit it as it's mainly for flavor. Not all Turkish Dondurma is with mastic; you could simply use vanilla...
Note: I’ve made Dondurma simply like this, and it turned out almost as authentic as it was in Turkey.
Dry blend the sugar (10% of milk by weight) and KGM (0.6% of milk by weight) and whisk into cold milk.
Keep it in the fridge for at least 30 minutes.
Boil and simmer for 15 minutes.
In a stand mixer, with the paddle attachment beat the hot mixture for 20+ and until it cools down to room temperature.
Transfer to a bowl and put it into the freezer, every 30 minutes take out and whisky a bit, until it’s quite solid.
Keep it in the freezer for another 12 hours.
And serve.
Yep, it looks like glucomannan and starch are the primary components, so konjac GM and some cornstarch would probably work best. I wonder what else is in there though. Probably some protein and likely some minerals and perhaps some flavoring compounds, as is common for orchids, too.
This article from the BBC indicates that it's been illegal to export salep for quite a while.
This article indicates that cornflour is frequently used as a substitution for salep.
The same author makes four other interesting points about salep. First,
the elastic quality of these ‘stretchy’ ice creams is not, as some
writers state, due to the presence of mastic. It is true that mastic
has elastic qualities and that it is often an ingredient of these ice
creams. But it is there for flavouring purposes; the stretchiness of
the ice cream is due to the salep which it contains.
Secondly, salep itself is almost tasteless and its thickening
qualities are not readily distinguishable from those of arrowroot,
potato starch, and cornflour. Indeed packets of ‘instant salep’ list
cornflour as an ingredient, along with salep and sugar. The questions
implicit in these observations leap to the mind; all the more so when
one reflects that Claudia Roden (1985) considers that the substitution
of cornflour for expensive salep is legitimate (and adds,
incidentally, that Egyptians now commonly add grated coconut to the
confection).
I have to admit that I am skeptical. If the mastic has no effect on texture and the salep can be substituted with cornstarch then how would it be any different from gelato? Dondurma is very elastic- much more so than gelato. Still- I'm going to give it a try and post back how it goes.
I'm very curious to hear how it works out. I also saw a few things that hinted at using lavender in place of salep, but without ever having tasted it, I can't guess if that's a horrible or brilliant idea.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.764334 | 2012-07-03T19:28:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24829",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"Maria Holden",
"Sobachatina",
"bgporter",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823"
],
"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
} |
20314 | How can I make homemade tofu more flavorful?
Background: My wife (for some unknown reason) bought a huge bag of dried soy beans. In my efforts to dispose of it I have been experimenting with making soy milk and tofu.
Tofu has a bad reputation for being overly bland. It struck me how tofu making is identical to cheese making except with soy milk. As such I wondered if I could flavor tofu the same way cheese is flavored: salt, fermentation, additives, etc.
I tried adding salt after the curd was drained but before it was pressed. This helped a little but I found I had to add a lot more salt than I do for cheese to taste the difference.
I added quite a bit of smoked peppers at the same time and could only barely taste it at all.
1- Is this a valid approach and I should just add a lot more of my flavoring agents?
2- Are there other flavoring agents that will present themselves more forcefully (and pleasantly) in tofu?
3- What easily accessible bacteria would be able to ferment soy curd in a pleasant way?
** Edit to clarify per comments below **
It is true that marinating tofu is the traditional way to infuse flavor. Marinating seems to only penetrate very shallowly. I want to see if I can introduce flavors that are spread homogeneously through the curd so I can use the tofu in non-traditional applications.
I think something you need to keep in mind is that Tofu and cheese are used for different applications and as such should not be lumped together no matter how close their production is. I think tofu is best left bland at its creation and then later flavored when it is cooked. You typically don't eat tofu raw (except for some Chinese applications where you add soysauce/sesame oil/chives on raw tofu).
@Jay- You may be right. I agree that it is true that in traditional cuisines tofu is treated more like meat than like cheese and I think that is why most people hate tofu (based on a random sampling of coworkers.) Tofu looks, acts, and is made exactly as a cheese. Treating it like one is a more natural fit and makes people more likely to be accepting of it. The only barrier is the blandness...
Was the effect maybe smaller just because more water is drained away from the tofu than from cheese during pressing?
@jefromi- That may be- I wonder if I should let it drain for a while before salting it.
I really can't see a item like tofu be used as a topping for anything(can't be melted like cheese), be fingerfood/appetizer(way too soft/liquidy to be practical to handle with just your hands), or be used in sauces. Treating it like cheese will only make people compare it to cheese which will actually probably put them off the tofu more.
@jay- it's certainly possible that these experiments will fail exactly as you describe. It is also possible that I will create something interesting and edible that will use up a lot of extra dried soy beans. :)
Don't get me wrong, I am actually pretty curious how it might turn out. And while you are on the subject of using extra soy beans, if you soak some overnight, you can cook the soften beans. Or roast them in the oven with garlic, salt, pepper and a bit of sesame oil for a healthy delicous snack.
Also in regards to the flavors not penetrating the tofu when you are cooking, one technique you can use it to put a little bit of corn starch in the sauce when you are cooking to thicken the sauce and get it to stick on to the tofu. Or let the tofu simmer in the sauce longer. Trust me, i've had really flavorful tofu before. Specifically check out recipes for Ma Po Tofu.
@jay- thanks for the ideas! I will definitely try both. I am also interested in trying to make tempeh but I don't know if I will like it and the bacteria is a little expensive for such an experiment.
While tofu has commonly been associated with hot, cooked dish, it can be a fine, cold desert. People had sweetened tofu either by adding sugar and fruit acids to the soy as flavoring agent, or adding yellow suger or syrup to top refrigerated, cold tofu.
When you said you added salt to the curd after it was drained but before it was pressed. Did you just sprinkle the salt over top of the curds in the mould or did you add salt and gently stir? I feel adding flavoring after the curds have developed will ruin the curd formation.
You're right in that most of the tofu that we see in supermarkets are the white, super-bland type...the only variation is in softness. If you're a vegetarian, you probably know where to find other kinds that have been baked, marinated, etc.
I really love tofu and one of my favorite kind is a densely packed tofu called "dofu-gan", literally translated as "tofu dry". It is tofu that has been flavored/marinated and pressed so that it has very little water content. These little "dofu-gan" cakes are sold at Chinese supermarkets in clear plastic bags with lettering on them. They generally will come in packs of 4 or 8. Each cake measures about 2" x 2" x 0.5". The texture is similar to super dense gelatin snack...it has a bite.
Usually these are brown in color because they have been marinated. The inside is also slightly brown so whatever marinade has also entered slightly into the tofu. They have different flavors such as soy, and some have a little spice.
So you can potentially go down this road and stay with Asian flavorings...soy, sesame oil, sambal, fish sauce, teriyaki, lemongrass, Chinese BBQ sauce, XO sauce, etc.
Also, I know that the baked tofu, etc. that has targeted vegetarians use marinade flavors that normally would be used for meats...such as bbq flavor, lemon herb, etc.
So if you want to go this route, you can potentially do something such as:
Tandoori, satay, liquid smoke, etc.
The way that the "dofu gan" is usually eaten, at least when I was growing up is... julienned and stir fried with vegetables and sometimes with thin strips of pork.
ANOTHER kind of tofu preparation is called "dofu-ru" and this IS actually fermented tofu. You can buy these in jars and the tofu is suspended in some sort of liquid. It is really salty. I've only seen it used (in my family) as flavoring for rice porridge and when stir frying spinach or pea shoots. You would add literally a dab and it would flavor the dish. It has a very distinctive flavor/aroma...it's hard to describe. I've never seen this flavored with additional ingredients, but you can try and see what you get.
I am definitely going to try adding some lemongrass- this would also be larger and unable to wash out with the whey!
1- Is this a valid approach and I should just add a lot more of my
flavoring agents?
Yes, you can make additions to your curd prior to pressing/knitting just like with cheese. Adding bits of dried peppers ala pepper jack cheese sounds like a great idea. The main concern in this regard is to avoid adding so much adjuncts that the tofu curd fails to knit together during the pressing/draining phase and falls apart as you're handling it during subsequent cooking.
A secondary concern is that tofu generally weeps significantly more water than cheese curds. And since you've added your adjuncts already, part of the flavor of those adjuncts will run off as the tofu curd weeps. The only real suggestion I have for that is to use assertively flavored adjuncts.
2- Are there other flavoring agents that will present themselves more
forcefully (and pleasantly) in tofu?
Soy beans have fat in them. The fat in the beans becomes emulsified in the milk when processing the beans into soy milk. The majority of that fat ends up in the soy curd when curdling the soy milk. The majority of the fat in the soy curd will remain in the curd during pressing/knitting into tofu blocks.
You can use this to your advantage. When grinding the soy beans into milk, you can fat based flavoring, some of which will end up in the soy milk, some of which will end up in the resulting curd, and thus into the tofu blocks. If your fat based flavoring is particularly intense, then it should be noticeable in your tofu blocks. A common type of intensely flavored (aromatic) fat based flavoring is essential oil. You can add essential oil of lemon or orange and that flavor will certainly carry through into the final tofu blocks.
3- What easily accessible bacteria would be able to ferment soy curd
in a pleasant way?
Fermented tofu/bean curd has been made for centuries. There are number of fungii strains commonly used to ferment bean curd. There are likely many other bacteria that could be used. Lactic acid bacteria could feasibly grow in tofu/bean curd, though I'm not sure a sour tofu is something I'd personally enjoy.
Aside from blocks of tofu/bean curd, there is also a long history of fermented products with amazing flavor that use soy beans but not in a curd/block form. There is tempeh, soy sauce, koji, miso, etc.
this is a great answer.
I am reviving this q/a because this year a book all about making your own tofu, Asian Tofu by Andrea Nguyen, has been released and it has a few ideas for flavoring your own tofu. Namely, she mentions a traditional Japanese infusion of yuzu into the tofu. Another traditional option is seaweed.
More similar to cheese would be misozuke (a general recipe of which can be found at Rau Om). Misozuke involves taking finished tofu and wrapping it in a miso and flavoring mixture and letting it ferment. The tofu becomes soft, like a soft cheese, getting softer the longer it sits. You can try it from two days to two months. Adding flavor to it is a matter of wrapping or smearing it with additional ingredients, like seaweed.
in Germany I've enjoyed the brand Nagel Tofu which is highly flavored with additions such as herbs added to the curds and pressed into blocks. Confetti veggies another flavor. Can't post this as an answer 'cause haven't tried the technique myself Tofunagel.com
It is true that even in cheese making, if you add vinegar or lemon juice to the hot milk to curdle and break into curds and whey, the sourness of the vinegar or lemon do not get bound up in the curd but either neutralize or stay with the whey. The same thing to a degree would happen with salt or similar seasonings, that some would stay in the whey. So perhaps adding more than you believe you would want in your tofu curd would be right since some must go out with the liquid that separates from the tofu curd.
Interesting idea to go with flavors that will combine readily with fats. But adding fats or flavored fats such as chili oil into the soy milk might change the way curds break out or bind into a cake. Good thing you have lots of soybeans to work with. Tireless trial and error is the mother of invention!
I add salt to the soy milk before I add the coagulant to separate the curds.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.764665 | 2012-01-10T16:23:00 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20314",
"authors": [
"BHalvy82",
"Cascabel",
"Daniel",
"Gabriele",
"Haley",
"Jay",
"KMC",
"Pat Sommer",
"Saltier Bit",
"Sobachatina",
"c..",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8434",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95064"
],
"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
} |
25245 | Can I make pickled eggs that don't require refrigeration?
This time of year I have a ton of extra eggs. In the winter I have fewer. I have, therefore, been experimenting with egg preservation techniques.
I like pickled eggs a lot. They aren't very versatile so they can't be my only preservation solution but they are tasty and interesting.
Unfortunately, pickled egg recipes always say that the product must be refrigerated. This prevents me from storing the eggs until winter as I do not have that much fridge space.
The brine is fairly acidic and very salty. Why do they have to be refrigerated?
What do I have to do to make my pickled eggs shelf stable?
I'd rather sell them :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_egg
In an answer re: egg refrigeration, the linked article also tested methods of holding eggs at room temp, and the 'waterglass' method had decent success for 3-4 months.
@BlessedGeek- Century eggs are another experiment that I am excited to try but the flavor is much different of course.
I suppose it's not pickled so I'll just make this a comment, but you seem like a potential customer for the "water-glass" (sodium silicate) technique for storing eggs.
Can't you just can them?
I recently saw something on historical egg preservation that had eggs stored at room temp for up to two years (quicklime method)... not pickled, eggs, fresh, and still usable for any egg use. It makes sense that there would be room temp egg recipes, since refrigeration is relatively recent, though I was surprised that it would work for months or years. One article is here (http://www.merlofarminggroup.com/preserving-eggs), original video here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUYgguMz1qI)
Seems this is very common in Britain, where I come from, so google.co.uk did the business!
The recipe here allows storing in a cool, dark cupboard for up to six months, and it recommends leaving the eggs at least a month: http://www.accidentalsmallholder.net/food/recipes/pickled-eggs
This one looks good, and I like the instructions for eating!
http://www.pubbuddy.co.uk/pickled_egg_recipe_kitchen.php
I read the whole last post just to get to "instructions for eating". LOL!
In (mainly more old-fashioned) English pubs, pickled egg and a bag of crisps (US: potato chips) is a common snack. The egg is placed in the open bag of crisps, which is then held closed, given a little shake to distribute the flavour of egg to the crisps, and crisp flavour to the egg.
In my local, this delicacy is referred to as "egg and chips", with customers having their personal preference as to flavour of crisps. Mine is Salt & Vinegar.
Yes being from England I have always stored my pickled eggs in a dark cupboard for at least a month (if they last that long from sticky fingers...) and ONLY after opening do I put them in the fridge. We also use Malt Vinegar to pickle them and yes you can get malt vinegar over here as my friend brought me some from Wisconsin and walmart now sell it.
Being an elderly man who has frequented a bar or two in his day I must say that I have never seen pickled eggs, pickled pig's feet, pickled bologna, or any of the other pickled delights that beer drinkers are prone to nibbling on kept refrigerated. In days of yore many bars advertised free lunches of such goods with the purchase of a beer or two. The pickled products were kept in huge jars, submerged in vinegar and at room temperature. I never heard of anyone becoming ill from eating them.
This is something asked very frequently on a canning site I am on and the answer is always a resounding NO. There is NO way to make pickled eggs shelf stable. To preserve eggs however I have heard that dehydrating them can work.
Regarding the pickling, the chances of growing and subsequently eating Botulism is rather small but as it is a deadly neurotoxin any chance is too much for me personally.
This outlines a bit of information regarding how to safely pickle and store them: http://nchfp.uga.edu/how/can_06/pickled_eggs.html
Specifically this bit:
Storing Eggs
After making the eggs, the eggs require some time to season (i.e.,
pick up the flavors from the pickling brine). Keep them refrigerated
at all times. If small eggs are used, 1 to 2 weeks are usually allowed
for seasoning to occur. Medium or large eggs may require 2 to 4 weeks
to become well seasoned. Use the eggs within 3 to 4 months for best
quality.
Also this:
Caution: Home pickled eggs stored at room temperature have caused
botulism. For the report from the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC), see
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4934a2.htm The Editorial
Note in this report cautions against room temperature pickling and
storage, also. The CDC further cautions that to reduce the risk for
botulism when pickling, food items should be washed and cooked
adequately, and utensils, containers, and other surfaces in contact
with food, including cutting boards and hands, should be cleaned
thoroughly with soap and warm water. Containers (e.g., jars and lids)
in which pickling will occur should be sterilized (e.g., placed in
boiling water for a prescribed period).
It's been my personal experience that they don't need refrigeration. I have been making them for over a year and keep them stored at room temperature and have not been made ill by eating them.
However I would like to make two things very clear:
I never dilute the vinegar in the brine recipe to less than 5% acidity by adding water. I know a lot of recipes call for adding x amount of vinegar and so much water but doing this makes conditions more favorable for bacteria to grow because the PH level has been altered.
Also I pickle them in the refrigerator for 3 weeks. After this time they have been (Pickled) resistant to spoilage, and are safe for room temperature storage.
Remember, if you are going to store your pickled eggs at room temperature, do not add water to your vinegar brine recipe.
How long can you store them at room temp after using this method?
I know this is not a SCIENTIFIC test with control groups and such, but I will share my thoughts on this matter and how I've been pickling my fresh egg surplus for over 25 years with absolutely no ill effects, or refrigeration.
I may add that my 4 children were raised eating these eggs, even in the hot Southern summers, and they are all very much alive with children of their own... and for me, that's proof enough of my method...okay, my deceased wife's method... and no she did not die of food poisoning.
After the obvious hard boiling and peeling of the eggs, ensuring that the egg didn't get marred or damaged, I put them into sterilized mason jars, with sliced jalapeno, chili or habanero pepper rings.
I then boil about 2 cups of pure white vinegar with a 1/4 cup of pickling salt and one 500 mg, generic white vitamin C tablet until all solids are dissolved.
I then pour it right up to the top leaving no air space, so that when the lid and ring are put on and tightened, the excess is forced out. As the jars come to room temp, the lids will emit a "POP" when the suck inward. If no "POP" is heard and the lid does not get sucked in, those jars go in the fridge, the others go in my pantry... That's it.
I have never had a jar fail, however, there would be a simple way to know if it did and you have bacterial growth, the liquid will cloud up badly, the lid will swell and in drastic contamination, will leak... but that has never happened.
Remember this, from a chemistry standpoint, bacteria is more likely to grow in sugary environments, and there is little to no sugar in my method, plus the capsasin in the peppers is highly acidic, as is the ascorbic acid in the Vit C.
Points of fact (1) capsaicin is not highly acidic, and is actually poorly soluble in water and weakly acidic solutions (2) ascorbic acid is a weak acid (3) there are many species of bacteria that contribute to foodborne illnesses and only some of them prefer sugar.
I am a long time 'canner' - mainly dill pickles and jams. I've made simple refrigerated pickled eggs, but just today am packing 8 pints of water bath eggs. I've made some different packing liquids to try, and most use very little (if any) added water. I use 'pickling' vinegar (7%) vs. regular (5%). I hot packed them - with all ingredients near boiling point. I then water-bathed them for 15 minutes. My plan is to store them unrefridgerated. My reasoning is this - there has evidently been only one reported/documented case of botulism from picked eggs, in 1997 (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4934a2.htm).
The report states in part " ...The pickled eggs were prepared using a recipe that consisted of hard-boiled eggs, commercially prepared beets and hot peppers, and vinegar. The intact hard-boiled eggs were peeled and punctured with toothpicks then combined with the other ingredients in a glass jar that closed with a metal screw-on lid. The mixture was stored at room temperature and occasionally was exposed to sunlight." Sounds to me like they weren't necessarily packed "hot", and the liquid PH wasn't as high as it should be. Further, the report states he punctured the hard boiled eggs to get better pickling penetration. Some recipes do suggest that, but I think you're better off to not puncture the egg than give it a wound through which bacteria can enter.
That said, eggs do have a PH of about 7-8 - fairly high. I also think that if you hot pack carefully (including being scrupulously clean, etc.) and use a high vinegar recipe that the chance of there being Clostridium botulinum inside an egg itself is pretty infinitesimal. This is my first shot at this but I feel pretty confident I'll not get botulism.
"I most likely won't get botulism" is not the same thing as "this is safe." And getting away with it once or several times doesn't really tell you how risky it is.
Isn't a ph of 7 neutral? How is 7-8 a "high" ph.
@Catija It's high for canning, where the dividing line is 4.6. Above that is "low-acid", i.e. too high a pH for boiling water bath canning.
Pickled eggs don't spoil usually because they are eaten fairly quickly. I agree with the above person not to dilute the brine with water. I have been making pickled eggs for over a decade and have never had spoilage problems I think because I don't dilute the vineager when mixing with other spices etc. You can leave them out indefinately if the temperature is fairly consistant. For example, you don't want to keep the jar of eggs in drastic changes in light or temperatures. Keep them in a place where the direct sun doesn't hit them, and keep them in a place where the temperatures don't vary much. You don't need a refridgerator for pickled eggs if the brine solution is strong enough. I think people put them in the fridge so they get cold. They seem to taste better cold, but it's not necessary to refridgerate them.
I am 54 now I have been eating pickled eggs since I could walk and talk. My grandmother had a shelf in the corner of the kitchen where there was always pickled food,the eggs were the best and they were never kept cold no one got sick or died in her house.
I used to visit this little hole in the wall bar many years ago that had a 5 gallon jar of pickled eggs. The label on the jar was torn off in a recognizable way. The same jar was used throughout, and there were never more eggs, always less, but not by much. I was one of maybe 3 people that would eat the things, being young and bullet-proof, (so I thought) and I swear that jar took two years to empty. It sat on a shelf behind the bar, in a dimly-lit area. I never experienced any ill effects.
"I never experienced any ill effects" is not an argument valid in food safety. You dodged a risk of getting ill, but you cannot say if you had a chance of getting ill in one in a million and it was really safe, or one in a ten and you got really lucky, or anywhere in between. To pronounce something safe, a complex prediction model is needed, with lots of data points.
I live in a sub tropical area and preserve everything in jars from salsa to venison casserole. I always boil the filled, sealed jars for 15 mins in either a large pot of water or pressure cooker(fully covered with water).Once cooled check that the lid is sealed tightened then store in a pantry.This is how the italians preserve this tomato puree and I believe that this final process kills any harmful bacteria that may be present and leaves a sterile environment in the sealed jars. I have recently opened jars of venison chilli (which i found hidden on the back shelf) that were done over 2 years ago and they were absolutely perfect.All commercial canning is done the same way.
Commercial canning and proper home canning of low-acid foods requires higher temperatures than the boiling point of water, achieved using a pressure canner. Simply boiling in an unpressurized pot is insufficient.
mixing the vinegar with water WILL dilute the vinegar AND make the PH go up (more toward neutral) and I am of the opinion that a 5% vinegar solution is ideal for pickling. So I suggest NO water in the solution unless you want to keep them refrigerated, and even then I might
Welcome to the site! Have you read the question? The first rule for an answer here is "answer the question". Could you please remove the long rambling about general food preservation, pressure canning and your personal history? I see one paragraph on not dilluting vinegar, but can't tell whether this is a general statement or refers directly to the eggs in the question. The rest is unfortunately off-topic.
As Stephie pointed out, most of your post was unrelated to the question. I kept the paragraph which has a suggestion of how to proceed, but I find it a very poor answer. Just because diluted vinegar is a bad idea, I don't see any proof that undiluted vinegar is safe enough for the purpose.
Vinegar is a natural preservative. I don't see how it would spoil.
Just because you don't see how something could spoil doesn't mean that it won't; while vinegar may in some circumstances be a preservative, you should provide detail as to when that is true, such as the strength required and how to recognize it to improve the quality of this answer.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.765469 | 2012-07-24T22:31:19 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25245",
"authors": [
"Ashish Bhosle",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Cynthia",
"Diana",
"Didgeridrew",
"Ecnerwal",
"Emsi Combes",
"Ernie Pierce",
"Evan R",
"Gideon Boyle",
"Jodi",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Jwagg BG4",
"Megha",
"Mike Madden",
"Millennial Plastic Surgery",
"Peter Reynolds",
"Phil M Jones",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sobachatina",
"Stephie",
"Susan Danaher",
"Teyah",
"The Supreme Barbershop",
"cliff McIntosh",
"genopavyahoocom",
"gmiley",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10990",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131911",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133016",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144665",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144723",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156165",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17240",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57740",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57741",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57746",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58072",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64811",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77019",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77025",
"lemontwist",
"rumtscho",
"user57739",
"user70572",
"user70848",
"wrschneider"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
50107 | Pumpkin pie filling way too thick
I am making pumpkin pie from scratch, the filling is way thicker than in the video recipe I followed. Will it still cook properly?
I used 2 cups of fresh pumpkin, 2 eggs plus one yolk and one cup of buttermilk.
I'd add a bit of cream or milk is it really is too thick but I'm sure it'll be fine without
As Doug says, add a little cream or milk. Squash/pumpkin water content varies a lot. Fortunately you still get a tasty pie without being too picky about how wet the filling looks.
Are you using canned pumpkin or are you using a fresh pumpkin after roasting it. I believe you may need to add a half cup more buttermilk or regular milk to your recipe.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.767023 | 2014-11-27T01:38:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50107",
"authors": [
"Amy Morris",
"Betty Houver",
"Doug",
"George Galea",
"Grace Yeo",
"John Christian",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119726",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119727",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119842",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455"
],
"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
} |
53419 | Is unrefrigerated butter safe?
I have 3 lbs of butter that has been left at room temperature since, about, December 22nd. Is it still safe to eat?
While I think this question is probably a duplicate, I'm sorry that it has been downvoted. I think it would be a perfectly good question if it hadn't already been asked. As a matter of fact, the probable duplicate is extremely highly upvoted.
I wrote an answer hopefully you will find useful
@Rose Please do not be rude to our users. You did not get backlash; you just got pointed to the question that provides the answers you were looking for. No one was snobby to you, but your response certainly was.
Disclaimer
I'm only speaking from my own experience. I am no authority on the topic of butter, but I do have some experience with it left at room temperature for good amounts of time.
My experience
When I was growing up, my parents would always leave butter at room temperature. Although, it was about one pound at a time. Refrigerated butter is unpleasant because it is so hard it can't be spread very well, by the time the butter melted enough to spread, your toast is cold. So we left it out and nobody ever got sick from it.
The facts
Here are some facts about the composition of butter, based on this WebExhibits page:
Commercial butter is 80–82 percent milk fat, 16–17 percent water, and 1–2 percent milk solids other than fat (sometimes referred to as curd). It may contain salt , added directly to the butter in concentrations of 1 to 2 percent.
So we have established it is mostly milk fat, and 1-2% salt. Now here is an excerpt from a microbiology article about butter:
Salting effectively controls bacterial growth in butter. The salt must be evenly dispersed and worked in well. Salt concentration of 2% adequately dispersed in butter of 16% moisture will result in a 12.5% salt solution throughout the water-in-oil emulsion.
I'm going to go to an article on Chow.com about the topic:
If your butter tastes stale, bitter, and has a strong smell, it’s probably rancid. Rancidity is the result of the fat oxidizing. This process is accelerated by exposure to light, heat, and contact with certain metals (for instance, in utensils).
And...
That said, the California Milk Advisory Board recommends keeping butter wrapped and stored in the coldest part of the refrigerator for optimal freshness and flavor, and to keep it from picking up unwanted odors.
Potential good news
I've also been browsing an article on EatByDate.com which seems to indicate that the primary effect of leaving butter at room temperature is:
Can You Store Butter on the Counter?
Commercially prepared butter can safely be stored on the counter, however, it is not recommended if your intent is to extend its shelf life and freshness. Butter is like a sponge, it absorbs the odors from surrounding foods quite easily and this will affect its taste.
If you are storing butter on the counter we recommend keeping it in a tightly sealed container to block odors and bacteria. The butter will last for several days at a temperature of 65 degrees Fahrenheit.
TL; DR: Play it safe
If there are any signs of sourness, any unusual smells, any sign of mold, better toss it. Otherwise, consume at your own risk. We can't give any kind of authoritative answers as to whether your butter is still OK, as there are so many variables involved that we can't know about. (and we're not microbiologists)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.767149 | 2015-01-09T00:13:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53419",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Fiona Nune",
"Joey Naimeh",
"Johan Rietberg",
"Jolenealaska",
"Linda Hintz",
"Lisa Faber Ginggen",
"Phrancis",
"Prashant Srivastava",
"Rick Wade",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125491",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30873"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
49675 | Is ionized water safe to drink?
I was searching around the internet and I found this:
http://www.thehealthleader.com/health-benefits-alkaline-water-videos/
Is this type of water safe?
I question that this is on-topic for this site. I don't think it is, but I'm not 100% sure. For now I'm going to flag it so a moderator sees it sooner rather than later. Maybe a mod can help word the question so that it's more firmly on-topic.
Hmm, the Moderator is answering questions?
They've been known to help tweak questions in order to not close them.
I'm not going to close this immediately - I think "is X safe" is generally on topic - but I also don't think this is a useful question. It's just water.
While "is X safe" is indeed allowed, I don't think it applies to this case. I wrote up a meta question, http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1988/, but in short, my view is that "is it safe" only defaults to "safe by food handling rules" when we are talking conventional food, not conventional home made health remedies. Everybody, please come to Meta, write about your views, and up/downvote the existing arguments so we can create a good precedent. Digile, you are invited to partake in the Meta discussion too, of course. We can reopen easily if the discussion supports it.
There is no reason to think that so called "alkaline water" is unsafe. There is also no good reason (that I'm aware of) to think that it's any better than any other water. I find that site a bit suspect for more than questionable health claims. They say you can make alkaline water by adding baking soda (sure), they also say that you can make alkaline water by adding lemon. That makes no sense at all.
And, of course, the first place your alkaline water visits in the body is your stomach where digestive acid will reverse whatever low level of alkalinity you might have added to the water. The body regulates its own pH levels and probably isn't too impressed by the water from these machines.
This is all entirely false, but for what it's worth, the alkaline diet folks claim that foods have an health-significant effect on the pH in your body, and that this has nothing to do with whether the food itself is acidic or alkaline.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.767462 | 2014-11-11T03:27:08 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49675",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Clarissa Hess",
"Diglle",
"Everard Norris",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kweestor",
"Melissa Conversano",
"Stephen Eure",
"Sue Bellamy",
"Tom Franz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118705",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118706",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118720",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"ronaldo permejo",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
54692 | Storing lamb shanks
I had some organic lamb shanks in the fridge. I forgot to freeze them by the "use or freeze by" date. It's 5 days past the date. Are they still good?
How's the small ? if they still smell good, I'd cook them now, low and slow.
Specifically is it a 'use by' date or a 'sell by' date?
You should be able to tell by smell and texture. If it's slimy or smells a bit off then I'd get rid of it. Even looking at it, you may see spots or molding.
Best by date is a good standard to go by. However, it is not "always" correct. In my opinion, give or take a day or two. Getting close to that date I always double check. But if the packers did a prestine job then it's possible to get an extra day or two out of it, but why risk it if possible.
Another thing to consider is how long it may have been out of refrigeration, that directly correlates to how much time left you have before it spoils. And that's why I like the give or take rule I mentioned above, whether it's from my usage or the packers.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.767686 | 2015-02-13T13:51:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54692",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"Dwight Payne",
"Iris Peña",
"Max",
"Michelle Downey",
"Mindy Clodius",
"Muriel Donaldson",
"Pam Moffatt",
"Richard Kent",
"brent risby",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128780",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128813",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130380",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
54977 | is it okay to wash vegetables by soaking/submerging?
I go on frequent long-term road trips, and I don't have access to running water during those times. Is it okay to fill up a bowl of water and just stick the vegetables in there and rub them, take them out and be done? If I wash one veggie after the other after the other using the same water, I'm thinking I'd just be using contaminated water to clean vegetables after the first set.
Any ideas or recommendations? Is the method I'm asking about good enough? I was reading adding white vinegar helps but the articles didn't provide any scientific studies or anything.
I've never worked in the restaurant industry but I feel like I've seen them use tubs of water (and maybe something else?) to wash things like lettuce... My guess is that the dirt you're washing off will sink to the bottom.
See http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/23797/3203
You could always add a little bit of Milton to your water. It's a bleach but very mild and is used to clean baby's bottles and chopping boards. On the side of the bottle it always suggests using it to wash vegetables.
Use 2 bowls, one for scrubbing and one for a quick rinse. The more bowls, the more dilute the pesticides are in the last bowl.
Rinsing vegetables doesn't really "decontaminate" them, whether you're using running water or not. The main purpose of rinsing vegetables is to remove dirt and grit that would make them unpalatable to eat, it doesn't actually make them that much safer to eat. If a vegetable was somehow contaminated with salmonella before rinsing, it would still be contaminated after.
When you're eating uncooked vegetables you're relying on the fact they don't normally harbour things that can make you sick and have natural resistances against acquiring them even after being harvested (eg. they don't go moldy overnight). That and whoever prepared them washed their hands first...
So rinsing multiple vegetables in a bowl of water shouldn't be a problem. Spreading a contamination around won't increase the amount of it you end up consuming.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.767828 | 2015-02-21T03:54:43 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54977",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Chloe",
"Danny Bailess",
"Doug",
"Lisa Stanforth",
"Rachel Sisson",
"Robert Cantrell",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130584",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130585",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130586",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130592",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9679"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
54997 | How do you fry chicken, so that oil doesn't explode on your shirt?
I love chicken, and I love to fry it. The problem is that the hot oil explodes, and it gets on my clothes.
I already have a cover for my pan. The problem is that I need to turn chicken upside down and then I need to open it. That's when I get the oil on my shirt.
What do you do? Are there any tricks?
Splatter guards or splatter screens? http://www.amazon.com/b?node=3737171
Don't just take the screen off and put it aside, use one hand to hold the screen in front of you and use the other hand to flip the chicken over, be sure to set the part closest to you down first so that the oil is pushed away from your body.
If all you're worried about is your shirt, get an old men's business shirt from a thrift store and call it you chicken frying shirt. Keep it in your kitchen with your aprons and wash it whenever you want.
I sometimes come late from work and want just to fry some chicken with my shirt. The lastly mentioned advice I am already using, but I was thinking that maybe there is something to do about this, because there is always risk to get some oil on the shirt. Maybe the oil and the pan have to be prepared in a special way, so that it doesn't explode while cooking?
As far as I know, there isn't a way to make the oil not pop. Sorry.
I'll wear an apron to keep oil off my clothes.
Are you sure it isn't moisture running from the underside of the lid? When the water drops hits the oil this happens. When flipping chicken over I hold the lid upside down and away from the pan. Then shake it off a bit before putting the lid back on the pan. But realistically there will always be enough moisture in the chicken to cause splattering. Maybe try turning the tempurature down a bit.
Related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46237/how-to-prevent-fat-splashes-when-i-fry-a-burger/ Also, see this question for explanation of the science of why it splatters: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46350/why-does-my-pan-always-splatter-when-i-make-chicken-breasts
The problem is that you're using a lid.
Spatter screens keep the oil mostly contained, while still allowing any moisture to escape.
A lid, on the other hand, collects the moisture on the underside of the lid. When you go to lift it, the water drops back into the oil, and causes increased spattering.
You're actually better off without a lid, if you don't have a spatter screen. Yes, you'll likely have to clean everything in the vicinity of the vessel of hot oil, but you don't have the problems associated with the lid.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.768044 | 2015-02-21T18:35:09 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54997",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Heather Qualls",
"Jonas",
"Karen Shaffer",
"Kathy Davis",
"Kelly Murphy",
"Lou Fro",
"Mark Lewinski",
"Sandra Parrish",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130634",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130700",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130721",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33705",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"user3169"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
47113 | How long can we preserve yogurt using a refrigerator?
How long can we keep yogurt in the refrigerator and still consume it?
Shop bought, or home made? Shop bought yoghurt tends to be stamped with a "use by" date a few weeks after the purchase date, and I've generally found it's OK to eat for about a month after that date. (For a plain, unflavoured yoghurt, probably even longer.)
This link should help you. It should be ok at least a week or two past the use by date.
http://www.eatbydate.com/dairy/yogurt-shelf-life-expiration-date/
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.768303 | 2014-09-14T01:38:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47113",
"authors": [
"Fiona Lo",
"Julie Touhey",
"L Padron",
"MathMathMath",
"Mo Mo",
"Patrick Dunphy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113692",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113693",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113774",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115536",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115550",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26964",
"tobyink"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
45958 | How do I cook brain to achieve a firmer texture?
Most of the time we fry brain and eat it. But due to its semi-solid state, it doesn't seem good.
Also Wikipedia says:
Consuming the brain and other nerve tissue of animals may be hazardous to health.
How can I cook brain and avoid both the semi-solid texture and the potential health hazards?
@Jefromi you are some what right intent for my question. My intention was also to know treatments to be made before cooking brain. Anyway Thanks
I Googled that quote and found a wiki article about Monkey Brains. If you're wanting specifically to discuss the brains of monkeys as a cuisine, I think you should include that in the question. Strange as it may seem, the inclusion of monkeys in your question may actually make the question more on topic as a food safety question, and more objectively answerable as a technique question.
Cleaning up some comments; I think we've arrived at a question that matches the OP's intent and avoids the reasons some of us wanted to close this.
As far as I know, neither one is possible.
The brain is supposed to be very soft and creamy when cooked. It is prized for this texture, there are languages where the idiom "it is soft as brain" takes the place of the English "it melts on the tongue". All recipes for brain are written to make it softer, not firmer.
Physiologically, brain cells are very different from muscle cells. Most of the cells in the brain have the purpose of electric insulation, and are practically sheets of myelin. Myelin is mostly fat and water, with a little protein thrown in. Trying to make it firm is akin to trying to make butter firm. It will always stay creamy, even if you cool it down to a point with little give/smearability.
As for safety, the brain has roughly the same dangers as eating other types of meat, plus the danger of prion caused disease. The danger it has in common with other meats are averted by following standard cooking practices, as with all other meats of the same animal. I doubt that any source warning you against eating brains will have these dangers in mind.
Prion caused diseases are a different matter. They are very rare, but very dangerous (CJD, commonly called "mad cow" in the media, is a prion disease). And no matter what you do to the brain, you can't destroy the prions. They survive at temperatures at which the tissue itself is incinerated to unrecognizable ash. You don't have a chance of destroying them by chemical means either, if you want to keep the brain meat edible. If you happen to eat a contaminated brain, you will be exposed to active, pathogenic prions, no matter how you cooked it. As far as I know, you can't avoid getting the disease after prion exposure (although I'm not entirely sure about that part). There is no cure for it.
Despite the popular name, the prions causing CJD can be found in the brains of animals other than cattle. This is why the Wikipedia article on monkey brains contains the sentence you cited, the prions can be found in monkey brains too.
The best you can do for texture is add an additional, contrasting crunchy layer. A former employer of mine served lamb's brain that had been fried in a tempura batter (what we affectionately called a "brain nugget"). That made for a nice contrast against the very creamy interior.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.768392 | 2014-07-29T10:53:03 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45958",
"authors": [
"Andrei Pozolotin",
"Cascabel",
"Cody Yu",
"Jolenealaska",
"Madel",
"Profile Spam Account",
"Sally revel",
"Sendy Boydoel Sendy Boydoel",
"Spammer",
"Sujit Maharjan",
"TSN Group Services spam",
"Urada",
"Veterans Auto Hail spam",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109583",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109584",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109585",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109588",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109592",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109604",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109605",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109606",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26181",
"int 21h Glory to Ukraine",
"logophobe",
"soundharya h"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
46901 | Why does my glaze soak into my doughnuts?
I fried up some yummy doughnuts and let them cool. Shortly after glazing them, I noticed that the glaze has soaked into the doughnuts. How can I prevent this from happening?
Okay, I did some more thorough searching and found Beki Cook's donut frosting recipe. Apparently my mistake was that I was letting them (the doughnuts) cool off, and according to the article:
Glaze is the easiest way to sugar-up a donut. But there are a few things you need to remember. First and foremost... only glaze donuts when they're warm. If you do it when they've cooled the glaze just soaks in and get goopy.
Nice Q&A for your first appearance here! :) I think you even get a badge for that! Welcome to Seasoned Advice.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.768817 | 2014-09-05T12:17:54 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46901",
"authors": [
"8xbet",
"Chris Coetzee",
"Jane Kinton",
"Jolenealaska",
"Miracle Espinoza",
"Penny Adams-Hunt",
"Tab B",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113121",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
54428 | Distribution of heat using a silicone oven tray
I have recently bought a silicone oven sheet, which consists essentially of a thick sheet of silicone rubber stretched across a metal frame. It shrugs off grease and caramelised food, and it's a joy from the point of view of maintenance, but I wonder if its different heat conductivity means that I need to use different techniques for some preparations?
So far I have used it only for items that need turning during baking, such as fish cakes, sausages and chips (fries), but my intuition tells me that it will have markedly different results on items like pizzas, pasties, and quiches, where the intention is to concentrate the heat so as to improve the bottom crust.
I intend to experiment, but I wonder if there is anyone here who already has some experience with this so as to save me spoiling perfectly good food in my tests.
I wouldnt consider it spoiling if the food still tastes good :) But I would suspect you are correct in your assumptions.
I certainly would not use it for pizza. There is no substitute for the heat retention a pizza stone provides. "save me spoiling perfectly good food in my tests" Testing leads to failure as well as success, you need to know what does not work and if you never fail you will not learn anything
Silicone can be made to conduct heat well, but I doubt that's the type on your sheet. A lot of the browning comes from infrared (radiated) heat that the metal sheet is great at emitting.
Silicone will likely buffer the radiated heat and not allow the browning effect (Millard's reaction) the same way steel would. My guess is you'll get more browning on the tops and sides of the foods (from the oven wall) than browning from the bottom.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.768944 | 2015-02-05T20:06:29 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54428",
"authors": [
"Alaska Man",
"Andrea Bindewald",
"Beth Toole",
"Dennis Miers",
"Nora Campbell",
"Phyllis Levi",
"Wjdavis5",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128058",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54906"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
54673 | What does an American recipe mean by “1 tablespoon vanilla”?
I have a recipe for a self-saucing pudding that separates into a sponge top with a custard layer beneath, rather like Lemon Surprise Pudding. It calls for one tablespoon of vanilla.
For an idea of the size of the recipe, it starts:
1 cup flour
2 tablespoons cocoa powder
1/2 cup sugar
This is surely not ground vanilla pods or vanilla extract, as so much would be overpowering.
Is there something similar in the English pantry that is similar, or can someone provide an equivalent amount of vanilla extract?
Please be aware that in some countries vanilla aroma is more popular than vanilla extract. E.g. in Poland vanilla aroma is the king and is being sold in 9-10 ml bottles.
This is sufficient for 2kg of dough.
Vanilla extract is usually in 50-100ml bottles, so you can imagine the difference in power.
If this is an older recipe, it's possible it's from before 'double strength' vanilla extract was the norm.
It means vanilla extract.
Whether it's correct or not is hard to say. It does sound like a lot for something with those quantities, so it's possible they meant to say a teaspoon, which is a pretty common amount, resulting in a subtle but noticeable flavor in a batch of chocolate chip cookies, for example.
Or it's possible they just wanted whatever it is you're making to really taste like vanilla, rather than just have a hint of vanilla in the background. Vanilla really is a subtle flavor, so it takes a lot to make it strong, and it's hard for it to really be overpowering.
It's a self-saucing chocolate pudding that separates into a sponge top with a custard layer beneath, rather like Lemon Surprise Pudding. I guess the amount of vanilla isn't critical as it won't affect the cooking process. I think I will start with two teaspoons as a compromise and go from there.
Do not skimp on the tablespoon of vanilla! I did look up one of my favorite pudding recipes and one tablespoon seemed fine for a small batch. Also, as as baker, I have found that even if you use a bit more vanilla extract, it is not that big of a deal. The flavor is great as long as you do not drench it to the point of double, triple, etc. The flavor of chocolate and vanilla go great together, they complement each other in baking.
@Borodin Ah, so there's a fair amount of liquid ingredients beyond what you listed, then? That'd make the tablespoon not quite as excessive sounding. Certainly do what you think is best, anyways - though if you have any reason to believe that it's a good recipe and not just a mistake (good source, reviews, etc) I would personally be tempted to make it as-is on the first try. Sometimes our instincts are wrong and other people really do have good ideas :)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.769115 | 2015-02-13T02:40:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54673",
"authors": [
"Borodin",
"Cascabel",
"Emma Millington",
"Joe",
"Joshua Bedo",
"Lisa Macie",
"Mary Maher",
"Michelle Smith",
"Printers Hut",
"Szymon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128729",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128730",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128731",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128735",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128753",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128754",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"lesley jimenez",
"user33210"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
19859 | Substituting glucose syrup for glucose
I've noticed that many pate de fruit recipies call for a small amount of glucose in addition to sugar. My local store didn't have any glucose, but I have glucose syrup around. Can I use glucose syrup in place of glucose (I'm assuming they mean the dry kind)? If so, what ratio should I use?
As an example, this is one recipe: http://trissalicious.com/2010/02/25/family-gems/
This question isn't specific to that recipe, though. Most pate de fruit recipes seem to call for glucose.
In boiled syrup candies like this one, glucose is often used as an insurance policy to keep all the rest of the sucrose in the recipe from crystallizing. The dissimilar sugar molecules in the solution interfere with the sucrose crystallization and they instead form smaller crystals and the candy has a smoother texture.
You can easily use glucose syrup in this recipe. As it adds a little water you will have to boil the syrup a little longer to reach the desired concentration (and thus temperature.)
As far as the ratio- You can look at the label of your syrup to see the glucose content and use that as a starting point but don't worry about being too exact in your conversion. As the glucose is simply for interference small variations aren't going to make much of a difference. Often when I am making candies like this I will just eyeball a tablespoon or two depending on how much candy I am making.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.769342 | 2011-12-21T16:36:03 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19859",
"authors": [
"Darlene",
"Nancy",
"Sagar Jethi",
"Timothy Deng",
"Werner",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43314",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43389",
"user43302"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
66356 | What part of the brisket is sold in UK?
I'm looking at this recipe from Gordon Ramsay's Ultimate Home Cooking, pg. 198:
Barbecue-Style Slow-Roasted Beef Brisket
1kg beef brisket, excess fat trimmed off to leave just 1 cm
2 onions, peeled and sliced
6 bay leaves
2 tbsp light brown sugar or muscovado sugar
1 tbsp tomato pureé (presumably this is tomato paste for us Americans)
1 x 300 ml bottle lager
350 ml beef stock
1 tbsp cider vinegar (optional)
For the rub: 2 tsp cayenne pepper, 2 tsp mustard powder, 2 tsp freshly ground cumin seeds, 2 tsp celery seeds, sea salt and freshly ground black pepper
He mixes the rub, puts it on the brisket and seals the brisket in a roasting tray with a bit of oil. Caramelizes the onions and sugar and bay leaves and salt and pepper in the tray, puts in tomato puree and broth to deglaze. Then sticks the brisket in this mix, brings it to a boil and then puts it in the oven (140 C). Then takes it out 3 - 3.5 hours later and makes a sauce from the drippings in the pan.
The question I have is: Is the brisket (without any qualifications) from the point or the flat? If it isn't the flat, what would I change to have the recipe work for the flat?
The brisket is a different cut in the UK. It is longer, extends below the top of the leg and not as far up the breast.
@user23614 - So, what would be the equivalent american cut?
There is no exact equivalent, the cuts are different, there are 14 cuts on a beef animal in the UK and 13 in the US. If you search Wikipedia for brisket it has an excellent comparison between the two.
Thanks! Didn't know that they were different cuts
There's an Android app called BB Meat Master which has references for both UK and US cuts for different meats as well as the different names for cuts in both locations
Most brisket I've seen in the UK is flat, although I've seen point as well occasionally. The recipe should work fine for both unless you have a really thick point. With a thick point you could cut it the long way to increase its surface area, or cook it a bit longer. You won't go wrong cooking it lower and slower in any case.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.769496 | 2016-02-09T06:05:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66356",
"authors": [
"Ann Darling",
"Batman",
"GdD",
"Hazel Carlin",
"Jane Martin",
"Mark Irving",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158877",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158878",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158886",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160738",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37751",
"michael rooney",
"user23614"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
49766 | Why did my chowder turn out watery?
I made sausage and corn chowder the other day. I added both corn starch and Knorr's instant leek soup as thickeners. It simmered over the stove for 25 mins. I thought it may have been too thick, but I resisted the urge to add any more liquids. I let it cool, then took it to work to share. It was reheated in a crockpot at low for several hours and became very soupy or watery. What happened to my chowder?
Unfortunately, cornstarch does that. It does not reheat well. Potato starch is even worse, and that's the thickener in Knorr's Leek Soup.
If you want to reheat something thickened, your best bet is to thicken it with a roux. There are other more modern thickeners (think molecular gastronomy), but I don't know much about those.
There are other natural but less-common starches that do pretty well with reheating too - arrowroot is one that can be used without integrating it into a roux. But sticking with a roux may be the best option for flavor alone.
Thanks for your response. Next time I'll have to remember to make a roux. :)
@ChiLeung : you can make a roux, and add it to the watery chowder ... although to reduce the chance of lumps, add a few ladles of the chowder to the roux, mix it well, then add that back to the rest of the chowder.
@logophobe I've never used arrowroot, but I've always heard that arrowroot is particularly bad about breaking down when heated.
Interesting. I don't find cornstarch does that. I do know for a fact that potato starch doesn't even cool well (let alone reheat). You can watch a bowl of soup, thickened with potato starch, get thinner as it cools.
@Swoogan Oh yeah, cornstarch thins. Not as badly as potato starch, and I'm not sure exactly where on the heat, cool and reheat cycle it happens, but it happens.
It must be continuous heating. If you add it at the end and cool it, it thickens like no other. You will get jelly in the fridge. However, I do recall that a cornstarch gravy kept on the heat too long will thin.
Attention - possible gross information to follow. Queasy fellows stop reading here, please!
Long simmering aside: If some saliva has gotten into your soup (e.g. someone tasting and double-dipping), corn and potatoe starch might break down, too. This is caused by an enzyme (Amylase), that breaks the loger starch down into smaller particles. (see Wikipedia: Amylase) The enzyme stays active; it's not "used up" after splitting some starch, therefore a very small amount of saliva can liquify an entire pot.
That's not gross, just very useful information! That said, have you verified by experiment that, say, a double-dipped spoon has this effect in measurable quantities?
[Looking around cautiously] "If I don't taste it, how do I know if it's any good." Thanks for the information. :o
@ChiLeung : use two spoons ... one is dipped into the pot to be tasted, then poured into the other spoon (while not over the pot). You then taste from the second spoon.
Do you know how long it would take to liquify an entire pot, though?
@Raphael: Yes, I have verified this effect and you can too: Eat half a pudding (flan), let stand for a few hours. Liquid will pool rather quickly. Works with some types of baby food, too. (Learned the hard way..) The "ewww"-factor taught my kids not to double dip in just one "lesson" instead of multiple verbal warnings ^_^.
@Jefromi: No idea how long an entire pot would take, a couple of days perhaps? Oh, and the "activity" of amylase in the saliva differs between humans, that's a genetic trait.(http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0013352)
I find it very hard to believe that the trace quantities of amylase from the trace quantities of saliva that might make their way into the soup could digest all that starch in only a couple of hours. But here's a simple test: amylase breaks starch down into simple sugars. If whole potatoes' worth of starch had been broken down into sugar, the soup would have tasted ridiculously sweet by the end. Did it? Ridiculously sweet as in "Wait, it said I should add a kilo of potatoes and it tastes like I accidentally added a kilo of sugar instead."
@Joe Use one spoon and wash it between tastings.
@DavidRicherby: To alter the consistency of the soup, it's sufficient to crack only part of the starch - not even as much as was added to thicken. And that would not make the soup sweet. Rough math: OP said the soup was a bit too thick. So I'm guesstimating perhaps 50g starch / liter. (40g = sauce, 80g = pudding) If you'd try to thicken the soup with 25g/l, you wouldn't notice much of an effect - and a scant spoonful of sugar in a liter of well seasoned soup isn't that much. Besides, I never said that the amlyase is the sole culprit here, my answer was intended as fair warning to the comunity.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.769696 | 2014-11-14T13:40:44 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49766",
"authors": [
"Adrienne De Schutter",
"Cascabel",
"Chi Leung",
"David Richerby",
"Frankie David",
"Gobind Thapa",
"Howard Sallee",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Raphael",
"Stephie",
"Swoogan",
"brooke berwald",
"don O",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118924",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118932",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
50148 | What should I do with a turkey after roasting but hours before dinner?
I work overnight, from 12 AM to 8 AM. When I got in, my only instruction was to check the turkey by 1 AM. I was also told by the co-worker I was relieving that she put the turkey in at 9 PM. And the temperature was set for 350°.
I researched online and read that it should be 165° at the thigh without touching the bone. It's now 2:30 AM and it's still at 160°.
I don't know what to do when the turkey is done, where do I put it, what should I do to it? It's not going to be eaten for at least 12 hours.
I don't even know how big it is. It looks like a 20 pound turkey, but I don't know. It's in a disposable pan, covered in foil.
I went ahead and wrote a community wiki answer with the important bits from the comments, so this won't get stuck as an "unanswered" question. I'll go ahead and delete all the back-and-forth and leave things in a cleaner state.
If this happened to me, I probably would not refrigerate it, since I think it would tend to create both food safety and quality issues. Basically, one should not attempt to make two extra trips through the "danger zone" of bacteria growth for 20 lbs. of food unless it's absolutely necessary.
You should NOT refrigerate a large whole hot turkey; that is a serious food safety hazard. It will take too long for the interior of the turkey to cool in the fridge, which could potentially make it unsafe to eat. You absolutely should NOT attempt to reheat a whole bird like that; you'd have to carve it into pieces before reheating anyway.
You could carve it into pieces before refrigerating, separate them in the fridge (put in shallow containers) so they can cool quickly, and then reheat relatively quickly (no more than 2 hours maximum to reheat to 165F), but that could lead to drying out if you're not careful. You could carve it into smaller pieces and reheat in gravy or something, but that's not ideal unless your plan was to have "leftover turkey"-style dinner, instead of "roasted turkey."
Another viable option, from my perspective, would be to hold the turkey above 140F until ready to serve. Remove the turkey from the oven immediately (if your probe is reading 160F, the turkey will continue to "coast" upward to at least 165F), and cover tightly with at least a couple layers of foil. Turn the oven off, open the oven door, and let the oven cool as quickly as you can (which may only take a few minutes with the door open). Once the oven gets below 200F or so, place the turkey back into the oven, and turn the oven down to its lowest setting -- which should always be at least 140F, but probably will be in the 150-175F range. Also, place a pan of water in the oven to keep the humidity high. Then just wait for 12 hours or whatever until serving. As long as the turkey stays above 140F, it will remain safe to eat. You will not need to rest the turkey, since heat will be evenly distributed when it is removed from the oven.
(Important note: do NOT just turn the oven off. You need to maintain the turkey temperature at a minimum of 140F; the safest course is to monitor the turkey temperature periodically to ensure this, and turn the oven up a few degrees if necessary. Most ovens are designed so that their lowest setting will safely maintain food above 140F, but it's always good to double-check.)
Turkey kept in the 150-160F range will generally not dry out with prolonged holding. Instead, the meat will gradually get softer and softer, while connective tissue and fats will break down, giving the meat a very tender and succulent texture. It may even taste "juicier" at the end than it would if you ate it right away, due to further breakdown of the meat, like a well-done pot roast. (Those store-bought roast chickens which fall apart when you try to carve them are often held for many hours in low ovens just this way.) The main problem with the texture is that it may actually be "too" tender, for those who like firmer poultry.
It's better to hold a turkey this way when it was already cooked slowly, but you have no option now. No matter what you do, you're going to dry out the meat somewhat and change its texture. Carving, cooling, and reheating -- if done in a safe manner -- may preserve texture somewhat, but it will be easy to dry out and will taste more like "reheated" meat. Holding above 140F will soften the meat texture significantly, but I think it's more likely to preserve flavor and perceived juiciness.
It probably would've been a good idea to rotate it partway through cooking, but too late for that now - it shouldn't take too much longer to reach 165F.
When removed from the oven, it should rest on the counter for at least 30 minutes and up to a couple of hours. Since you're not going to eat it for quite a long time, you need to refrigerate it.
If it won't fit in the fridge as-is, carve it, but only as much as necessary to fit it in.
In either case, make sure to cover it, the more airtight the better - baggies are a decent option.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.770096 | 2014-11-28T07:40:32 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50148",
"authors": [
"Bobby Mcguigan",
"Bridget Taylor",
"Cascabel",
"Colleen Burrell",
"David Paton",
"Fredrick Aseka",
"George Griffiths",
"Joel Holbrook",
"Lynn McClellan",
"Michael Robinson",
"Paul Kotler",
"Shannon Wagner",
"Toby Lousada",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119850",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119851",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119854",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119856",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119858",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119922",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119924",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119954",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119956",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"janet mwende",
"lorayne tapia",
"mike graham"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
46652 | Sausage grease in fridge
I forgot a pan with a little sausage grease in the fridge (1 1/2 to 2 weeks). The pork sausages had peppers, herbs and maybe onions in them, the grease is orange from the chilis and peppers. If I cooked them properly (350 degrees for 40-45 minutes) can the leftover grease have any risk of harbouring botulism? (I'm not going to eat it but would like to know how to I clean it safely). Would recooking the pan kill off any toxins, etc.?
It was a metal baking pan and a knife and fork. I am only worried about botulism and I don't know if normal washing is enough if by chance it was in the fat and whether it would contaminate the sink, etc. I read about bacon fat but wondered if sausages might be different with peppers and maybe onions in them.
Please clarify what you want to know. What type of pan are you referring to? No question that after 1 1/2 to 2 weeks it should be in the garbage but, if you're not going to eat it and you clean the pan thoroughly, why would any bacteria or toxins be a concern?
Discard the contents of the pan in the trash.
Wash the pan with hot water and soap.
All will be well once you've done this. There is no reason to be concerned about which particular pathogens you tossed in the trash and washed down the drain. You can safely assume it was a few of all of them.
A pan in the fridge for ten days?!
Bin the contents, wash the pan in hot soapy water, twice, and everythings dandy, believe me.
If you're truly paranoid, fill the pan with water, and a splash of vinegar,boil for 10 mins, then rinse with hot soapy water,again.
Vow to yourself never to do that again.
There is very little chance of bacteria with it being in the fridge. Yes, reheating the pan to a temperature over 175 will kill any bacteria that may exist.
This particular situation may or may not be safe, but the idea that heating over 175F makes things safe is very dangerous. Yes, it will kill most bacteria, but it will not necessarily destroy the toxins they produce. See for example http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32167/can-adequate-heating-transform-spoiled-food-into-safe-food
Good point. I know some toxins don't get destroyed by heating but some do. And this is not for eating, it's so I can feel okay cleaning it if there is a particular risk with sausage fat.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.770501 | 2014-08-25T22:11:52 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46652",
"authors": [
"Alice C-M",
"Allen Pestaluky",
"Angela Sims-Culver",
"Cascabel",
"Cindy",
"Evangelist Tanyka Robbins",
"Nick C",
"Padma",
"Rachel Lewis",
"The black Hippie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112494",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112495",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112556",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112586",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112589",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26760",
"jlmaccurrach1"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
49600 | How do I fix a cast iron pot that was heated empty for hours?
I left my cast iron pot on the gas stove, on high flame, and then forgot about it for 3 hours. It was empty and I was drying it before I oiled it to store it. After I discovered it and let it cool, I oiled it with a paper towel and all this rusty stuff came off and continues to come off. Is my pan ruined? What should I do?
Your pan is NOT ruined.YAY! What has happened is that you have burned off most of the seasoning. Any other kind of pan would be ruined, but your cast iron pan only needs to be stripped and reseasoned. If you have a self-cleaning oven cycle, that is a great way to completely strip the pan. You can also throw it into a hot fire (like a fireplace, wood stove, or campfire if you've got one) and just leave it until the fire is out and you can touch the pan. For any of these methods, the pan should be up-side-down.
Another thing you can use to get to the bare metal is oven cleaner, in a hot oven or not, depending upon the product. Again, the pan should be up-side-down.
Complete the mission with steel wool and dish soap, an SOS pad would be great for this.
Now it is naked, and needs to be seasoned. Unfortunately, it will stick like hell until you've got a good solid season. Season it a few times and cook only greasy food in it for a while. It'll come back eventually.
You may get answers that say you don't need to strip the seasoning you've got left. I would disagree with that, seasoning over badly damaged seasoning never gets as strong and smooth. Start from scratch.
Look here for seasoning advice: What's the best way to season a cast iron skillet?
I have recently become a flaxseed convert, so my preferred method is this one, from Sheryl's Blog, which I first saw thanks to Neil G's answer to the above Seasoned Advice question. The whole article is worth reading, but here are her instructions for seasoning from scratch. I just did this to one the cast iron pans I inherited from my grandmother. The result was fabulous.
The Recipe for Perfect Cast Iron Seasoning
The basic idea is this: Smear a food-grade drying oil onto a cast iron pan, and then bake it above the oil’s smoke point. This will initiate the release of free radicals and polymerization. The more drying the oil, the harder the polymer. So start with the right oil.
Go to your local health food store or organic grocery and buy a bottle of flaxseed oil. It’s sold as an omega-3 supplement and it’s in the refrigeration section because it goes rancid so easily. Check the expiration date to make sure it’s not already rancid. Buy an organic flaxseed oil. You don’t want to burn toxic chemicals into your cookware to leach out forever more. It’s a fairly expensive oil. I paid $17 for a 17 ounce bottle of cold-pressed, unrefined, organic flaxseed oil. As it says on the bottle, shake it before you use it.
Strip your pan down to the iron using the techniques I describe in my popover post. Heat the pan in a 200°F oven to be sure it’s bone dry and to open the pores of the iron a little. Then put it on a paper towel, pour a little flaxseed oil on it (don’t forget to shake the bottle), and rub the oil all over the pan with your hands, making sure to get into every nook and cranny. Your hands and the pan will be nice and oily.
Now rub it all off. Yup – all. All. Rub it off with paper towels or a cotton cloth until it looks like there is nothing left on the surface. There actually is oil left on the surface, it’s just very thin. The pan should look dry, not glistening with oil. Put the pan upside down in a cold oven. Most instructions say to put aluminum foil under it to catch any drips, but if your oil coating is as thin as it should be, there won’t be any drips.
Turn the oven to a baking temperature of 500°F (or as high as your oven goes – mine only goes to 450°F) and let the pan preheat with the oven. When it reaches temperature, set the timer for an hour. After an hour, turn off the oven but do not open the oven door. Let it cool off with the pan inside for two hours, at which point it’s cool enough to handle.
The pan will come out of the oven a little darker, but matte in texture – not the semi-gloss you’re aiming for. It needs more coats. In fact, it needs at least six coats. So again rub on the oil, wipe it off, put it in the cold oven, let it preheat, bake for an hour, and let it cool in the oven for two hours. The picture above was taken after six coats of seasoning. At that point it starts to develop a bit of a sheen and the pan is ready for use.
If you try this, you will be tempted to use a thicker coat of oil to speed up the process. Don’t do it. It just gets you an uneven surface – or worse, baked on drips. Been there, done that. You can’t speed up the process. If you try, you’ll mess up the pan and have to start over.
The reason for the very hot oven is to be sure the temperature is above the oil’s smoke point, and to maximally accelerate the release of free radicals. Unrefined flaxseed oil actually has the lowest smoke point of any oil (see this table). But the higher the temperature the more it will smoke, and that’s good for seasoning (though bad for eating – do not let oils smoke during cooking).
I mentioned earlier there’s a myth floating around that vegetable oils leave a sticky residue. If the pan comes out of the oven sticky, the cause is one of three things:
You put the oil on too thick.
Your oven temperature was too low.
Your baking time was too short.
It’s possible to use a suboptimal oil for seasoning, like Crisco or bacon drippings, and still end up with a usable pan. Many (most) people do this. But the seasoning will be relatively soft, not as nonstick, and will tend to wear off. If you want the hardest, slickest seasoning possible, use the right oil: flaxseed oil.
there is no recipe for perfect cast iron seasoning. Seriously. I've seasoned hundreds of cast iron cooking vehicles. Maybe this is good for a 10" skillet, but the popover pan may require something a bit more involved, like flipping.
+1 for self-clean cycle. We just did this to refresh a couple of pans. However, oven cleaner terrifies me - I would never put it on a pan I'm eating from, even if it will eventually have polymerized oil between my food and any residues.
@mskfisher it is pretty spooky stuff, no question!
One late comment - note that the statement about using organic flaxseed oil is based on the misunderstanding that organic foods cannot have pesticides applied to them. This is incorrect; organic foods can use some very toxic pesticides at high applications.
Your pan is certainly not ruined but it will take some work to restore it to it's former glory. The "rusty stuff" comment is a bit worrying though. It could be just overheated oils, but it could also be real rust. Rub it between your fingers - is it smooth and chunky, or more like sand? Let it dry completely then heat it with an open flame - does it smoke like oil?
Sandy and no smoke means real rust. Iron is an important part of your daily diet but usually not in the form of raw ferric oxide on your meat. Unfortunately the cleaning and seasoning methods listed elsewhere won't remove rust, and it is quite important that you get it all off.
Look in the local Yellow Pages under Sandblasting. There should be a couple of columns, both full serve and self-serve. 10 minutes in a sandblaster will remove the old oil, rust, anything else on there and leave you with a shiny pan with a pleasant fine-pebbled finish that is just perfect for cooking on.
Most of the sandblasting charges are for setup. If you go self-serve, take anything else that needs cleanup. Other cast-iron cookware, the barbecue grill, shovels etc.
Hello Paul, and welcome. When you get some reputation, you'll be able to post comments to other answers. For now, I agree with David Richerby's edit: the part answering the question itself is very good and should stay, the part referring to the other answer is not so interesting to the next guy who comes here wanting to know what the solution for the heated pan is, and not in a discussion with the other people who answered.
Sandblasting would certainly work great for stripping a pan, but I disagree that it would leave a "pleasant fine-pebbled finish that is just perfect for cooking on", simply because an unseasoned cast iron pan (which a freshly sandblasted pan would be) would stick terribly. It would need to be seasoned before it would be a great pan again.
There are many MYTH's about cast iron. Read this FIRST:
http://www.seriouseats.com/2014/11/the-truth-about-cast-iron.html .
My response:
No big deal. In the restaurant we always had two cast iron pans on the back burners going white hot for the entire shift. 8 hours straight at times.
While/before it cools, throw some salt into it and toss it around a bit. This doesn't do much of anything other than lengthening the cool down process, absorb moisture, and help you scrape out any flakey stuff.
Your pan will be fine. Water/Moisture/lids introduce "rusty stuff processes." Did you add water or wipe it with a sponge or cover it while it cooled down?
After it has cooled and been cleaned, reheat to evaporate the moisture and then apply a thin sheen of oil.
It's not lengthy or difficult to recover from.
Edit: It doesn't mean you've burnt off your seasoning either, that diagnosis would take a few photos to determine.
"all this rusty stuff came off and continues to come off" after 3 hours empty on high heat?? Yeah, her seasoning has burnt off, I've seen it before. I don't need a picture to be sure.
yeah, you really do. Rusty stuff isn't seasoning.
Edit: it could be something else entirely.
@MichaelE. you can, of course, disagree with Jolene on her opinion of the pan situation. But your personal attacks are way overboard for any kind of civil disagreement. Also, this kind of discussion (even if it weren't so rude) is actively discouraged from being held in comments, this is what the private chat room functionality is for. I am cleaning up the comments, leaving only the first two, which show your two opposing viewpoints. Please keep any further discussion factual and polite, and use the appropriate channels.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.770858 | 2014-11-08T00:29:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49600",
"authors": [
"Aleksandr Tarasula",
"Amy Standridge",
"Andreas L",
"Baluc Group",
"Carmelo Tianzon",
"Gail Gunderson",
"James McLeod",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kass Atkinson",
"Lori Smith",
"Maria Whiteside",
"Mary Robinson",
"Michael E.",
"Michele Meddings",
"Sharda Barrett",
"Shayla Fitzthum",
"Stephen Wipff Steve",
"Val Mason",
"carol barney",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118503",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118506",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118530",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118536",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118543",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118548",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4976",
"mskfisher",
"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
} |
51683 | How are beef cuts labeled in Russian?
I looked up cut of beef on Wikipedia. There are no Russian names for cuts. I'm wondering what they're all called in Russian.
Hello George Chen! Even if we had a way of measuring this, it does not cover the criteria of being based on a concrete problem a professional or hobby cook is likely to face in the kitchen, and as such it is off topic.
I think OP's actual question, based on the article he links, is how primal cuts are defined in russian culture, rather than what is the most popular. A google image search found this image, with no source and all labels in russian.
@GeorgeChen For a more up to date image, http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%8F%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0 's first section, with the image not present on English wikipedia, is titled "Russia and the former Soviet Union", though the image it uses seems to be originally from the German wikipedia. The section near the bottom of the page is a diagram from an old public-domain Russian dictionary.
George, given that you're apparently satisfied with answers about what the cuts are called (not what's popular), I've edited your question and reopened it. (I'm also cleaning up all the tangential comments.) @Random832 we'd much appreciate you turning those things into an answer!
@GeorgeChen I added another link to my answer after you accepted it that you may find helpful.
@Jefromi I know that answers only consisting of links are frowned upon, but I have doubts about how much of the copyrighted material at the sources is appropriate to include in an answer to a general reference question.
The Russian Wikipedia article on Beef has several diagrams - a current one in the main section apparently originally derived from the German wikipedia, and two others from older Russian sources.
I was also able to find another site with another diagram, and translations of some of the cuts into English, which is helpful because the names are difficult to translate to similar English cuts via Google Translate, which simply gives anatomical terms for many of them.
Here is an article from the Moscow Times discussing the subject, largely from the perspective of someone who only knows the American name for the cut they are looking for.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.771673 | 2014-12-17T10:22:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/51683",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Coral Chiesa",
"Frog Button Mel",
"Katie Champion",
"Lawrence Roussarie",
"Linda Jackson",
"Random832",
"Ruby Pearl",
"Sunny Bunny251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122408",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122410",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122421",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122677",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7495",
"hym3242",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
49195 | Can I make microwave frozen ready pizza?
I would like to make frozen pizzas and heat them in the microwave. I understand that to warm in oven would be better but I don't want to use an oven. I want to make my own frozen ready pizza and heat in a microwave and achieve similar results to heating in oven. Is this possible? Can I do it by adding an ingredient to the dough?
What do you mean by spoiling?
By spoiling I mean, usually when heating a frozen ready pizza in a microwave the pizza base may become vey soft of soggy.
To the OP: it looks like you accidentally created two accounts (sorry if things were confusing!). You should be able to merge them by going here: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/help/merging-accounts. If you pick "I need to merge user profiles" in the contact form it links you to, you can paste in your two profile urls: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28861/n-parker and http://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28862/user28862
The secret to microwave pizzas isn't the ingredients (although that might be part of it) ... the real trick is that they have you cook the pizza on top of the box.
The box has a special 'crisping disk' in it which is susceptible to microwaves ... it absorbs microwaves, heats up and then either conducts or radiates heat to the food to be cooked.
You can buy microwaveable 'crisping trays' or 'crisping pans'. You can also buy 'crisping paper' which is sold in rolls but only intended for a single use. Make sure that it specifically says that it's for microwave, and for pizza. (there are ceramic 'crisping trays' to cook bacon in the microwave, and I don't know if they're susceptors, or just to drain away the grease)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.772137 | 2014-10-23T19:20:47 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49195",
"authors": [
"Bitcoin nova",
"Cascabel",
"Diane Gonzales",
"GdD",
"Johnny Jones",
"Kimberly",
"N Parker",
"Peggy Honingford",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117452",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117453",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117465",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117466",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28861"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
49259 | Can I fix butter (for a sauce) after putting too much mustard in?
I'm making sauce for chicken cordon bleu. The butter has shallots, parsley, mustard, salt and pepper. I put too much mustard into the butter. Can I fix this?
You haven't actually used the sauce yet, the sauce in the pan just has too much mustard?
Hi Linda, and welcome to the site! Please answer @Jolenealaska's question and give us any other relevant information. This will help us to answer your question better.
I went ahead and edited this assuming the butter was for sauce, since that's the only thing that really makes sense here. Linda, if you do come back and that's not what you meant, please feel free to edit further.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.772324 | 2014-10-26T20:46:11 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49259",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Christina Ochoa",
"Cindy",
"Daniela Mrs Chubbs Avila",
"Harley Roberts",
"Jolenealaska",
"Keith Leach",
"Yoopergal 57",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117634",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117798",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117799",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
45871 | Pork chops: low and slow or high and fast?
How hot/long should I bake my porkchops (bone-in)? I've done a bit of google searching and have gotten mixed results. Is it better to do the low temp slow baking or high temperature but quick? Why?
It's possible to do either, depending on what you're aiming for. Have you been running into problems with your own chops?
Moisture is relevant here too. If you're baking in a gravy you want to take it slower.
Depends a lot on how thick they are. Thinner chops would work well with just a high-temp sear under the broiler. Whereas a thicker (for example, a double-cut chop) would be better with a two-temperature process.
I.e. Bake them until they reach the right temperature at 350 or 400, then finish under the broiler for color and flavor.
Same thing applies if you want to pan-sear first, then bake until they get to your desired internal temp.
A really-long and slow cook (AKA 225 for 4 hours) won't work well with a loin-cut, as it doesn't have enough connective tissue to breakdown.
I don't cook the bone-in chops anymore - only the boneless medallions. Typically, I just season with salt and pepper, then quickly sear on the stovetop and stick them in the oven at 350 for 15 to 18 minutes. These numbers are for 1/2" medallions. For 1" medallions, I forego the oven and just cook in pan.
Since the OP specifies bone-in chops, this isn't exactly helpful. "Don't use the oven" and "use boneless instead" don't address how best to cook bone-in chops in an oven.
Notice how I never say "Don't use the oven" - but rather I say "I forego the oven". Additionally - on the bone-in issue, I can only speak from experience (cooking boneless), and leave it up to OP to adjust relatively for bone-in.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.772432 | 2014-07-25T15:16:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45871",
"authors": [
"Fiza Anjum",
"HapKi",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kathleen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109349",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109352",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"jsanc623",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
40126 | Liquefying through long boiling
Is there a name in English for the process of turning ingredients of a dish into liquid through boiling them long enough?
Usually this happens as cook's errors, but at times it's the desired effect (e.g. you may create an excellent, smooth, creamy sauce by simmering the ingredients for a long time).
Judging by what Google Images show, it seems that "overcooking" usually means burnt or nearing burnt fried/grilled food, which is definitely not the same thing.
I thought it might be trivial, but doesn't seem so. Well, I'll try Seasoned Advice.
It's really hard to figure out what term you're looking for without a single example.
Question was re-asked here before this one was migrated in. Suggest closing as dup and possibly merging. http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40108/liquefying-through-long-boiling
The phrase you may be looking for is "boil to (a) mush".
It appears simply there is no word in English to describe this process, and you have to use descriptive expressions like "simmer until dissolved".
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.772593 | 2013-12-09T16:11:33 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40126",
"authors": [
"Anshpreet kaur",
"David Schwartz",
"Johnny Zhang",
"Patrick Reynolds",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SF.",
"Spam",
"Tim",
"eng2g",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93203",
"user93180",
"vikkkki"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
33022 | How should chuck roast be grilled to maximize tenderness?
Forgive me if this question has been asked before, I did a search and did not find it.
I have cut up a chuck roast into steak slices (relatively thin, maybe half an inch), tenderized it and marinated it overnight. I am now ready to grill it. I have read contradictory advice online on the best way to grill it, the disagreement being whether to grill it 'low and slow' or 'high and fast' to ensure maximum tenderness (that is, to preserve whatever tenderness was there and ensure it doesnt become 'tougher').
I know, chuck roast is not typically designed for grilling or doing what I'm doing, so I'm not looking on a lecture on that, I'm simply asking if I want to preserve whatever tenderness is there, will I have a better shot grilling it low and slow or high and fast?
As a side note, its grass fed beef, and just by throwing a few small pieces on a frying pan last night for a few minutes yielded (surprisingly) relatively tender meat.
I edited your title, because what applies to chuck roast doesn't necessarily apply to all meat.
You've already said you've tested it quick cooking in a frying pan ... if that wasn't to your liking, then try a slow cook, but as it's already trimmed up, it's not going to come out as well as if you had slow cooked the whole roast before trimming.
The methods from the blog post here are basically the same ones I'd use for chuck.
@Joe Cooking in a frying pan had good results. Cooking it on a grill had similar results as cooking it on the frying pan.
I know and have read over and over the "correct" method of cooking this type of roast is low and slow (meaning for hours on end) not sliced up and on a grill like I did. Its not a traditional steak cut and its not 'supposed to' be treated that way. If you are looking for the best way to cook this meat, follow all the advice you find online and in the other answers/suggestions here. However, I chose to go against that advice and slice up a chuck roast, tenderize it and marinate it to see if I could cook it like a steak. My results were that you can, and the results were surprisingly good. Your results will vary on the quality of your cut and how you prepare it, but it CAN be done effectively.
Because I had beat and cut the chuck into very thin slices, putting them on the grill on low heat for more then 10 minutes was enough to overcook them. Thankfully I only did a few like that and the rest I grilled like a regular steak for a few minutes a side and they turned out better. I don't believe this had to do particularly with the cut of meat, just the fact that they were so thin already.
@Jefromi It had been a while since I read SAJ14SAJ's answer. You are correct, in that it does address my original question. I was mistaken in my memory and have edited my answer as such. I dont expect to recieve any upvotes because I dont imagine anybody RECOMMENDING this as a way of cooking chuck roast, but I put it here simply for those that are stubborn like me and want to know if its even possible. It is, and it works. If you feel my original question was poorly worded, please edit as you please. Thanks.
Thanks for the edit; withdrawing my previous comments. I do think that this is a perfectly good idea, though there are cuts of meat that are better suited for uses like this. (I have no problem with not doing what you think you're supposed to.) I just think this method may not in fact maximize tenderness - actual low and slow cooking (protected more from drying out and the heat, as SAJ14SAJ mentions) will definitely give you tender meat - so you shouldn't be surprised if it doesn't get upvoted much, because it doesn't exactly address your original question.
@Jefromi : it does answer the question, because he said he already had it sliced it into steaks. His only other option would've been to cut it up further and do a stir-fry ... but I don't know if that would've qualified as 'grilling'.
@Joe My point was mainly that a slow method still would probably be more tender.
This is a great way to cook tough meat. Even better- bread it and pan fry it. Then it's called chicken fried steak. Seriously though- this answer is written like you are surprised this works. Physically beating the snot out of tough meat is common in southern cuisine.
Your best method of making chuck tender is to cook it low and slow, as per traditional barbecue.
The reason for this is that chuck is a relatively tough meat, full of connective tissue (the protein collagen, among others).
By cooking low and slow for a long time, you raise the internal temperature of the meat to about 170 F to 180 F for an extended period, at which temperatures over time, in the presence of moisture (either part of the meat itself, or external) the collagen will convert to gelatin, converting from a touch to a succulent and tender product. This is the principal employed in both braising and barbecue (as opposed to grilling, which is a high heat technique normally).
Note that the collagen to gelatin conversion creates the tenderness, it is not preserving tenderness, since it was not a tender cut to start with.
At this point, since you have already sliced the meat, I believe your best approach would be to create an indirect fire or flame. Place the meat in a disposable pan layered together to minimize drying, away from the fire, and allow to cook slowly for at a low temperature (say 250 F to 300 F air temperature as measured in the grill with its lid on) for several hours, at least about 4 hours and up to 8 to 12 hours, until it is fall apart tender.
You may also do this in the oven rather than on the grill. It will also be amenable to braising techniques, as opposed to dry roasting/barbecuing.
While it is too late for this particular chuck, in the future you may have better success not slicing it prior to barbecuing.
If you are thinking of grilling as a high temperature technique and do not want to do the low and slow methods, I am afraid this will not work out well with chuck. It is naturally not tender, and these high temperature grilling will not facilitate enhancing the tenderness. If you are time constrained, you would be better off freezing your marinated chuck for another time, and cooking something else that does respond well to the fast, intense heat of grilling, like steaks or pork chops.
It really depends on how you cut your chuck roast, and which muscles it encompassed. You can potentially get chuck steaks, chuck eye steaks, and flat iron steaks out of a chuck roast, chuck steaks being the most common.
Chuck eye steaks are cut from the eye roll. This is a continuation of the muscle from which ribeyes are cut. Chuck eyes can be cooked like ribeyes, and will be perfectly tender at medium rare. Flat irons are tougher, but can also be cooked like regular steaks.
Chuck steaks, on the other hand, would be steaks cut from the rest of the roast. I'm assuming this is what you have. These should really be cooked beyond well done for maximum tenderness. You don't need to render out as much connective tissue as you would if you were making pulled or shredded beef, but you will need to render out enough that your knife can cut through it, and your teeth will be able to properly chew the pieces. With thin pieces, you can fry them in a pan until done, and then optionally finish them in the oven. I would also recommend a marinade to help with moisture retention and tenderization. I prefer somewhat thicker cut steaks, which I will marinate and cook low and slow, then sear at the end. Basically I treat chuck steaks like pork steaks, since they are the same cut of meat, just from different animals.
I have done chuck a number of times on high indirect heat about 400 for 2 hours with great results (this came about by accident because I was cooking other stuff that needed the higher heat I didn't feel like cooking separate) The secret to keeping it moist is to make sure its got plenty of fat, marinate it before hand and baste while cooking.
In the case of this question, the OP had already sliced up the roast. Does your answer apply in this case?
Disclaimer: I've only cooked chuck roasts low 'n' slow in the oven, not on grill but hopefully something I say will help. During a show on Food Network I heard one of the famous, established chefs say that, with meats that are traditionally done low and slow, you also have the option to go quick on high heat.
If you go one extreme or the other you're ok, but in between is not good. With beef stew meat I experienced what you did: you cook it quick to sear/brown the surface of the meat and get the internal meat cooked just enough that it's safe to eat, and when you sample it at that time it will be very tender and edible. But then if you overcook it for 5-10 minutes past that point, it will start to be tough to eat, until you have it simmering for more than an hour after that, where it is tender in a different fashion.
I agree with the earlier post that the various connective tissues need the low and slow to fully break down so if you're going to just cook fast on high, trim it up more than if you were going to do low and slow. I've seen that done several times on the Food Network competition show called "Chopped" where the competitors are challenged by being given a small amount of time to cook a meat that is traditionally cooked low and slow. They trim it more, maybe tenderize with a mallet and or cut thin (across the grain) and or give it a quick tenderizing marinade with something acidic, and then cook on high heat real fast and leave it medium to medium rare.
I also just saw a barbecue show where 3 chuck roasts were put on the grill. When one of them reached an internal temp of 145, it was taken off to eat. It looked ready. Juicy and tender, like a steak cooked medium. The other two roasts were left on for a couple more hours. During the first hour all 3 were left uncovered to pick up the smokey grill flavor; after the first one was taken off the other two were wrapped in heavy foil to let the meat cook and baste in it's own juices, which of course was collected, saved and used as au jus when the meat was done.
In Philly chuck is frozen and sliced super thin. Fry it up on a flat top griddle with onions and cheese and accompanied Ameroso rolls for proper cheesesteaks.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.772752 | 2013-03-26T13:55:13 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33022",
"authors": [
"43 North ",
"Brendon Lay",
"Cascabel",
"ChrisN",
"Country Girl 779",
"Joe",
"Jonathan Middleton",
"Livia",
"Reidar",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76394",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76395",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76907",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76934",
"mwojtera",
"n00b",
"user76391",
"warren2600",
"wax eagle"
],
"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
} |
36085 | Which leaves of Savoy cabbage to use in smoothies?
In Germany we don't have kale all year, only in winter. I am substituting it with Savoy cabbage.
I am wondering if I should use the outer leaves which are very green or just the inside. Also are there any drawbacks of using outer leaves?
The outer leaves would be a better substitute for kale. My reasoning is that the kale plant is fully exposed to light. With the cabbage only the outer leaves get to enjoy the sun, thus the greenness. I would say flavour wise the outer leaves come closer to kale too. The cabbage core tends to be sweeter.
You should uses the inner leaves. The outer leaves if not washed correctly can leave insecticides and other fertilizers on the outside. The outer leaves otherwise are okay to use. To properly clean the leaves place the cabbage in a pot for 10 minutes soaking the cabbage. Rinse and repeat. After the second soaking scrub the leaves lightly. There you go all the leaves are now usable.
The question is more about what makes a good substitute for kale. "Bad if not washed correctly" isn't really a reason not to use the outer leaves - all food is bad if prepared unsafely. (I'm also not sure about your washing method. If you've pulled the leaves off, you can wash them with running water just like anything else, no need for 20 minutes of soaking.)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.773639 | 2013-08-18T00:24:33 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36085",
"authors": [
"Albert Skibinski",
"Cascabel",
"Emily K",
"Emma",
"InsertCheesyLine",
"Kary Myles",
"Kazi Ahmed",
"Mark Rullo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84647",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84648",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84667",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85872"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
43546 | Baking time for paper vs metal
Have made many fruitcakes in a 7" metal angel food pan, for ease of time and cleaning. I was excited to try the 7" paper tube pans, but what I ended up with was soup on the inside. The paper pan was slightly thinner in width and higher in depth, so it held the same amount of ingredients.
I played with the time and temperature but for the most part I got dried out, and/or burnt, or gooey. What can I do to make this work?
http://www.nytimes.com/2000/08/02/dining/test-kitchen-baking-like-a-professional-in-paper.html. Posting as a comment because I have never tried it. Went searching because your question was interesting.
What combinations of temperature and time did you try @Randy?
HI GdD, I used 5 egree incremnents, also time in 5 mins increments -then I ran out of time, patience, and batter....
In general, metal is much more thermally conductive than paper (see http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-d_429.html). The heat is very likely not making its way through to cook the bottom of your fruitcake as quickly as it would with metal. I would suggest extending the baking time by about 25%, but also dropping the temperature about halfway through to prevent drying out or burning.
That, or go back to the metal pan that you've had success with in the past. If it ain't broke...
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.773794 | 2014-04-16T18:33:39 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43546",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Jmmx",
"Randy",
"Sean Perry",
"Sikes Pro Wash spam",
"Tom Wilson",
"Tongia Holley",
"dastrobu",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102057",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102058",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104095",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24441",
"neha afzal"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
43578 | How many average onions are there per pound?
How many onions are there on average per pound assuming they are average size?
I have tried figuring out by number of onions per cup and number of cups per pound, but when counting it with tally marks I just couldn't get it to be the right number.
The tomato question has pretty much already been answered here, if you take average to be medium: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43542/what-size-are-small-medium-and-large-tomatoes so I'm going to edit this to just include the onion question.
The USDA thinks a medium onion is 2.5" diameter and weighs 110g, so that'd be about four per pound. (For completeness, they also say a large onion is 150g and a small is 70g.)
In general if you want to look up information like this, just google "onion nutrition", and there'll be relevant results plus a knowledge panel on the right with a nutrition table, a drop-down to pick serving size, and a link at the bottom to the USDA page that everyone's getting their data from.
or you can go to the produce converter website and they will tell you certain things like how much of an ingredient you need the way that you want it and how many of medium, large, and small there are per pound. They use medium or average size in their numbers for the amount of an ingredient you want the way you want it.
@caters If you want to answer a question, post an answer, not a comment.
that "or" there should have told you that I was commenting on his answer not answering it myself.
@caters I understand that you posted it as a comment. That doesn't mean it should've been a comment, though. If you say something which amounts to an answer, it should be posted as an answer.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.773959 | 2014-04-18T17:39:11 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43578",
"authors": [
"Ayush prasad Singh",
"Barbara KimbleParham",
"Cascabel",
"Caters",
"Spammer",
"Throwaway Account",
"chefpete",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102153",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102157",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102161",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24456"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
30457 | Making sourdough starter with bread flour
Since all of the sourdough starter-receipes call for "flour", sometimes ryr flour, sometimes what flour, or "regular" flour, can bread flour be used instead, to accommodate a bread machine?
I ask because the bread machines call for bread flour, and not regular flour. Is mixing the (regular) flour made sourdough, with the bread flour in the machine problematic? Will bread flour work to make a starter, or must regular flour be used?
Jefromi did you a huge favor editing your post, OP @user15465 . Direct, to the point questions that are clearly expressed without weird typographical artifacts (like screaming words in all uppercase) are much more likely to attract answers.
The difference between flour marketed as Bread Flour and flour marketed as All Purpose (at least in the US) is the type of wheat from which it is milled, and therefore the protein percentage in the flour, a p/l value close to 1 which gives proper plasticity to the dough, and a large enough falling number to allow long fermentations.
At least the US, all flour marketed as either All Purpose or Bread Flour should be suitable for bread making, although bread flour will permit greater gluten development due to the higher protein level.
The yeast or bacteria in a bread starter eat the starch (after it has been converted to sugar by enzymes present in the flour), which is the bulk of the grain, whether the wheat is winter or summer, hard or soft, red or white.
Also, the way the bag is labelled is as much a marketing issue as a technical issue. For example, in the US, King Arthur brand all purpose flour is nearly as "hard" (high in protein) as other common brand's (such as Gold Medal) bread flour.
Use either all purpose or bread flour, as you choose.
Also, bread flour should have a p/l value close to 1. And probably a high falling number. But +1 for stating that any wheat flour can be used.
I had to google these things. For reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falling_Number And P/L is defined here: http://www.theartisan.net/flour_criteria_judging.htm with lots of other information.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.774128 | 2013-01-27T16:31:39 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30457",
"authors": [
"Anafrances",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Jack Tors",
"Kirsten Weschler",
"Leo",
"No Pain",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Seamus Riolo",
"Tad Jones",
"cr4",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71150",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71161"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
45759 | Can this ratatouille be saved?
I just made a batch of ratatouille using green bell peppers. There is a bitter metallic taste. Is there anything I can do to salvage this batch?
This is what I did. Olive oil was used throughout.
Peeled eggplant, sliced in chunks, salted, rinsed
Cut slender young zucchini in same size chunks; Did not salt
Cut an onion and green pepper in chunks
Defrosted frozen Roma tomatoes from last year's garden. Rough chopped
Sauteed eggplant , added to casserole dish
Sauteed zucchini with an garlic clove, added to casserole
Sauteed green peppers, onion
Added last year's frozen Roma tomatoes to the onion/pepper mix, reduced and added to casserole
(I tasted the tomatoes after they defrosted; no issues there)
Added some Herbs d'Provence, covered casserole and baked.
It is bitter and metallic.
What happened ?
Can it be rescued?
How to avoid this next time?
(I really like fresh made ratatouille in the summer)
Thank you
Did you cover the dish with foil? If so, was there any contact between the foil and the ratatouille?
Hm, any other possible sources of metal? Maybe what you sauteed things in?
Maybe the tomatoes were wrapped in foil in the freezer? Either way I bet the tomatoes play a role in this somehow.
No foil.I used a heavy vitreous china casserole dish with a cover.I sauteed in a Revereware stainless steel frying pan that I have been using since roughly 1970. I used a wooden spoon.
What you're tasting is likely the eggplant -- eggplants with more seeds can have a distinct metallic taste, and can definitely ruin a dish. There's probably nothing that can be done for this batch, but for next time:
Look at the bottom of the eggplant when you're picking it out -- if it has a small round indentation, then it's a "male" eggplant and will have less seeds; if it's a larger horizontal indentation, then it's a "female", and will have a higher seed content (and ruin your Ratatouille). Once you look at a couple, you'll see the difference -- they're distinctly different and easy to pick out once you know what you're looking for. Google "male vs female eggplants" and you'll find plenty of pictures of this.
One note: the "male/female" nomenclature isn't exactly correct: What they call a "male" is an eggplant that was less pollenated and therefore generated less seeds, though the eggplants don't technically have any gender -- but, this is the common terminology used to describe the difference.
I just saved mine, just ad about a teaspoon of sugar, some basil tomato pasta sauce and spices like basil or Italian seasoning.Boil for a few minutes and cover. Let it rest for a few minutes.The bitterness will be gone
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.774337 | 2014-07-22T00:55:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45759",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Pat Sulek",
"Preston",
"Rosi de Anda",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113015",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25802",
"logophobe",
"piquet"
],
"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
} |
45780 | How to remove dirt from inside green/spring onions?
I love spring onions (I believe they're called green onions in the US); I use them in salads and to add flavor.
The problem is, whenever I get them from the supermarket, they're filled with dirt. No matter how much I wash them, and spray water inside the little stalks, there is always a considerable amount of dirt inside.
I'm a little bit confused as to what I'm supposed to do with this.
Is there a way to clean the dirt from the green section, apart from doing something nutty such as cutting open each stalk?
Or are you supposed to just eat the dirt?
You mean inside the hollow of each stalk?
@Megasaur Yes, exactly.
Are you just running water down an intact stalk?
@ElendilTheTall Yeah so the water doesn't really flow very well.. Am I supposed to cut them so it becomes a tube?
I think that would be more successful, yes
OK, I have never seen that before.
I would shop at a different market, one that sells produce that's less filthy to begin with. How on earth does that much dirt get inside the stalks of the plant in the first place? A little, sure, but...
@Yamikuronue It's because the stalks push up through the dirt as they grow. You see the same thing pretty often with leeks.
This occurs pretty often with leeks as well. The procedure there is to cut open the stalks lengthwise - i.e. one cut from top to bottom along the long axis. This allows you to fan apart the layers to ease out any trapped dirt.
You could do the same thing with your green onions, assuming you don't mind cutting them lengthwise. If you don't want to cut, you could try soaking them in a sink or pot full of clean water for a half hour or so, agitating them every now and again. The water should get down the stalk and at least loosen up any trapped dirt.
Yes, I stopped eating leeks because I got tired of eating dirt! Thanks for the tip! :)
I always just cut my leeks into a bowl of water. The sliced leek floats at the top and all the soil sinks to the bottom.
Pull off old looking outside layers (If you have a problem with eating them)
Chop finely (transverse or at an angle)
Place in a basin of water and rub gently but thoroughly through your hands to loosen the pieces apart.
Allow to sit for a few minutes to allow the dirt to settle to the bottom.
Gently gather them from the top in your two hands and place in a colander. You could use a slotted spoon but hands work better. Don't just drain the basin-full into the colander or you'll mix up the spring-onions and dirt again.
Allow to sit and drain for a few minutes, pat dry if desired.
This method works well for leeks, lettuce etc. Slicing down the middle is an option, especially with leeks but will change the kind of cuts you can achieve and shouldn't really be necessary if you break the material apart with your hands properly.
If you get one of the matching colander/bowl sets where the colander rests inside the bowl, just add your chopped veg etc, top up with water to cover, and give a good stir to separate the pieces etc. Let it soak for 5-10 minutes then gently lift the colander out. Provided you don't overfill with veg (i.e. it floats in the water) all the dirt will pass through to the bottom.
To clean dirt out of the center of Spring Onions:
I use the long brush from a re-usesble metal straw. Run water through the Spring onion, use the straw to break the dirt loose, rinse the Spring onion again. I do all the onions at once. Then I wash the straw, let it dry & store back inside the metal straw.
I cut my Spring onions in sections & store in a glass storage container in the fridge. Whenever I need them, I take out what I need, cut them & use.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.774578 | 2014-07-22T13:21:03 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45780",
"authors": [
"CaptainCodeman",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Greybeard",
"Megasaur",
"Yamikuronue",
"buttlord",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26002",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67481",
"logophobe"
],
"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
} |
42260 | Can I fix a chewy beef joint after it's already cooked and sliced?
Now I have cooked the beef joint & it's cut up into thin slices is there anything I can do to make it less chewy.
Editor's note: let's assume this is some kind of cut meant for roasting, presumably something with a fair amount of connective tissue.
What cut exactly was this "joint", and how did you slice it? Across the grain? How thick are the slices?
pictures would be very helpful
I think we should probably answer this assuming that it was a cut meant for roasting, which as far as I know is generally what "joint" means in British English. Something with connective tissue. I don't think this is a duplicate of existing questions, because it's asking how to salvage it afterward, not how to cook it properly in the first place. Dave, I'm editing that into your question; feel free to change it if it's not accurate.
We still need to know what the cut was... it may be selection that is the primary issue. High connective tissue is contraindicated except for braising or long low and slow; low connective tissue like filet that is overcooked is essentially unsalvagable. Then there are the roasts where cooking technique and carving technique come together to create the final result.
@SAJ14SAJ I did guess high connective tissue - do you actually need to know which specific high connective tissue cut it is?
@Jefromiwe need to know whether that is true or not
Stack the slices up neatly, tie them together with some string and either use a slow-cooker (crockpot), or steamer to finish the cooking
Cook for at least the amount of time it missed on plus about 5 to 10 minutes for it to get back up to cooking temperature
The other option is to cut it up and add use it to make a new stew or casserole
Slow cooker with no liquid?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.774884 | 2014-02-22T19:17:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42260",
"authors": [
"Captain Giraffe",
"Carey Gregory",
"Cascabel",
"Loona",
"Northern Mick",
"RedScience",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sendoff Funeral App spam",
"Sherry Demery",
"baby salim",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98663",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98664",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98665",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98676",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98686"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
20032 | Unsure why foam sauce doesn't hold
I experimented for with xanthan gum for the first time tonight. I made a sauce which was about half roasted peppers, half savory stuff (lamb stock, beef broth, balsamic vinegar and a bit of chili powder). I added about 0.9% of xanthan gum, strained through a fine sieve and poured in an iSi whipper with 2 shots of nitrous oxide.
I served it at 50°C, the sauce was nice and so was the foam, but it took only a couple of seconds until the foam melted and it became a sauce with big gas bubbles in it. I somehow expected the foam to hold.
Anything I missed?
Xanthan stabilizes emulsions, but not necessarily foams. But are you sure you aren't getting a case of the "runny foam" which surfaced about a week or two ago in another iSi question?
@rumtscho: Are you referring to http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19736/why-am-i-getting-runny-whipped-cream-from-my-isi-canister ? In any case, the foam I was getting was very nice when it was getting out of the iSi whipper, but was rapidly melting. I should have taped it...
@Marc-AndréLafortune that's the question I meant, good to know that it isn't the same case.
I suspect your first problem is using the iSi whipper. It does create foams, particularly whipped cream, but both Khymos and Texturas advise using an immersion blender or electric eggbeaters in a broad vessel (so there is room for the bubbles to pile up without interfering with your making more). Besides, xanthan is shear-thinning, meaning that it is viscous only while at rest, becoming fluid when stirred or sprayed.
The second possible problem: while xanthan is used in some air recipes and is used to stabilize whipped cream and mousses, I find it is more effective as a thickener than a foaming agent. Next time you make a foam, try using lecithin. Lecithin is mainly used as an emulsifier, but it also dramatically alters surface tension, making bubbles more stable. Very little lecithin is needed to keep foams stable, though the exact amount will depend on the proportion of oil and water. For a fat-free sauce like the one you describe, I would suggest trying 0.5% lecithin by weight (i.e., for 200g liquid, use 1g lecithin).
If you really want to use the xanthan, you can try adding methyl cellulose to it. I saw a recipe for an eggwhite-free "marshmallow foam" that called for 1.5g xanthan, 1.5g methyl cellulose, and 250ml water, plus vanilla, salt, and powdered sugar.
On the subject of blenders - make sure that the liquid to be foamed is thoroughly blended and (especially if you're using an iSi) strained through a fine mesh sieve. The question doesn't specify, but it's possible that the foam was just too heavy.
@Aaronut: right, forget to say I strained the whole thing. Answer edited.
Thanks for the answer, I'll try lecithin next time. Also, the shear thinning might explain some irregularity in the texture I was seeing.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.775069 | 2011-12-29T06:08:14 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20032",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"CtrlAltDeviant",
"Marc-André Lafortune",
"Michelle",
"Oliver",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1740",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43745",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43746",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43754",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43822",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"jds375",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
78425 | Preparing/Storing freshly made noodles/pasta
We picked up a noodle maker recently - it mixes dough than extrudes noodles kinda like this
I figure I could prepare a large batch - and store it somehow.
What's a good way to store home made noodles? Precooking is fine (the 'proper' cooking time for this is about 6 minutes.) though I'd much rather not dust it with flour if there's any alternative to that.
Freezing would be awesome especially if we could avoid dusting it with flour.
A few days would be fine. A week's better.
Don't precook, follow instructions here - dupe?
Possibly! But we're fine with freezing. And we don't need to dry it. And... yeah, pretty much I'm fine with everything they dosen't want to do
If you're not liberally coating it in flour, it can stick together ... unless you make sure that nothing's touching when drying. Typically, you throw some flour on it as it's coming out of the machine, but you give it a shake to rid it of massive excesses before you hang or nest it to dry. The flour also helps to absorb some of the moisture from the pasta, so I suspect not doing it would result in longer drying times.
I spread on a floured plate in one layer (usually multiple plates), place in freezer, then, when frozen, move to freezer bags. You may have to tap plate on counter (I use plastic plates) to loosen pasta that may have frozen to plate. It will last at least a month in the freezer in this state. When ready to cook, simply put in boiling water directly from freezer.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.775320 | 2017-02-15T10:31:10 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78425",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Journeyman Geek",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"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
} |
88139 | Dehydrating Apple Cider Vinegar?
Someone at Alcohol SE suggested that I post this question here: Dehydrating Apple Cider Vinegar?
I've been experimenting with dehydrating apple cider vinegar
I'd like to concentrate it and put it into capsules. ~15 size 00 capsules are needed to contain 1 tbsp of apple cider vinegar. Since most apple cider vinegar purchased on the market is ~95% water, the result of putting it into gelatin capsules is that the capsules dissolve. In theory, I should be able to separate out the water and be left with a substance that will not dissolve capsules made for oils. Also in theory, I could make 1 serving of apple cider vinegar fit into 1 capsule and have some room left over.
My current method is to dehydrate the apple cider vinegar at 145 degrees fahrenheit. I've ready that any temperature higher than 150 farenheit will break down enzymes in whatever substance I'm heating (I'm assuming there are precious enzymes to preserve in apple cider vinegar). The result after 3 hours is a brown syrupy substance that only partially dissolved a gelatin capsule. The result after 6 hours is a thick dark brown substance that I'm currently testing in gelatin capsules. My questions is, is it safe to assume that that dark brown substance is dehydrated apple cider vinegar that can be rehydrated, or would the dehyration process evaporate the vinegar away along with the water?
What might this left over substance be, in that case?
This post is originally from Chemistry SE: https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/91412/dehydrating-apple-cider-vinegar
Most recently posted in Alcohol SE: https://alcohol.stackexchange.com/questions/7205/dehydrating-apple-cider-vinegar#autocomment5426
Most of the 5% that's not water is acetic acid. That has a melting point just below room temperature, so should easily solidify in the fridge. Of course in practice you'll evaporate some unknown amount of the acetic acid as well. But why are you doing this? Is it actually for food or some strange dietary supplement? Concentrated acetic acid is rather corrosive and I wouldn't want it in my mouth if the capsule just about holds together until you take it.
I don't think this is answerable here, and if it's about making supplements rather than food that would seem to be a health question and therefore off-topic. I'm holding off a close vote to allow clarification of what you're trying to achieve
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it's currently open in an identical form on Chemistry.SE. Please don't post identical questions on multiple sites.
Andrew, I see you were just following the advice you got on our sister sites when you posted your question on multiple sites. Unfortunately, the advice was not ideal, as cross-posting is frowned upon. Ideally, you’d check each site’s help center (ours: [help]) and decide which is the best fit. You may also ask about different aspects on different sites, if applicable.
@Catija Unfortunately, this user was basically told to go post in other places, and no one bothered to warn them about cross-posting.
Let's keep this here. I've let chemistry mods know they can close it if they'd like to prevent multiple posting, but it's fine here.
You might actually want to look at other methods - either alongside or instead of your current dehydration.
"Commercial" Vinegar powder (where it isn't actually just the acid components) is basically maltodextrin sprayed with your vinegar and dried. There's a ton of references like this one, though admittedly I learnt this from watching how its made.
The nice thing here is you don't really need more heat (or high heat) to do this. In theory you might also be able to do it with starch.
Since the water is 'locked away' its also less likely to dissolve your capsule
I'm almost half certain that I remember that spray drying or freeze drying would work too, but I can't find any sources, and these arn't processes one can easily do at home
3A Molecular sieves would remove the water. The vinegar and water solution could be in a closed glass container. The sieves could be inside the glass container on a dish or something. The sieves would take the water out of the air. The sieves could be heated to remove the water and reused. Then the water could removed at room temperature or even lower.
As it’s currently written, your answer is unclear. Please [edit] to add additional details that will help others understand how this addresses the question asked. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.775578 | 2018-03-04T20:01:29 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88139",
"authors": [
"Andrew",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Chris H",
"Community",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/-1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65541"
],
"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
} |
125601 | Could someone please identify this garnish?
There are zoomed in images lower down on the page:
https://drizzleanddip.com/2013/02/01/jamie-olivers-fennel-and-radish-salad/
I'm just in love with how this looks, I'm thinking it would be gorgeous over potatoes!
If you’re just going for looks, dill looks similar, as does asparagus (if you let it grow past where it’s commercially picked)
you mean beside the fennel and radish from the "Fennel And Radish Salad"?
Its fennel leaves/fronds - and often when you're buying whole fennel bulbs, they're attached, or sometimes they're sold separately - south indian cooking has the fronds but we don't generally eat the bulbs traditionally.
… and if the bulbs come with the fronds, they are a good indicator of freshness.
@Journeyman Geek I had no idea, I've never seen them before! There's a south Indian market in my city that I've been meaning to visit, now I have another reason! Do the fronds have some fennel flavor. or just a green flavor?
Its a very delicate flavour - I'd almost say faintly like fennel (naturally) and a little floral.
@Journeyman Geek this just makes my day, thank you so much!
Depending on where you live you might not need to take a field strip to a specialty market; my regular supermarket starts stocking fresh fennel when it's in season, which should be now in most of the Northern hemisphere (fall/winter.) Also the white stuff in that photo is actually the fennel bulb, shaved or mandolined.
Heck, if you live in the NW American/Canadian coast, you can find fennel growing wild and/or as a decorative plant.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.775914 | 2023-10-20T08:32:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125601",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"Journeyman Geek",
"Roddy of the Frozen Peas",
"Stephie",
"Very Amateur",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97648",
"njzk2"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
117592 | Cake flour weight
I have three sources for what 1 cup cake flour weights.
Americas Test Kitchen says 113 grams, Calculateme.com says 130 grams and
JoyofBaking.com says it is 120 grams.
Which is the correct conversion from volumetric to weight based measurements for a cup of cake flour?
Volumetric measurements vary GREATLY. It depends on the measurement technique, how much the cup is packed, even type of flour. And which country the recipe originates from. That's why most professional recipes are written by weight and not by volume
@JulianaKarasawaSouza...even humidity can impact volume...best to use weight (and easier!).
@EikePierstorff unfortunately this reaches its limit as soon as you include ingredients that are not measured with the chosen cup, e.g. eggs. And a cup is a unit, at least in the US and quite a few other countries. Are you thinking about the “Becherkuchen” that are sometimes even use the packaging of a dairy ingredients?
@EikePierstorff No, it won't, because measuring something like flour by volume will not even give you the same ratio between one cup of flour and another.
Buy a kitchen scale. Burn any cook books mentioning measurements in cups.
120 grams of flour will always be, exactly, 120 grams. But one cup of flour depends on the size of your cup, the humidity of the flour, the fineness of the flour, whether you actually sifted it in or just scooped from a container, etc. 1 cup could be 95grams, or it could be 145grams, who knows
@EikePierstorff the problem with your reasoning is that the ratio of volumes is irrelevant. What actually matters in baking is the ratio of numbers of molecules. And the number of molecules correlates pretty well with weight, but rather badly with volume. So while measuring by volume gives you a "constant ratio" as you put it, it does not result in a reliable recipe which turns out the same every time.
Who’s right? In a way, all of them are.
The weight equivalent of volumetric measurements will depend on the packing, which in turn will depend on the baker.
The probably lowest value you will get if you use slightly older flour, stored in a dry environment, sieved, then spooned into the measuring cup and leveled. That’ll be pretty close to, I’d say 110 g. In contrast, a flour from a humid environment, that has settled during transport and storage and was then scooped directly with the measuring cup - you can get easily close to 150g in that case.
Admittedly, the latter isn’t good practice, but it shows the difference and the Achilles heel of measuring by volume. When a recipe requires precision and reliability, it’s usually written in weight-based measurements and ratios. In daily use, many recipes have enough tolerance built in for the kind of errors introduced by volumetric units, and some will explain the method (e.g. “spooned and leveled”). In baking there’s often a final step that says add “1-3 tablespoons of milk” or “as needed” - aiming to get the batter to the desired consistency.
If you need true precision, use a scale. There are e.g. macaron recipes that start with weighing the eggs, then weigh the other ingredients based on that. Likewise commercial recipes that will list “350g egg” instead of seven eggs - which is roughly the same amount, but not necessarily exactly the same.
commercial recipes include eggs in weight because in many countries kitchens use eggs in bulk, not in shells, which is more convenient and less prone to shell-borne contaminations
in your 150g case, doesn't that mean that this flour contains more water as well? (part of the difference is due to the floor settling, but part of it is the water, so, doesn't that mess up the recipe?)
@njzk2 not only because of bulk eggs - what’s called “pound cake” in English is in my old German school book an “Egg weight cake”. Predating eggs sorted in weight classes. The water content is negligible, a truly damp flour won’t work well anyway. And it’s not that hygroscopic anyway. Packaging is the main factor.
As Juliana mentioned in a comment, the weight (mass) of a particular volume (in this case 1 cup) of something depends on its density. If you are measuring water, which has a very consistent density, then you can convert easily. If you are measuring walnuts, which could be packed tightly or loosely, then the conversion will have to be very rough. Flour is somewhere in between which is why there are different measurements.
This is why most regular or professional bakers use weights rather than volume measurements, although I understand that in some parts of the world volume measurements are still typical. If you trust the recipe writer, then a recipe written using volume measurements should not require perfect precision anyway so I would just go for a weight somewhere in the middle of the estimates you have found.
If the recipe is in a cookbook you may even have a section at the start/end giving conversions, or giving instructions for how to measure the volume (for example by tapping the cup to allow the flour to settle).
@njzk2, no, not really, no. Millions of chocolate chip cookies and brownies and apple pies have been (successfully!) baked by people who don't even own a kitchen scale. Denigrating them as "not real bakers" is... not useful.
@Marti I'm not denigrating, just highlighting the fact that most people in the world don't use volume measurement. I see that's not entirely necessary, though
In addition to the built-in uncertainty when measuring flour by volume, not all cake flour (or AP flour, or whole wheat flour) is the same. A theoretical perfectly-measured cup of one brand may not weigh exactly the same as a cup of another brand.
The best thing to do is to start with a recipe that provides weights. I believe JoyOfBaking does this for all her recipes, and ATK does for most if not all of their baking recipes.
If you want to stick with a recipe that only includes volume measurements, I would either:
Go with the estimate in the middle.
Do it yourself: measure a cup of your cake flour, then weigh it. Do that three or four times and average the results.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.776089 | 2021-10-22T12:08:19 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117592",
"authors": [
"Dan C",
"Juliana Karasawa Souza",
"Marti",
"Nobody",
"PcMan",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94739",
"moscafj",
"njzk2",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
90145 | Was "Pastry flour for bread"
I was reading the discussion about "Pastry flour for bread" and noticed that several types of flour were mentioned. I looked at my bread flour and noticed that it says 4%. I looked at the AP flour, a common brand, it says 3%. My question is, is it possible to add gluten to increase the protein content in the flour? I am relatively new at making bread. I am trying to bake an Italian recipe for crusty bread by translating the ingredients into what is available in the US. The recipe calls for Flour 00. Thanks for the advice.
Type 00 is supposedly a lot finer than normal bread flour.
"new at making bread", don't change gluten or enzyme levels of flour. "Italian recipe" use AP flour for 00.
If you give the recipe then more help might be possible.
I don't know what you read, but I doubt you can find flour as low as 3% gluten. And bread flour is certainly not 4%, it is in the 11-13 range. So check your numbers again before adding something.
There is a product available here in the United States called 'Vital Wheat Gluten'. It is 75% to 80% gluten. Added to any flour, you'll increase the gluten in the mix
Just Googled it to buy in your area
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.776546 | 2018-06-03T14:29:14 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90145",
"authors": [
"Journeyman Geek",
"MaxW",
"Optionparty",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
19780 | How long can I keep raw-egg based salad dressing refrigerated
I made salad dressing with, raw egg, mustard, olive oil, vinegar, minced garlic, salt & pepper. How long can I keep this refrigerated? Thanks
as long as your refrigerator has power, i suppose...
@baka I think they meant, "How long will this stay safe to eat?"
Without testing samples regularly to track the rate of growth of harmful bacteria, this is a hard question to answer, doubly so without proportions of ingredients. Salt and vinegar will slow bacterial growth, but will not stop it unless you add unpalatable amounts. Garlic has some antimicrobial activity, but it has not been well quantified, and does not operate against all bacteria. Refrigeration also slows growth, but each fridge is different, and how the family uses the fridge (staring at the contents while deciding, for instance) can alter the true effectiveness.
Personally, I would treat the salad dressing the same way as plain raw egg yolk -- four days if kept well chilled. The salt and vinegar probably buy another day or two, but I would not count on it.
I have eaten it 3 weeks after making. But I wouldnt give it to a kid. 3 days max for a kid because they would have a more delicate stomach.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.776677 | 2011-12-19T21:29:47 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19780",
"authors": [
"DanCat",
"Randi",
"We are Borg",
"Zach",
"baka",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43135",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43136",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43226",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/452",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4535",
"rootkea",
"user43134"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
17522 | How to store pancakes
Can I just put a stack in the freezer, with some paper between each? Do I need to make any changes to my ingredients (Milk, Flour, Butter, Sugar, Salt, Eggs) for efficient storage?
When I reheat them in the pan, will they regain the same texture?
Ok...no eggs or leavening?
no leavening. eggs edited
Pancakes behave like high-fat bread. They go stale rather quickly.
Your recipe doesn't need to be altered.
Let them cool completely so you don't freeze condensation. Wrap them tightly to keep out air. If you really care about them you can use the paper between layers but I haven't found it to be necessary. If they freeze together they can be easily pried apart.
I have never tried recooking them in the pan so I can't speak to how well that would work. I reheat mine either in the microwave or toaster depending on how much time I have. The texture is not exactly the same as fresh but not worse, just different.
okay my pancakes froze quite well in plastic, no freezer burns. they reheated quite well in the pan, although the sides turned out to be crispier than desired.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.776806 | 2011-09-06T18:41:47 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17522",
"authors": [
"Esther Clark",
"Jack Casas",
"Laura",
"Midhat",
"Robert Nathenson",
"Zak and Tak Bagels",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37720",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37732",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
17416 | Why does my cheese sauce solidify
I am using this recipie to make cheese sauce for my maize crackers.
http://allrecipes.com/Recipe/nacho-cheese-sauce/detail.aspx
However, my sauce starts solidifying as it cools down. I am using a slice of provola instead of american cheese. could that be a problem?
Next time I tried doubling the milk andadding a little more flour, it fared a little better, but suffered the same fate. I need it to stay liquid for at least 90 minutes after removing from heat
Okay this time I put it on a hot water bath. Wonder why didnt I think of it earlier.
Yes substituting provolone makes the difference. Since American is a processed cheese, when it melts it doesn't become stringy but just goop. I imagine that the recipe is specifc to American, maybe something like cheddar would fair well too. But something like provolone which is close to mozzarella will become cohesive with itself as it cools.
So can i make a nachos sauce with provolone?
You can but you will probably need to keep it hot. Don't know if you'll be near one, but you could always throw it in a microwave to melt it again.
As far as the second part of the question, one suggestion would be to use a vessel that retains heat. Enameled cast iron is a traditional material for fondue pots, and it will hold heat for a while. Also check out some of the material on how to keep fondue from clumping: http://www.exploratorium.edu/cooking/icooks/12-29-03.html
You'll need to process your provolone first. Melt it slowly, add liquid and emulsifier. I think there was a Food Lab article on that 2-3 months ago. The downside is that you'll get the taste of processed cheese. Such cheese sauces aren't meant to stay liquid without heat, so if you want the good taste of real cheese, you'll need to imitate a fondue in some way (either with a real fondue kit, or by placing a tea light under the pan).
Previously mentioned Food Lab article: http://aht.seriouseats.com/archives/2010/09/the-burger-lab-cheese-sauce-for-burgers-fries-and-chips.html
I used this method with cheddar and it was great.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.776945 | 2011-09-02T16:50:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17416",
"authors": [
"AaronN",
"Martha F.",
"Midhat",
"denimadept",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37423",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37424",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7278",
"kelunik",
"moritzbracht",
"riotburn",
"rumtscho",
"user50376"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
30567 | Was my bone marrow broth boiled too long?
I've been making beef broth regularly but last night I forgot to turn my crock pot to low and the bones boiled all night. Does anyone know if this is ok or should I toss the broth And start over? I've read somewhere that after your stock reaches a boil it then should be simmered not boiled!!!
Ideally it is simmered, but the proof is in the taste really as there's no safety issue. If it tastes good then use it, if it doesn't chuck it.
Yeah, if boiling stock completely ruined its flavour then tonkotsu ramen wouldn't taste so delicious! Taste your broth and see.
Thank you so much!! I will simmer it another day add my veggies simmer some more!!! Now I'm looking forward to how it will turn out!! We may on to something here.. My main concern was that I boiled the nutritious minerals out!!!
There are some other minor concerns when boiling a stock vs simmering -- they're summarized nicely in the answer to this question
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.777131 | 2013-01-31T15:31:56 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30567",
"authors": [
"Engltam",
"John F Betlach",
"KMcCMedia",
"Peter",
"Stefano",
"den ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71440",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71441",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7552",
"jalbee",
"ocmsrzr"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
105161 | Would it be a good idea to mix brown sugar with white sugar in bread?
I was curious, but would the brown sugar feed the yeast and if I mix both of them would it be a good idea? So I can get the benefits of both sugars. If I were to mix what effect would I get?
Brown sugar is equivalent to sugar plus molasses. If you mix brown sugar and (white) sugar, you'll get slightly brown sugar. Any benefits you were expecting from the (white) sugar, you'll still get. Any benefits you were expecting from the molasses, you'll get less of.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.777255 | 2020-02-06T13:17:29 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105161",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
90017 | Will pre-oiled vegetables become soggy?
I like to do small preparatory steps ahead, make cooking faster when I do have the time. If I oil my vegetables and store in the fridge prior to roasting, will the oil penetrate the vegetable and make it soggy?
How long are you planning to store them in the fridge?
I don't know if vegetables absorb oil or not, but can't you just toss the vegetables with the oil when you put them in the oven ?
Marinating vegetables in oil-bearing marinades is not uncommon... and in some cases it even improves things when roasting - eg for onions, mushrooms, peppers to go on top of a pizza... marinating them in a mix that is heavy on olive oil makes things better!
I would refrigerate anywhere from 12hrs-3days in advance. And yes I could toss with oil at the time of cooking, but sometimes I think I will cook the veg right away and I don't get to it, or I realize the kids will distract me from making sure nothing burns.
Depends. Eggplant for example stores oil like a sponge
It will definitely change some vegetables, specifically tender vegetables with large surface area (e.g. whole leaf ones). Have you ever tried making a complete salad including dressing, then storing the leftovers in the fridge for a day and having it limp the next day? That effect is due to oil.
The mechanism behind that has nothing to do with penetrating the vegetables or having the oil soak into them. It is just that it stops their perspiration, so they die off earlier than they should. (I know it is counterintuitive, but metabolically speaking, your raw vegetables are still alive in your fridge).
So I wouldn't describe the change as getting "soggy", especially because some kinds of vegetables won't change that much anyway. Especially those which are fruits or roots or tubers will stay mostly firm even when oiled. But e.g. spinach will be definitely different - whether you care for that difference or not is up to you.
I sounds like a marinade almost, it'll allow an even coating of the oil and shouldn't be an issue at all, maybe season it during prep too to add flavour. Obviously don't let it sit for too many days or it will go soggy and/or bad but a day or two should be just fine.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.777325 | 2018-05-27T17:09:11 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90017",
"authors": [
"Batman",
"Chefchab",
"GdD",
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67059",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
75628 | I have some mesquite smoked brisket and would like to minimize the smoke flavor
I have some mesquite smoked beef brisket that is pretty smokey. Is there anything I can do to neutralize that strong flavor?
Smoke flavor is challenging to work with, but I would think an appropriate barbecue sauce would fit the bill. I wouldn't get anything too salty as I suspect that would worsen the perceived smokiness; but not too sweet because that will just clash with it.
I think a vinegar sauce would be probably best; acidity and bite would help cut through that smokiness. A mustard sauce also could be a good fit for a similar reason. (See the Serious Eats guide to barbecue sauces for more details.)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.777546 | 2016-11-18T15:25:18 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75628",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
25246 | How do I prevent filled pretzels from blowing out?
A little while ago I made cream cheese and jalapeno filled pretzels.
I used a standard, mall-style, pretzel dough.
The filling was cream cheese, cheddar cheese, and minced jalapenos.
The dough was shaped into balls, allowed to rest and then spread into disks. One or two teaspoons of filling was placed in the center and the dough was gathered around the filling and pinched shut. The pretzels were formed into small logs about two inches long with the seam down.
They were then dipped in a baking soda solution, salted, let proof, and baked at 450F for around 10 minutes.
On baking, the majority of the pretzels burst open and the filling partially leaked out. They were still delicious and were eaten almost instantly by my guests.
How do I prevent my filled pretzels from blowing out?
What exactly is pretzel dough? I know we had a conversation about this once in chat, and Americans used the name 'pretzel' for everything in that shape, while me (and rumtscho perhaps) use the word for the crunchy, salty snacks.
@Mien- Edited to include a link to the recipe. Pretzels can be hard and crunchy or chewy- like salty bagel ropes. This was the chewy variety.
I think this is a dupe, it doesn't matter if you dip your filled bread in lye or not.
@rumtscho- I agree the lye probably doesn't make a difference. A dupe of which question? I didn't find one. I don't care if this question is closed if the other one answers it for me.
You can try stick the dough (toothpicks), until reach the fill, before baking. Works with breads but sometimes the fills melt and leak as well.
Did they burst along the seams or at random places?
@FuzzyChef- Both.
Odd. I've never made filled pretzels, though, so I don't have a solution for you.
Finding the dupe was a bit hard, but then I was amazed to notice that it was asked by ... you. http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21699/why-does-bread-with-filling-separate-and-how-do-i-prevent-it/21700#21700. If you think that it is not a dupe, please clarify why it is different, I think it is the same thing happening.
Yes- I wondered if that was the question you were thinking of. That question is about a lack of adhesion between layers of dough. This one is about a liquid (when melted) filling forcing its way through a solid layer of bread. I think the problem is caused by steam in both cases but I don't think the solution is the same. That said- I think a couple of the suggestions in that question may help here (roll tightly to reduce air pockets, proof well, prick to vent steam). I'm going to try those combined with Jergstar's suggestion below to freeze the filling.
I would suspect that it's steam from the filling causing your pretzels to split during baking. I would try freezing small globs of the filling before cooking, hopefully then it won't get hot enough to steam and split. This is a technique they use in the Momofuku Milk Bar cookbook to make "Bagel Bombs". http://www.amateurgourmet.com/2012/04/everything-bagel-bombs.html
Interestingly the bagels in your link exploded just like my pretzels! It looks like they were frozen just to make it easier to roll the dough around the filling.
Hah, I should have looked more closely! Hmmm, maybe poking a hole in the top to help vent the steam? That might just exacerbate the problem though...
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.777748 | 2012-07-24T22:36:19 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25246",
"authors": [
"Diana",
"FuzzyChef",
"Jergstar",
"McLay House",
"MicronXD",
"Mien",
"Ringo",
"San Diago",
"Sobachatina",
"george wsshington",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10990",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57743",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57744",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57745",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"rumtscho",
"ww1319"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
3048 | Why is my blueberry jam grainy?
I recently made and canned blueberry jam for the first time, using this recipe and canning instructions.
I filled all my jars & canned them, but there was a little jam left in the pot. It was a bit grainy, but I thought it was just from being the last bit in the pot.
I just opened one of the jars, though, and the jam inside is grainy as well.
Does anyone have any idea what I might have done wrong?
EDIT: I don't think it's the sugar. Could something about the pectic make it grainy?
Were your blueberries grainy? I occasionally get a pint that have a grainy texture. I've heard that this means they aren't quite fresh, but they usually taste just fine despite the texture. I'm not sure if this particular graininess translates to a jam though.
Jam can also get grainy from sugar that isn't fully dissolved. This can happen more easily with larger batches, since the fruit can start to boil before the sugar is fully dissolved.
For your particular recipe, perhaps a more thorough stirring after adding the sugar would help. You should be able to turn the heat down once you add the sugar so that you can stir it thoroughly before going back to high heat to boil for that 1 minute.
I don't recall whether the berries were grainy or not. Thank you for the recipe-specific advice for dissolving the sugar. I think that site is one of the best for canning, but I wish their instructions were more specific or provided some trouble-shooting.
Graininess caused by excess undissolved sugar is fairly obvious. The grains will be sweet and will dissolve on the tongue.
Alternatively, with some fruit including blueberries, the skins of the fruit can be dry or tough and stay in grainy fragments in the jam. Again, this is obvious. The individual shreds will be dark and flat, etc.
Another, in my opinion, more subtle and more likely is that the graininess was caused by excess pectin gelling.
When pectins overgel they pull tight and form small, stiff granules. These are bland and rubbery. Very unlike sugar or fruit particles.
Normal, thermally reversible, pectin does not often over gel. If it does, reheating and possibly adding a little liquid will fix the problem.
LM pectins, on the other hand, can over gel fairly easily and as they are not thermally reversible it is impossible to fix the jam when it happens.
See this article about pectin, in particular the 5th page about LM pectins.
Blueberries are very high in natural pectin. Blueberry puree will sometimes set up as jam without any added sugar or pectin. This abundance of pectin may have caused the added pectin to over gel and form the graininess that you saw- especially if you were using low sugar pectin in your jam recipe.
I made the jam again this year and I really think it was a problem with the pectin last year, as you described.
There are many causes for the jam being grainy, but most commonly, as @hobodave suggested, is due to inadequate dissolution of sugar.
The test is simple. Get some jam into a bowl, add a little bit of water, stir, does it resolve the problem? If yes, then it is a dissolution problem. There, you may want to change the method of making that jam -- if your blueberry, is, for example, containing more sugar than the recipe-maker's blueberry had... or if the measuring cup is broken (j/k).
If you can tolerate the current batch, I think there is little to do to 'save' it by adding water/reheating as these destroy flavors.
It was still somewhat grainy, but much less so. Next time, I will definitely take more care with dissolving the sugar.
I've made grape, blackberry, elderberry, pear and apple jams and jellies, as well as combinations of those fruits, for years with Sure Jell dry pectin. I sometimes stir in spices like cinnamon for grapes and blackberries, nutmeg for pears and apples, and even lavender flowers or mint. Elderberries grow wild in our area. I use the instruction sheet in the box. Occasionally, some of the jam or jelly turned out to have a gritty or grainy texture. This has happened more in the last couple of years.
As noted, it would seem to be important to use fresh pectin (watch the expiration date on the box), stir it very thoroughly into cold or room temp. juice before cooking, and, yes, be sure sugar is all dissolved by turning down heat and stirring a lot before boiling juice. I'm going to watch this more carefully.
Also, if possible, pick your fruit the same day you make the product, especially grapes. If you cook down grapes and let the juice sit in the fridge overnight before you make the jelly or jam, it will form gritty oxalic crystals that will definitely make your jam or jelly crunchy.
If you're making a product with apples or elderberries, know that they are naturally rich in pectin and will jell quicker and with less Sure Jell.
Good luck! I sell my jams and jellies at the fall church festival and make money for the church.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.778069 | 2010-07-23T23:07:01 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3048",
"authors": [
"JustRightMenus",
"Posipiet",
"TwentyMiles",
"Vicky Mahony",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112380",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5480",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5484",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5510",
"lostInTransit",
"melhosseiny",
"Øyvind "
],
"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
} |
5359 | What is special about pierogi dough?
I wanted to make home-made pierogis. Is there a special dough that needs to be used? I wanted the pierogis to be fairly thick - what type of dough would work best?
Some pierogi recipes include sour cream in the dough; they also often have more egg than a typical basic pasta dough.
Quite often pierogi doughs are vegan, especially if you are making the peirogies for X-mas eve (where in many sects, you don't eat meat the on X-mas eave, and fish is not considered a meat).
2 cups flour
~1/2 cup warm water
1/4 cup vegetable oil
1 teaspoon salt
Mix all together, and give it a little knead to make it consistent, but no
more - otherwise you'll make the dough tough
Then you roll out the dough, cut circles with a large mouth jar or a glass, stuff and pinch closed. Boil till dough is cooked or par-boil and then fry in a pan. Add onions, butter and bacon to taste.
Typical fillings include mashed potatoes (sometimes with cheese), cottage cheese (dry), sour kraut, fruit (desert), rarely cooked meat - anything you can stuff in it.
(yah I know, I mentioned vegan earlier, but vegan tastes a lot better when you add butter and bacon *rim-shot*)
Like @justkt said you should be fine using regular homemade pasta dough. If you want something more specific though I used this recipe from Food.com. Its super good. Especially since I also made the cottage cheese myself as well.
wait, wait, you made dry curd cottage cheese yourself? I can't find it anywhere where I live and you have no idea how happy it would make my spouse if I were able to make it. Pointers?
@justkt I am unsure if this is dry curd but I found the cottage cheese recipe here http://www.food.com/recipe/cottage-cheese-382707. In your opinion is this dry curd?
looks like it may well be, as long as you didn't add extra dairy to it. See here: http://www.news-leader.com/article/20070228/COLUMNISTS19/702280317/Dry-cottage-cheese-can-be-found-or-made-at-home
@justkt - I didn't add anything to the cottage cheese so it must be. Thanks for clearing dry curd cottage cheese up. :) Hope the recipe helps. :D
You should be fine using a regular homemade pasta dough.
I learned to make perogis with a standard egg dough - egg, flour, water, and oil. The filling is dry curd cottage cheese, salt, and eggs. To shape them we use a nifty hand tart cutter that I can't find online anywhere. Then we boil them in water for about 10 minutes to cook. Serve with melted butter.
Here's how you make'm.
5 cups of flour
5 eggs
8 oz's of sour cream
1/4 cup of water....
That makes the dough, cover it with a towel for 10 minutes.
Here is a generation recipe for a light pierogy dough;
4 cups flour
2 eggs
5 TBSP sour cream
3 TBSP oil
3/4 cup water
as noted above, add you filling and toss in boiling water. When they float their done.
I use a Chinese basket brush to retrieve from the water and toss in fried onions and butter to prevent sticking.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.778492 | 2010-08-17T16:50:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5359",
"authors": [
"C Kelsey",
"Cory W.",
"Handonam",
"James P.",
"Kyra",
"LilLynny",
"Manish Modi",
"RADA",
"TJ.",
"betty c",
"borrascador",
"bytecode77",
"hexadecagram",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10538",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23989",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50819",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67926",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67929",
"justkt",
"user2108772"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
75615 | Am I supposed to eat frozen cherries directly
I just got a bag of frozen cherries.
Are they supposed to eat directly, or after they are unfrozen, or after I cook them?
I have never eaten frozen berries before, but just fresh berries.
The bag actually says "cherries" on it (it's clearly visible in the full-size photo), so I've removed the "cranberries" from your question - cranberries are a completely different fruit, way more sour than cherries, so they're not generally eaten in the same way.
Are you asking if it's safe to eat them frozen? Generally asking what to do with an ingredient is off topic here.
If tart type, you can eat them thawed with a little sugar on top, or make a regular cherry pie with them after thawing.
Frozen berries as noted elsewhere have a mushier texture than fresh, so perhaps aren't great for eating in the hand; but they are excellent to pair with plain yogurt. My wife eats plain yogurt with cherries or blueberries directly out of the freezer, not fully thawed, all the time. She usually microwaves them briefly to take the chill off and partially thaw them, but I don't believe she fully thaws them.
Smoothies are the other main use I have for frozen berries, they go directly in and make the smoothie nice and cold.
Fully frozen cherries would be too hard to eat really, you could suck on them I guess but that seems like a stretch.
I eat fully frozen cherries all the time. There's so much pectin and sugar in them that they are not rock-hard at all.
@JohnFeltz Hmm, I wonder if this depends on the quality of the cherries then, and/or the temperature of the freezer. We keep ours in a chest freezer and it seems like they're too hard to eat.
The ones I eat frozen are dark cherries, mahogany-red to purple-black in color (not sure of variety, purchased in US at variety of grocery stores), and they come out of the freezer section in an upright refrigerator/freezer.
@JohnFeltz Ah, those might be sweeter. We get fairly inexpensive Costco cherries, so maybe they're less sweet.
Nice tart Door county cherries. You let them thaw a day or two in the fridge, scoop out a bowl, sprinkle with sugar, and eat. Or thaw them and bake a pie out of them.
Chest freezers can typically get (and often set) colder than the freezers in a fridge/freezer combo, or even an upright freezer.
Like all foods, therw is no one correct way to eat cherries. Here are some things I like to do with frozen berries. If these cherries are pitted, all of these suggestions apply. Otherwise, you will need to either eat them whole or thaw them and pit them yourself to use them in anything, unless you plan to eat them whole, which is tasty aso well.
Eat them frozen.
Eat them thawed.
Eat them partially thawed.
Eat them frozen in a bowl with cream-- it's like ice cream, but with less work and no sugar.
Blend them with milk and banana for a smoothie.
Put them in a bowl of oatmeal. You don't even need to thaw them first.
Heat them up with a bit of water, and some sweetener if you want, to make a fruit syrup.
Mix them in with pancake batter.
Make cherry muffins.
Make a pie.
Pulse them in a food processor, add a little bit of xanthan gum, add a little bit of fruit juice, and blend some more and you have a soft-set sorbet in a minute or so. If you're using less sweet frozen fruit, you might need to add some sugar or syrup to it. (I'm trying to remember the proportions ... I want to say it was 1/4 tsp to either 1 or 2 cups of fruit ... juice is by eye 'til you get the consistency you want ... but you probably want to start with 1/4 c. or so for 1c of fruit)
Frozen fruits like that (cherries or cranberries) will give better results when cooked.
Cranberries can be eaten raw, but they are tart and should be eaten very fresh; most of the time they are cooked.
Cherries can be eating raw if they are fresh, when frozen, better to cook them.
Thawing the fruits will render them mushy.
I find eating frozen fruit like berries or cherries, with just a few minutes of thawing, to be very tasty and refreshing - like ice cream without the extra calories.
@JohnFeltz - I freeze grapes, whole and unadulterated, for just that reason.
You can eat them frozen or put them in a smoothie frozen.
If you are going to thaw them then do it slowly in the refrigerator.
If you rapid thaw it will create more thermal stress and break the fruit up.
In a delicate fruit like a strawberry a rapid thaw will turn it to a soup. I worked in restaurants and saw it time and time again.
In freezing same thing. Cool them first in fridge and then freeze.
Frozen cherries, the sour ones, are my yearly snack. We fill up zipper bags with kilos of cherries and freeze them. I serve them straight out of the freezer in a bowl, give them a light salting and let them sit for 5 minutes, then dig in. Basically anything sour with salt is amazing.
Welcome! Thanks for the interesting suggestion! I recommend you take the [tour] and browse through our [help], especially [answer] - you may want to [edit] your post to remove some of the “duuuude!” slang, we do have a bit of an expectation re. writing style. If a few typos slip, no problem, the community will help out, but you may want to sharpen the actual statement?
I like to suck on frozen cherries. But mostly defrost them and add them to yogurt. Frozen grapes are lovely to chew on, and both cherries and grapes are nice added to a glass of cold water, especially in the summer. I also put cherries, and other fruits in ice lolly Molds, add cherry juice, or other juice, and freeze.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.779024 | 2016-11-18T01:09:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75615",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Joe",
"Joe M",
"John Feltz",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Stephie",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
8540 | Where can I buy online spices, sauces, extracts, etc. with international shipping?
I already know Penzey's spices, which is good, but they don't sell sauces. Ebay won't work for me because it is too expensive to ship to Russia (judging from one bottle from one user). Amazon is also not an option as they will only ship books.
In particular, I'm looking for worcestershire sauce, fish sauce, pure extracts, sesame oil.
Добро пожаловать. I tried to clarify your question a little. I hope that I didn't change the meaning.
I found this thread: http://www.expat.ru/forum/showthread.php?t=189321 which lists a russian website. That might be of use to you. I can't comment on what they have as I can't read the site. Most of the other sources I know of are based here in North America. In general I would usually start by checking for a site based in my country that offers reasonable shipping. Even being in Canada I find that often shipping across the US border is cost prohibitive.
I use http://www.seasonedpioneers.com - they handle a large range and the quality is good
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.779474 | 2010-10-26T04:26:38 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8540",
"authors": [
"Kaylie Marie Kipe",
"Rainne Birdsong",
"Sobachatina",
"VinaigretteGirl",
"Zigrivers",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17519",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17520",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17748",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"ltomas",
"prita"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
27427 | Can grocery store chocolate be used as chocolate coating?
Suppose I want to coat a random object in chocolate.
(Because, let's face it, why would you not want to do this??)
Can I simply buy my favorite brand of chocolate, melt it, and pour it over stuff and wait for it to set? Or is that likely to ruin the chocolate in some way?
(The obvious follow-up question being "if that's not the right way to do this, what is?")
Have you looked at ganache recipes? Usually calls for chocolate and some sort of thing like cream or I use coconut cream as a vegan alternative.
Cocoa butter crystallizes into various types of crystals depending on the temperature at which it cools. If the butter cools into an ad hoc assortment of crystal types then they don't arrange themselves uniformly and the chocolate will be dull and sticky.
The process of melting chocolate to encourage proper crystal growth is called tempering.
You will find quite a few questions on the subject here.
You can use any chocolate that contains cocoa butter. However, if you are going to be putting that much work into tempering your chocolate you might spring for the nicer quality chocolate and not just plain Hershey's.
Alternatively, if it meets your needs, you can either serve your chocolate still melted or make a thick syrup/fudge dip that stays soft and doesn't need to be tempered.
To be 100% clear: If the chocolate is not tempered, what effect does that have exactly?
@MathematicalOrchid the chocolate will separate, creating lumps of scorched starch swimming in melted cocoa butter. It has the mouthfeel of sand mixed in oil. Coating things in chocolate is a fairly advanced matter, you have to read up on it and don't mind the few first attempts having a low success rate. It goes beyond simple tempering, you have to controll three temperatures; of the coating, of the thing getting coated, and of the environment. See my answer to http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21137/how-to-prevent-sweating-chocolate-covered-strawberries.
rumtscho's description is a bit of an exaggeration. You have to really overheat it to do that. If you just melt it a bit too much (so the good crystals melt) it won't be scorched, it'll just be dull and sticky, or even crumbly - you've probably seen these things in chocolate that got left out for a while, maybe in a hot car.
Cocoa butter contains different fats with different melting points. In order to avoid whitish smears in your coating, the chocolate must be melted just above melting point, and kept under constant stirring. This is quite tricky but its the way to ensure a homogeneous coating.
Commercial coating does not contain cocoa butter but some other shortening with a single melting point, thus easing manipulation. But it is not chocolate.
I have had success simply melting chocolate chips from the grocery store to coat strawberries. No adding cream or anything. Food Network recipe says use chips. http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/food-network-kitchens/chocolate-covered-strawberries-recipe/index.html
Delicious!
I agree and have had great success melting chocolate chips (carefully) and dipping fruit and bottoms of cookies into it. While it may not be the highest degree of shiny, snappy quality you'd expect from professional chocolatiers, it's darn fancy and yummy for a home cook! Go for it! :-)
Melting chocolate chips on top IS my favorite kind of frosting. Milk chocolate chips can especially be effective as frosting.
Chocolate chips are fine by me to make chocolate-coated whatevers. Hershey bars (no nuts please), Kisses (kind of a paint to unwrap tho), Ghirardelli squares (no fillings), they all work.
A few things:
Always use a double-boiler to melt chocolate. You don't have one? Poppycock; get a large-ish metal or Pyrex mixing bowl and set it on top of a saucepan large enough for most of the bowl to be in the pan but small enough that the bowl will sit on top and leave enough space for an air gap between bowl and boiling water. Voila, a double boiler. The double boiler will prevent the chocolate getting too hot and "breaking" (cocoa solids precipitating out of the oil); still gotta keep an eye on it, but it's harder to mess up.
Pouring is more difficult than dipping. While you're pouring, the chocolate's off the heat and so it's cooling, you're exposing the chocolate to surfaces that may be hotter or cooler than the bottom of the bowl it's been melting in, etc etc. If the object is small enough for it to be practical to dip, then stick a toothpick in it and dip it. If it's too big (bigger than your average finger food like a banana chunk, strawberry or cookie), then go ahead and pour, but be patient and I strongly recommend using a bowl or double-boiler pan with a prominent pouring spout on the brim, and a rubber spatula; get the chocolate close to the pour spout, then carefully use the spatula to push a little chocolate into the pour spout and then onto your random object.
The random object must not be a living thing. Chocolate may melt at body temperature, but there's only 7 degrees F difference between body temperature at 98 and painfully hot at 105, and at 125* you can very quickly cause blisters. If you're planning a fun, slightly messy Saturday night with your main squeeze, I'd go with chocolate syrup.
+1 for the degree of LOLs I got out of the final point. :-D
Tempering properly and coating with real chocolate is all well and good, but probably a bit much work for many. There is an alternative (which Juancho mentioned), though. There are commercial chocolate coatings (e.g. Magic Shell) which are very easy to use - no tempering. They're not pure chocolate though; there's a substantial amount of another oil to make things work right. I haven't tried it, but it looks like you can make your own with coconut oil (for example this recipe). Could be that with your favorite chocolate, you'd prefer that to commercial versions, and that it'd be worth the time savings compared to working with pure chocolate for you.
Magic Shell works based on temperature; the oil used (coconut oil) is highly saturated and so has a relatively high melting point; in contact with the ice cream, the oil hardens. Simply dipping a cookie or marshmallow into Magic Shell won't cause it to harden, like with bar chocolate; you'd then have to refrigerate whatever you dipped and it'd only stay hard as long as it was cold.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.779624 | 2012-09-27T13:35:43 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27427",
"authors": [
"Anthony Sowerby",
"Cascabel",
"Dickt",
"KeithS",
"Kristina Lopez",
"MathematicalOrchid",
"Matthew",
"Patricia Campbell",
"Robin Rupe",
"Tim Nevins",
"Traci Nicole",
"Wendy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10926",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61794",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61795",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61798",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61803",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61804",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61813",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61827",
"lemontwist",
"rumtscho",
"seilgu",
"thingamajiggs"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
45793 | How do I neutralize melter honey?
I was wondering how to neutralize melter honey into more of a straight sugar base and get the acid levels down.
Melter honey is melted and extracted from the caps of the honey comb. The prolonged heating can caramelize the sugars a bit and darken the honey.
Although it may reduce a little, I'm not able to find any resource that says that it reduces enough to become significantly more acidic than regular honey.
Regular honey can be neutralized for cooking by adding 1/2 tsp of baking soda for every cup of honey that is used. I think this ratio would also be appropriate for melter honey.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.780237 | 2014-07-22T16:03:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45793",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
13535 | How do the ingredients in baking powder work?
Baking powder is baking soda (sodium bicarbonate), corn starch and creme of tartar mixed together. Can anyone tell me what the effect of these different ingredients have (and have on each other) and how they work together to leaven baked goods?
Like- why cornstarch? I understand it being used as a thickener and to coat things to keep them from clumping, but how does it help leavening? Or is it just to keep the creme of tartar and baking soda from reacting to each other or mixing unevenly?
I described the chemical reaction in baking powder some days ago in an answer to another question. http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13430/how-are-chemical-leaveners-affected-by-moisture-and-cool-temperature/13435#13435. The corn starch is only there to absorb moisture, because if the baking powder gets wet in the package, part of the leavening reaction will occur in the package.
@rumtscho- You should rephrase your comment as an answer- it is, after all, the answer.
Baking powder is like a fast-acting yeast; it is used to infuse air into baking mixtures by way of carbon dioxide bubbles, created by a base reacting to an acid. Baking power is made of three different parts:
An acid
A base
A filler
All three need to be dry powders that can be mixed together, common ingredients are cream of tartar (acid), baking soda (base) and corn starch (filler). The role of the acid and the base are to combine together to produce carbon dioxide bubbles when reacting with water or other liquids. The filler helps keep the baking powder dry, so that it remains free-flowing and so that the base and acid don't get moist and interact in the container.
Resources:
This article explains the reaction process in further detail: http://recipes.howstuffworks.com/tools-and-techniques/baking-powder.htm
This piece provides further insight on different types of baking powder, it's history, substitutes, etc.: http://m.cooksinfo.com/edible.nsf/MobilePages/baking-powder
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.780319 | 2011-03-28T23:12:05 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13535",
"authors": [
"Sherlock",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
66962 | Are insects bought as pet food safe for human consumption?
I want to try some cooking with insects. So far I found no shop in my town selling insects for human consumption, and online shops I found (so far) where really expensive (10-40€/100g!).
So I'm thinking of buying some pet food insects (most likey cickets or grasshoppers). Are these safe for human consumption?
I'm in Germany, I assume regulations for pet food would apply to these insects (is this so?).
I'm mostly concerned about antibiotics and whatever harmful stuff they might get via their food.
I read something somewhere talking about raising insects for chicken feed, and it turns out that unless you're raising insects solely on waste that has no cost to you ... they're fairly expensive to raise. If raised off a 'clean' food source for the insects (eg, brewer's mash), they'd be fine, but it's possible that they're raised off of animal manure. See a partial overview at http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/your-meat-should-be-raised-on-insects-u-n-says/ (home farming forums will have more in-depth discussions)
I don't want to put this as an answer, but I suspect that if you treated them as you would wild caught snails, you'd be fine. With snails, since you don't know what they have been eating, you place them in a container with oats, cornmeal etc. to eat for a week or so. This allows them to purge their systems of any potential toxins & has the bonus of fattening them up. Add a small dish with a sponge soaked in water for them to drink also. If you were to raise your own crickets from pet store bought stock, you could have complete control over what they are exposed to. Clean well before cooking!
@renesis that is a really good answer, so much so that I will paraphrase it and write the answer myself if you don't.
Go for it @Jolenealaska
I am unaware of regulations in Germany with regard to edible insects, but in North America, insects must be raised/farmed rather than wildsourced, and they must be specifically raised for human consumption. Everything that the insects are fed, treated with, moisturized with or housed in must be logged. While there are currently no regulations for edible insects as such, producers are advised to adhere to the FDA's regulations regarding the production of seafood. Because standards for pet foods are usually less stringent, it is not advised that humans use insects produced for that purpose.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.780507 | 2016-02-29T12:59:30 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66962",
"authors": [
"Gary Diltz",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Michael Diamond",
"Nancy Gragg",
"Nitz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162452",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40717",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"michele easel",
"renesis"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
75594 | Can I brine meat after cooking it?
I cooked up a bunch of beef to slice into luncheon meat, and did some reading afterwards... and have decided that I want the meat to be brined, so it is more tender and moist, like the storebought stuff.
...except, I already cooked it. I now know that the brining should be done before it is cooked, and that is what really helps with moisture retention. But would I pick up any of the benefit by brining it now? Thanks!
It won't do anything useful.
Brining works on raw meat by denaturing some of the proteins inside the cells so they gel and hold tightly onto their water. It also gets tasty salt in.
Cooked meat has already had its proteins denatured by heat. Brining will not cause the meat to hold on to any new water.
Basically all it will do is wash away some of the surface flavor into the brine.
You cannot brine after cooking but you could slice the meat and place it in a jus.
You see this commonly with "Italian Beef" and "French Dip" sandwiches. Take whatever drippings you have left and add supplement with beef/chicken/vegetable stock/broth/. Slice and place the meat in the jus until serving which may get you closer to the outcome you are looking for.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.780725 | 2016-11-17T16:40:38 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75594",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
20230 | Why does my bread still smell like yeast?
I wonder why my bread still have a yeasty smell? Did I put too much yeast? I use instant yeast, 11g for 500g wheat flour. Is that too much yeast for that amount of flour?
I only use about 7-8g of yeast for that amount of flour. Is the crumb (inside) still too moist?
You are using to much dried yeast.
11 gr should be used with fresh yeast.
To get an idea, divide the amount of fresh yeast with 2,5, so you should only use 5 gr (11:2.5) of dried yeast.
Active dry yeast would (depending on amount of salt, water, sugar, etc.) probably be around 0.5–1.5% of the flour weight; so that'd be 2.5–7.5g of yeast. Instant yeast is slightly less, maybe 0.4%–1.2%, or 4–6g.
Generally speaking, using less yeast results in longer rise times and better flavor. At some point, though, if you use little enough, you'll have very long rise time (over a day) and sourdough (as lactobacilli take up residence).
Also generally speaking, salt slows yeast growth (so, the more salt, the more yeast added) and water speeds yeast growth (so, higher hydration breads use less yeast).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.780853 | 2012-01-07T06:15:37 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20230",
"authors": [
"Greg Lee",
"PHIL h",
"Quiditty",
"Shelly O'Kelly",
"Xilexio",
"Zailon Xwadastet",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44307",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44344",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44696",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44701",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8315",
"jontyc",
"user1862212"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
20028 | Should syrup or pastry be cooled when pouring on to Baklava?
When making Baklava, should you let the syrup or pastry cool before pouring the syrup over pastry?
Here is the formula:
Sheet baklawa with nuts: Boiled syrup is poured on top after tray is out of oven for 2-3 minutes.
Pieces / rolled baklawa with nuts: Room temperature syrup is sprinkled / brushed on top after tray is out of oven for 2-3 minutes.
Sheet baklawa with cream/ashta: Cold syrup is sprinked / brushed on top after tray is out of oven for 2-3 minutes.
The pastry should be cool, but the syrup should be neither hot nor cool - it should be lukewarm. If it's too cold, it will be too thick and difficult to pour, and it if it's too hot, it may run or damage the pastry. I usually allow mine to sit for 10-15 minutes, until I can comfortably place my pinky finger inside it.
The rule I distinctly remember about Baklava (and most middle eastern pastry) is that one has to be hot while the other cool. So if the Baklava is hot, the syrup should be cool. Or vice versa.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.780972 | 2011-12-29T05:00:37 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20028",
"authors": [
"Edison Hua",
"Pimgd",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43736",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43797",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48471",
"mypsilon",
"yummlydesly"
],
"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
} |
56302 | Can you make thin crispy dosa without urad dal?? Can I use any other lentils in their place?
I live in Finland and I can't find urad dal in the city where I live.
Can I make thin crispy dosa with different beans?
Just to be pedantic- technically urad dal is not a lentil. Translations from Indian languages tend to be a little off in reference to beans. I blame Google Translate.
This question makes me want to try making dosa with pinto beans and see if it interests or horrifies my Indian coworkers.
Is there any store carrying TRS brand ingredients in your city? They might be able to order it for you...
Urad dal is the most common legume used in traditional dosa recipes but it is by no means the only legume used.
Recipes for traditional dosa will sometimes use other high protein legumes such as chana dal. This variety of chickpea, or other chickpea varieties, may be easier to find.
My experience with Scandinavian countries leads me to believe that legumes in general are much less popular. You might have better luck just ordering urad dal online.
You could always make Rava Dosa - it's made with semolina and rice flour.
I make it with chana dal (split chickpeas) or green split hulled dal as a substitute to urad by choice.
Unfortunately a traditional dosa recipe calls for urad dal. But since u can't avail it, u can prepare dosa using wheat flour, or a simple rava dosa using sooji as main ingredient.
There is a special dosa called neer dosa which is a regional recipe from Karnataka state of India.
It uses only rice luckily. Grind rice along with some fresh shredded coconut and salt to a thin batter. Mix water to make it even more thinner. It shouldn't coat the back of the laddle. It's the correct consistency. Make dosas with it . Swirl the dosa pan rather than spreading the batter by laddle. But you ll get soft dosas only. Hope this helps. Good luck.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.781086 | 2015-04-02T18:41:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56302",
"authors": [
"Aasia Hussain",
"Annick Lefever",
"Holden Dunlap",
"Johanna Monckton",
"Kathleen Jannis",
"Mark Bromley",
"Marlizelle Oosthuizen",
"Russell McMorran",
"Sobachatina",
"Voldz Boldz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133837",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133842",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133844",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
78014 | Are cockroaches a usable source of protein?
Bear with me, this is an entirely serious if not necessarily particularly practical question :)
In The Damage Done, perhaps the best known notionally non-fiction Thai prison story (and, apparently, soon to be a movie), there are a lot of disgusting, gruesome and/or on occasion quite implausible stories, like elephants playing soccer using balls with prisoners inside.
One of these stories involves our hapless protagonist being thrown into "the hole" (isolation) for months, with only water and spoiled rice to eat. According to the book, he survived because he was taught by Thai prisoners sharing the same fate to trap the plentiful cockroaches, feed the rice to them and then eat the cockroaches (yum yum!), which apparently also served as a source of protein. Would this actually work? More specifically, can cockroaches (or insects in general) convert a simple starch into protein, and would you get sick eating them?
"Would you get sick eating them" is not an answerable question. For any food, the chance is over zero and less than one. Food safety answers mean "a government agency promises you that the risk of getting sick is lower than their (the agency's) tolerance limit. I doubt that any agency has published food safety guidelines on eating cockroaches.
Add that there is also a difference between getting ill from the item, and getting psychologically ill from the thoughts of what you are eating. In the US for instance, we routinely discard parts as offal items, and culturally many would get ill from even the thought of eating items, which in other cultures might be considered not just edible but some of the better parts.
@rumtscho - it is certainly answerable, theoretically. Some creatures, either by their composition or their habits, are going to be much more likely to carry pathogens than others. While no one can insure absolute safety for the reasons you mentioned, some things might carry much greater and more common risks than others. Any kind of animal bite COULD cause problems or infection. A Komodo Dragon is famous for the absolute filthiness of it's mouth as a den for pathogens, and are considered specially dangerous to be bitten by, to draw an analogy.
Now, whether such a situation exists specifically for cockroaches, I don't know, but we'd have to get some answers before categorically rejecting that such information exist. dlb's answer is a fine example, imo.
Lot of chitin (n-acetyl glucosamine etc) in a cockroach. They're flat and heavily armored. You'd probably be better off protein-content-wise with a juicer bug, like grasshoppers, crickets or June bugs.
Note that there is a distinct difference between surviving and thriving. You´ll get sick on any food if you eat nothing else.
Cockroaches are generally edible. Indeed, the ediblebugshop.com sells roasted cockroaches. [I have no affiliation with the website] They state:
These plain roasted cockroaches make a great snack to munch on or can be added to your favourite dish. See our recipes page for more ways to use your roasted cockroaches. Completely safe to eat and actually taste great, they are sometimes called Land Lobsters!
Another example: The Eat-A-Bug Cookbook has a recipe for Cockroach a la King. (Chapter 6, Pantry Pests)
If I were a prisoner in the hole, and if it was a roach that grew up in a clean cage with controlled feedings from me, I would eat it.
If it were a free range (so to speak) coackroach that just wandered into my cell, I wouldn't eat it uncooked. You don't know where that roach has been, what was crawled through, or what he/she has been eating. In that case, I would want to safety of cooking with heat. That may not be available in the hole.
ediblebugshop.com updated link here
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/31/travel/china-cockroach-farming-food/
They should not be much different than crickets which are commonly consumed. An insect which does not inherently produce a toxin should often be fairly safe depending on what they had been eating. A sewer roach for instance would not be a good idea while a wood roach would likely be safe in a pinch. I recall reality shows which would routinely make contestants eat giant hissing roaches something that might not be pleasant but which would not hurt the contestants.
Ah but did it hurt the roach, and on those programs did they put up the 'no roaches were hurt in the making of this film'? nice link
can cockroaches (or insects in general) convert a simple starch into protein
No, an insect cannot convert a simple starch into protein without other food. Starch (C6H10O5)n does not contain the nitrogen necessary for amino acids, which compose proteins.
But the insect does not have to convert starch into protein. Presumably this cell is not a closed system; cockroaches can eat other things outside the cell then walk into the cell.
Nitrogen is the primary element in Earth's atmosphere.
@Acccumulation That is true, but most organisms cannot make direct use of atmospheric nitrogen.
But to make a blanket statement that insects cannot is false https://cen.acs.org/articles/87/i47/Nitrogen-Fixing-Insects.html
From this page on one of my websites, here is a light hearted poke at eating insects:
Anyone in the mood for fried caterpillars? Roasted silkworms? Braised crickets? You might be blanching, but according to a group of Oxford researchers, certain bugs are more nutritious than our favorite meat staples.
In a recent study from the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, researchers compared the nutritional profile of six commercially available insects – crickets, honey bees, silkworms, mealworms, mopane caterpillars and palm weevil larvae – to chicken, beef and pork using two different scoring systems that tracked variables like protein, fat, sodium, vitamins and minerals.
The result? When the two scoring systems were taken together, “every single insect the researchers examined came out on top,” reports Medical Daily. The researchers note that crickets, mealworms and palm weevil larvae were “significantly healthier.”
In other words, instead of slaving over Cricket à la King for dinner, try folding a little protein-rich cricket flour into your next batch of bread or cupcakes.
Okay, there are several issues here: (1) you linked to the whole site, not the actual source (http://www.sailingtheatlantic.com/cockroaches_and_insects.html), (2) this is all copy-pasted and you didn't mark it as quotes, (3) in copy-pasting instead of using your own words, you haven't directly answered the question (that's all about other invertebrates, not cockroaches).
And... (4) are you by any chance associated with either of those sites? We require disclosure when linking in that case, which you haven't done (see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/help/promotion), and if those aren't your words, see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/help/referencing (you haven't used your own words at all). If you edit your answer to address these concerns, including directly addressing the question, awesome, otherwise we'll have to remove it.
I've fixed your answer for you again, in terms of the links. Please read the help center articles I linked to. Notably, you need to link directly to the thing you're referencing, and you can link to your websites only when it is part of answering a question. Links beyond that are considered spam. (This is also still borderline not answering the question. It's basically just a quote, with nothing to tie it to the actual question the OP asked - does this mean cockroaches are a good source of protein like the other insects?)
Entomophagy (eating of insects) is a well established culinary tradition in some cultures.
At time of answering, the relevant wikipedia article both claimed that the protein quality was comparable to soy, and showed photographs of insects/preparations commercially sold to voluntary buyers as a foodstuff in Thailand and Mexico.
Would you have any references to cockroaches specifically being edible?
Insect are a high protean food. But lack fat. Thailand they are ate. Locus also. Sun dried & salted or fried. Being a Islander. I will go more for the scorpion myself.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.781295 | 2017-02-02T10:05:56 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78014",
"authors": [
"Acccumulation",
"Aravindh Gopi",
"Cascabel",
"Daniel",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"dlb",
"dougal 5.0.0",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37621",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67309",
"lambshaanxy",
"mattm",
"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
} |
75732 | Can I bake a cake in a toaster oven without temperature control?
I live in a place with no easy access to an oven. If I wanted to bake a cake, could I do this with an appliance like this?
possible duplicate: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71647/can-one-use-a-toaster-oven-to-bake-cakes-and-cupcakes (the top answer appears to cover it, though the question in general is a little confusing about whether it's asking about just an oven like this or a combination microwave-oven)
@Jefromi: it's a duplicate, it's not a microwave in my case
@Jefromi - I agree it's mostly a duplicate. But I noted this device doesn't appear to have a temperature control, which most modern toaster ovens do. Thus, I think this particular model may pose more specific difficulty/issues.
@Athanasius Ah, good catch. Hopefully this was just an arbitrary example and the OP can find things like this except with temperature control.
As the person who has written the other question's accepted answer: there is a big difference between the two appliances. The one in this post is a mini-toaster oven and has 4 to 6 times less volume than the large toaster oven I consider in my answer, and is also different in many other aspects.
In general, yes. But it's going to take a bit of effort and monitoring.
Your results may not be ideal (in particular don't expect the highest rising cake or the most even doneness), but it is possible to bake a cake in something like that. There are three main issues:
The device you linked looks like it doesn't have temperature control. It looks like it just turns elements on the bottom and/or top on and off. So, you'll need to regulate the power yourself, turning the power off before the oven heats up too much and turning it back on when it starts to cool down. If you're not experienced with baking without a built-in oven thermometer, you might want to try to pick up a cheap thermometer which you might be able to fit inside and help regulate temperature.
If there are electric heating elements on the top and bottom, they may be much closer to the cake than they would be in a larger oven. That could lead to excess browning on the surface and/or the bottom of the cake. You may need to bake at a lower effective temperature to avoid browning or even burning the crust.
The heat produced will be more uneven in general than a large oven. That may interfere with rising or doneness in the cake. There's not much you can do about that other than monitoring and making sure the cake is cooked through before removing.
I personally wouldn't recommend trying this unless you already have experience baking/cooking with this appliance. Cakes are bound to be more sensitive to things like temperature fluctuations and radiant heat than many other things you might cook in such an appliance. But if it's your only option, it may be workable.
I would suggest very thin, like you would use for a jelly roll. If you want a thicker cake, build it up out of multiple layers. Use parchment paper, or possibly wax paper and make it thin enough that it cooks in a short time and monitor it. When you remove it because the top has browned, turn it over and remove the parchment. If the bottom needs more time, return it to the toaster over with that side exposed for a short time. When browned, the center should hopefully also be adequately cooked. Repeat until you have enough layers to build the thickness you want.
I would think you would have a better chance of success the lighter the cake batter is, a denser batter may have more trouble heating the center before the outside is done and you will likely have more issues the higher the temp it toasts at. With no temperature control it may be like attempting to bake under a broiler. With practice you may succeed, but it will likely not be easy. If you have one available, you may be better off researching cake in a mug microwave techniques.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.781937 | 2016-11-21T22:43:37 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75732",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Cascabel",
"d33tah",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25370",
"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
} |
44264 | What do soybeans taste like?
I've read about the beneficial use of soybean in the food industry, so I wonder what it tastes like? How can it be explained?
Does soybean taste like regular beans? Also, what's the difference in its processed forms, such as soymilk?
Buy some and try, you can't describe taste properly. There are many different types too, shops around at Asia supply stores, they usually have the best selection
Unfermented soy is toxic - google it.
@BlessedGeek I've already read about that.
@Blessed Geek- Soymilk is made from unfermented soy. Edamame is unfermented soy. Millions of people have eaten unfermented soy for thousands of years. I'm not buying it.
In fact, they are toxic, raw. So are lima beans (although in a different way). They need to be cooked, or fermented or otherwise processed. That is why edamame are not eaten raw, as spring peas might be. I found one scientific, non-sensationlist link (those dominate the plain google search results): http://www.researchgate.net/publication/220036570_Antinutritional_andor_toxic_factors_in_soybean_seeds_(Glycine_max_(L)_Merril)._Comparison_among_different_cultivars_adapted_to_the_South_Region_of_Brazil/file/8d1c84f4aaf15742c3.pdf
kidney beans are also toxic, without a hard boil first.
The taste and the reason why it is used in the food industry are unrelated.
All beans are toxic raw, the popular raw eating types are just very low in toxins
I can get soy beans in two varieties here: As dried beans and as edamame.
Edamame is a particular type of soybean that is harvested when it is still young. The pods are cooked (usually boiled or steamed) and then served with salt. The beans are popped from the pod and eaten. The pod is discarded.
Edamame is sweet and a little grassy because it is young.
Dried soy beans can be cooked like any other bean. Their hulls tend to come free and have an unpleasant texture so it is nice to skim most of them off. The flavor is good but not unique. It tastes like a normal white bean. The raw beans have a very strong "beany" flavor but cooked beans should not.
Soymilk is made from dried soybeans. The beans or the milk are cooked to remove the very strong beany flavor. The finished milk does have a hint of sweetness and bean but not strong at all.
Tofu, made from soymilk, tastes the same as the milk. Besides being sweet and a little beany, it can be a little nutty tasting. It can get chalky if it isn't fresh.
All of these soybean preparations are very bland. They tastes fresh and clean but there shouldn't be any overly strong flavors. Strong flavors in these products are often a sign that the product is past its prime.
Some soybean preparations ferment the beans. These have a wide range of flavors and textures.
Edamame has a similar taste to boiled green peanuts, a dish common in the American South, but which might not be well known elsewhere.
Are you are referring to North American soybeans only? In the rest of the world there are many varieties, of many colours. Some have very strong flavours. North American soy was chosen to be flavourless see http://www.soyinfocenter.com/chronologies_of_soyfoods-edamame.php . OP not in North Amercia
the next time you cook edamame, use your favorite garlic chili paste instead of salt ... you can thank me later.
@TFD You're really misrepresenting things. It's hard to know where to start. What you call "flavorless" is really just mostly lacking a particular component of the flavor that many people dislike - not at all flavorless. It's not just in North America that people dislike that flavor; people in other countries (especially for things like soymilk and tofu) avoid it too. The fact that a particular variety is popular doesn't mean that the other varieties don't exist. This may not be an absolutely all-encompassing answer, but it's hardly North American only.
@Jefromi I many parts of Asia and other parts of the world, soymilk and tofu (among other soy products) are not sterile while nothing, but actually well flavoured. Hence the comment on "flavourless". Flavour of course is a personal perceptions. Anyway OP from Europe and AFAIK most of Europe won't accept N.A. GM soy, so OP unlikely to get your varieties there?
There is even a "black soybean", also sold dried, that was probably cultivated by someone to cause terrible confusion to people looking for "black beans" for latin american dishes. Like the normal dried soybean, it takes ages to cook even in a pressure cooker.
One cannot say what the taste is although if you ever consumed Kikoman's sauce it has that flavor. Not dissimilar to Worcester sauce although not as savory either.
It has a slight bread sort of taste. Like if you liquidized it (the medium whole wheat sort) and put a bit of lemon into it
Soy has been used in both non and fermented forms. There is no need to use it if you are not vegan or have an issue with dairy.
If you are not sure about soy and want a non dairy milk there are still many options such as almond milk. If you don't like that there are milks made from many nuts all with different flavors and some very close to real milk which will blend with food the same way and also be a source of calcium as well as many nuts contain some.
"Health issues" are off topic here, so I'm removing that part of your answer.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.782246 | 2014-05-20T05:56:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44264",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Cynthia",
"Didgeridrew",
"FOOD TRUCK spam",
"Jackie Hoeft",
"Joe",
"Renate Cino",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Shift Leadership Group",
"Sobachatina",
"Sue Harrison",
"TFD",
"The Commander",
"VIJITH KUMAR",
"Zoltán Schmidt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104014",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104015",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104037",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104038",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho",
"user104013",
"user117817",
"wcolin"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
27773 | Looking for meat ingredient suggestions for a Yoghurt Cake recipe
I know the flavours of "meat" and "sweet" can sometimes go together well. There's a sausage and fennel (licorice sensation) pastry that I very much enjoy. That's the concept this question is based in.
We're having an office bake-off based on Yoghurt Cake. I'd like to do something different and use meat in the cake instead of fruit, seeds, nuts or assorted sweets. However I can't find any recipes online that include meat. I know bacon is often all the rage so that interests me but I'm open to any kind of meat.
I'm not a cook and am looking for some seasoned advice about what meats to use in a standard Yoghurt cake recipe, and the best way to prepare the meat for it. This is one example of a standard Yoghurt Cake recipe from which I would base my own concoction - http://happyhomebaking.blogspot.ca/2007/09/another-yogurt-cake.html
I think the words "standard" and "meat yoghurt cake recipe" are a contradiction in terms...
Bacon works well in sweet dishes because it is quite sweet itself. Why not try a sweet-cured bacon in a subtly maple-flavoured cake?
You can really boost the sweetness of the bacon by putting it in a very low oven for long time. It pretty much crystallises.
With the suggestion of bacon already put out there I will suggest another meat that goes well with yogurt and works well WITH sweet, but is not itself sweet, Lamb.
How about making a batch of sweet and cinnamon-y candied bacon and then chop it into pieces to mix into the cake batter? Sprinkle some on top of the frosting to deliver the sweet bacon flavor with each bite.
Here's the "Recipe Girl's" candied bacon recipe with step-by-step color pictures....yum!
http://www.recipegirl.com/2012/04/13/candied-bacon/
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.782781 | 2012-10-12T16:55:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27773",
"authors": [
"Chavdar Tsenev",
"GdD",
"Julie",
"Liam K.",
"Linda Major",
"Michelle",
"Safado",
"Suzanne Kriek",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62774",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62787",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62788"
],
"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.