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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
12872 | Can you safely can homemade caramel/butterscotch syrup?
I've done canning of jams and jellies. I would like to make caramel and butterscotch syrups and jar them to give away, too, but I'm not sure if this is do-able since they contain butter and cream. Can this be done safely at home? If so, how long would they be good for?
I haven't seen a butterscotch canned recipe but the ball blue book has a couple syrup canning recipes that look fantastic. If you do any canning you should have this book. The recipes are invaluable.
These recipes use the hot water bath technique. The extremely high sugar content would be enough to keep it preserved. Modifying one to be butterscotch should be straight forward.
I wouldn't try any experiments that reduce the sugar content because then we're getting into the risk-of-horrible-paralyzing-death area of canning.
Different types of caramel can be stored for different amounts of time. Caramel syrup is stored well in an air-tight glass container for a few months in a fridge. If you make caramel sweets they are best stored if wrapped in wax paper to prevent sticking and then put inside a freezer bag. You can freeze them for a few months (if you can resist them that long!)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.782953 | 2011-03-07T06:46:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12872",
"authors": [
"David",
"Kieran Walsh",
"NRaf",
"Shisa",
"Zerotoinfinity",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26654",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26666",
"user26655"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
6798 | Freeze-drying fruit at home?
Is it possible to freeze-dry fruit at home without expensive special equipment (or get the same dryness otherwise)? Especially I want to get the fruit to the crisp dryness1 of freeze-dried fruit compared to the still slightly damp / soggy dryness of hot-air dried fruit.
[Edit] Well, turns out, basically no. Freeze-drying not only involves the ability to freeze the food to low temperatures (which can be achieved), but also creating a low pressure environment and controlled heating of the the food in that environment (Not easily achievable or controllable at home). More info from Wikipedia
1. It should feel absolutely dry to the touch, and crumble / break when handled roughly rather than stretch / bend.
Assuming you have a frost-free freezer (which dehumidifies the cold air), I'd experiment by laying sliced fruit on a sheet (maybe on a layer of waxed paper) and putting it in the freezer. Pull out a slice every day or two to check its crispness. The time necessary will depend on the type of fruit, its moisture content, the slice thickness, and the room's humidity.
So I finally got around to trying that. The fruit did indeed dry, but only to about the same level hot-air dried fruit, not the level I hoped for.
The frost-free freezer that kajaco suggested is definitely worth a try is you have access to one.
An easy hack to get a similar result is to use dry ice. As far as i know, this works for things that have a low amount of water to start with and do not know how apples will behave as they have a lot of water.
For this, you need some dry ice, put 2-3 cm of it at the bottom of a cardboard container that has soles on the sides and place the fruit slices on top of it in a single sheet (no stacking)
You may also try to first dry the apples first in the oven in order to get most of the moisture out. You may find a decent guide for that here.
Do remember that in order to get the desired humidity (crumble / break when handled roughly rather) you will need to protect them from any moisture after the drying as well as during the storage. I am almost sure that a simple zip-lock bag will not do the trick and that the air inside the bag / jar may be too moist already at the time of sealing and so it may alter your desired result.
Most modern freezers are the frost free type. You would know if yours isn't one because you would have to defrost it once a month or so. Ever forget about a bag of frozen veggies for a couple months? (I'm a bachelor, do it all the time) The veggies are shrivelled and there's a bunch of ice in the bag. If you leave anything in there long enough all the moisture will eventually be pulled out and turned to ice.
I dont understand how this answers the question at all.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.783094 | 2010-09-06T00:51:16 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6798",
"authors": [
"Ever Think",
"JJ Grund",
"Jay",
"Khoa",
"Phil Hobrla",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24139",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"user2215"
],
"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
} |
9750 | A question of Fishmonger basics and fish processing and handling?
I went to a fishmonger for the first time yesterday and I have a few basic questions. Should the place smell like fish? I have been informed that it should not smell like fish and if it did they did not keep a clean and fresh store. It should be a pleasant smell. I bought a pound of mahi mahi and a pound of rockfish both fillets. I had to scale and debone the mahi mahi and debone the rockfish. It wasn't like there where a lot of bones or or scales it just looks like they got lazy and didn't finish the job.
I am trying to prepare more fish dishes and it took me almost an hour to clean those fish having not done those particular tasks before, but with small kids I wanted to be methodical about it. So I guess this a multi-part question; Are my expectations to high for my fishmonger, should I have asked him to do those tasks and not assumed they would have been done? The second part is there a good reference to deboning and cleaning fish, what is the best way to remove the skin? I hacked at it with my pairing knife and a pair of wire pliers.
Seems on-topic enough for me. Ingredient selection and preparation.
I edited out the verification of topic request. Thanks for the support.
It's common for a few bones to be left behind, so you should always check over the fish before cooking. I use a pair of small pliers to pull out any leftovers. It shouldn't take an hour to clean, though. Any leftover scales should come off with a quick rinse. If the fillet was supposed to be de-boned and scaled, and there were a lot of bones left and scales still attached, that's a bit of a problem.
Did the fish itself smell bad, or was it just the store that had an odor? Did the store just smell a bit "fishy", or did it smell like an environmental disaster? If you're not used to working with fish, you may be a bit sensitive to the smell. Once you get the fish home, you should not smell any off-odors on the fillets.
If you weren't impressed, I would just try to find another place and see if you like it better. It's not a bad thing to have high expectations, and you should find a fishmonger that you're happy with.
The fish did not smell at all, it was just the store that was off. I am definitely not used to working with fish my limited fish experience has been frozen at the local mega-market prior to moving to a coastal city.
I'm not sure what's considered normal as I've only been two one or two fishmongers in my life, but I live about 30 minutes outside Philadelphia (very suburban, not city-like at all) and have found a local guy that I love and visit every week. He always skins and de-bones my fish for me. In fact, many of his more common fillets are often prepared/portioned in the morning so I don't even have to wait for him to do it. Buying whole fish, of course, is another story. For what it's worth, his place doesn't smell like raw fish/the ocean, but he also cooks fish dinners in there so that might be why.
As for removing fish skin, the best way I've found is to start a small cut, then, making sure the fish is skin-side up, hold on to the skin so gravity makes the meat of the fish kind of hang. Then you should be able to easily work your paring knife between the skin and the meat. Pretty easy once you see it done a few times - I saw Alton Brown do it in an episode but forget which one - if I can find it I will come back and edit it into this post.
Did you talk to your fishmonger about how you were planning to prepare the fish? There are some times where you may want a fish that isn't fully cleaned and d-boned. If the person behind a counter knew you were going to serve it to kids they it was totally his fault, find a new place. As far as the smell, I've never found a fish place with no smell, what is important is that the fish you are buying has no smell, fresh fish will not smell 'fishy' even if the store does.
One of the problems of today's pre-packaged supermarkets is that we forget that there's someone behind the counter who can trim / debone / whatever for us. (and as they do it all the time, they're much faster at it). And they can give recommendations on what's good that day; most people go in looking for an ingredient for a recipe they've already found in advance, without considering if that ingredient's available/local/in season/etc.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.783334 | 2010-12-03T15:38:32 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9750",
"authors": [
"Barbara",
"Bob",
"Dave Haigh",
"Dutch Fielder",
"Heather Marie",
"Joe",
"Varuuknahl",
"cosmicraga",
"foodman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19928",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19957",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
17154 | What’s a good alternative to rice wine vinegar?
I find it difficult to source rice wine vinegar for recipes. I can usually find “rice vinegar“, “rice wine”, and “white wine vinegar”, but not specifically “rice wine vinegar”.
Can I use any of the above ingredients, or anything else, as an alternative?
Rice wine vinegar and rice vinegar are the same thing, so that's easy.
For additional pantry-stocking:
Seasoned rice vinegar is just rice vinegar with a little salt & sugar added. It's intended to be the right mixture for a number of recipes, not the least of which is sushi rice, although in my experience you're better off seasoning plain rice vinegar to the correct balance.
Rice wine is, of course, sake. Generally if you're cooking with rice wine you want a moderately priced, clear filtered sake like Gekkeikan. The same advice about cooking with regular wine applies here; don't try to cook with anything undrinkable.
Mirin is a specific kind of light, sweet rice wine used in braised dishes, dipping sauces, steamed fish, etc. If you can't find it, buy a drinkable sake and add around two teaspoons of sugar per 1/4 cup of sake.
@SharonLogan I'm not sure that's true, but what I do know is that there's a huge variety just among various rice vinegars - that may be what you noticed.
First off, I suspect that 'rice wine vinegar' and 'rice vinegar' are the same thing. Secondly, rice wine vinegar comes in two basic kinds, there is a dark vinegar and a white (yellow) vinegar. The dark vinegar has more flavour than the white version. However, both are relatively low in flavour compared to other vinegar alternatives.
To replace a white rice wine vinegar I would suggest using another low flavour vinegar. One with a white colour. In the UK there is a kind of clear vinegar usually labeled as 'non-brewed condiment' which should make an adequate substitute though I'd suggest using a smaller than normal quantity as it is stronger than most other vinegars. Another alternative would be a clear malt vinegar which will be close though not absolutely the same. Again you may need to reduce the quantity to match the strength.
To replace the dark rice wine vinegar is more tricky. My first suggestion is to try a dark malt vinegar as a replacement.
If you want to try to source the real thing, you might not find it in some UK supermarkets. However, almost every large city in the UK has a China town which will contain a Chinese supermarket where you can stock up on any items you might need. Failing that, try asking at your local Chinese restaurant or take-a-way. They might be able to point you to a supplier. Lastly there are online suppliers in the UK if you google you should be able to find one.
Good stuff, I was wondering whether “rice vinegar” was pretty much the same thing. I’ve got some of the light rice vinegar, I’ll give that a try first.
In terms of replacement, you could also probably try a bit of apple cider vinegar watered down.
rice wine vinegar and rice vinegar are NOT the same. They taste totally different because Rice Wine Vinegar is made from SAKE, Rice Vinegar is not.
"Rice vinegar is also called “rice wine vinegar,” but they are exactly the same thing — just a slightly different name. " according to https://japanesetaste.com/blogs/japanese-taste-blog/rice-wine-vs-rice-vinegar-what-s-the-difference-between-these-japanese-ingredients?region=us&country=us#what-is-rice-vinegar-made-from? and I haven't found evidence to the contrary. https://lifehacker.com/rice-wine-rice-wine-vinegar-rice-vinegar-whats-the-1686638051 agrees.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.783708 | 2011-08-26T11:27:29 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17154",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Jass",
"Lynn Chapais",
"Martha F.",
"Paul D. Waite",
"Reena",
"Ryan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36820",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36821",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36822",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36824",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36829",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36831",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36894",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45194",
"plagueheart",
"scana",
"user46775",
"vmarquet"
],
"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
} |
126536 | Nigari coagulant for non-cultured dairy cheese?
I have used Nigari to make tofu and it works great. Can it be used to make non-cultured dairy cheese as well (mozzarella, feta, paneer, etc.)? I looked online and didn't find examples.
I tried it and it worked out. This is cheese I made. I dissolved the nigari in water to add to the warm milk similar to making tofu. Though note that the cheese had a noticable bitterness from the nigari.
Good to see that it works - exactly as predicted in my answer. It's not paneer, as that is made by acid precipitation of the milk and is specifically unsalted.
Is Nigari not a acidic?
No, it is basically concentrated salt derived from seawater. These are all things like sodium chloride, magnesium chloride, magnesium sulfate, potassium iodide etc. None of these are acidic or basic.
I could add regular salt to hot milk and it would coagulate?
Yes. This is a process called "salting out" in biochemistry - add enough salt and the water availability for the proteins goes down and the proteins precipitate. Heat helps as it causes denaturation (unfolding) of the proteins. Salting out is exactly the role of nigari in making tofu
Other than being noticeably bitter, how did your cheese taste? Also I guess this can be pressed in the same way that tofu can be.
I didn't had any seasonings so bitter and creamy where the only flavors. Not particularly appetizing
Unlike tofu, cheese curds aren't normally precipitated by the addition of salt. They are normally produced by acidification of the milk using a bacterial culture, which grows, producing acids as it does so. The acids then cause the milk solids (proteins) to denature and precipitate.
Salt is often added to the mix at some point, and this can/could help to precipitate the milk solids - in fact you can entirely precipitate milk solids with salt without curdling (this is a process called "salting out" in biochemistry), but this would not make cheese. The salt in cheese is actually added to regulate the types of bacteria that grow in the cheese
You could add the Nigari as the salt content when making cheese (i.e. use it in the place of salt in the recipe, still adding culture) as its very similar to sea-salt (it's produced from sea water after all), and I would be very surprised if no-one has ever used sea salt to make cheese, given that the sea is a pretty handy source of salt for many cultures.
Thanks for the answer. I edited the question to specify for non cultured cheeses like feta, paneer etc.
@VictorFeagins Feta and paneer still produced by acidification of the milk. Feta is traditionally a cultured cheese too. Mozarella by addition of rennet, which is made of digestive enzymes that break up the protein into small non-soluble chunks. I don't know of any that aren't made by acidification or rennet addition
Nigari contains calcium chloride and magnesium chloride, both of which are coagulants used in things like tofu. Calcium chloride is also used for this purpose in cheesemaking.
It would seem like a very salty way of delivering those 2 compounds, but it's not surprising that it works - if you use enough of it - and it's likely that much of the (NaCl) salt ends up in the whey so your final product may not be too salty.
You can buy nigari that is almost 100% magnesium chloride and contains only a negligible amount of sodium chloride (common salt) or calcium chloride.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.784007 | 2024-01-31T22:33:41 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/126536",
"authors": [
"Victor Feagins",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101668",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104899",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"tell"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
37122 | Why does freshly slaughtered chicken needs to be cooled down before cooking?
Today I bought a chicken that was slaughtered less than an hour before, so it was still warm. The shopkeeper said it needs to stay in the freezer for a couple of hours to cool off before I proceeded with cooking. Why is that?
The consensus from sites I have seen that appear fairly credible is that you need a resting period to avoid toughness in the final product. I speculate this is to allow rigor mortis to come and go.
According to Girl's Guide to Butter's article Chicken Butchering 101:
And now the final step in the butchering process – put them in a
larger tub filled with cold water (ours comes straight from the ground
and is very cold), and let them sit and relax till the evening (if
you’ve butchered in the morning) or overnight ...
Note that it is important to let your chickens rest and relax in this
fashion before cooking them, because, if you cook them right away (not
that most of you, unlike me, would want to), they are likely to be
tough.
Similarly, The Self Sufficient Home Acre's How to Butcher a Chicken article says:
[P]ut it in the refrigerator for 24 hours before cooking. If the meat
is not allowed to relax, it will be tough. If you plan to freeze the
chicken, you can leave it in the refrigerator overnight or you can
freeze it right away. Just be sure to pull the frozen bird out and let
it thaw completely before cooking it. I have had good luck with this
method.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.784266 | 2013-09-26T20:17:25 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37122",
"authors": [
"Adrienne",
"Anthony Quaglieri",
"Rah",
"Ryan",
"Shankar Gurav",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87222",
"user3549018"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
50249 | Why do my huge bone broth ice cubes become tiny puddles when melted?
I made some bone broth soup and froze it in ice-cube trays.
When I melt these huge ice cubes (via microwaving), they melt down to a tiny puddle of bone broth.
What gives?
We (humans) can be pretty bad at estimating volume by eye, especially if you're putting a bunch of cubes in one bowl - they don't pack efficiently (there's a lot of air in there). You might not actually be losing that much volume.
For example, I just dumped out an ice cube tray full of cubes, and they looked like a bit over 2 cups, but once melted (and I checked by weight, I didn't lose any!), they're about one cup:
The ice is a bit (~7%) less dense than water, but the rest of that apparent 2x reduction in volume is just the packing inefficiency. Depending on the size/shape of your cubes and the size of the vessel you're melting in, it could get exaggerated even more.
That's a nice demonstration for kosher vs table salt too. Same thing just different :)
Except salt doesn't melt, but... yeah.
Note if you freeze clean water, you get solid ice cubes. If you freeze various solutions, you often get snowy sludge on the surface, with a lot of air in it, before the remainder freezes solid and the sludge hardens to rock.
Not sure if this is much of a culinary question, but I'll take a stab at it.
One of two things are happening here...
1. You're overheating it. Some of the liquid has evaporated off.
2. A cube takes up more volume than it's liquid version.
I suspect a bit of both. Try reducing the power, and increasing the time. Or melt it a little bit, stir it around, melt it some more, repeat.... That'll reduce the effect of 1.
A simple way to see if (1) is really a problem is to simply let a cube melt in the fridge.
@Batman I wouldn't trust such an experiment. The fridge has a very dry air and the ice cube will melt very slowly there. You'll get extra evaporation in the fridge even though there is not much heat. Fridges dry stuff out.
Good point. you could just put the cube in a plastic bag o rsomething to avoid this.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.784434 | 2014-12-01T22:48:21 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50249",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Batman",
"Heather Blunden",
"Jolenealaska",
"Meghan Wallace",
"Reliefmiami12",
"Rik",
"Roy Gilbert",
"SF.",
"Stewart Liddell",
"Subrina El-kerdi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120187",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120193",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"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
} |
19032 | Why do hamburger patties have ridges on one side?
Why do hamburgers have one streaked/furrowed and one smooth side? Which side should be cooked first in a pan?
I'm talking about their shape, not their color or anything similar. If you look at a raw patty from its side it looks like the drawing below.
---------------------------
| _ _ _ _ _ _ |
|_| |_| |_| |_| |_| |_| |_|
You can see the ridges I'm talking about on this photo.
This is some regional thing? If you are referring to pre-made meat patties, perhaps the manufactures machine has groves in it as some deign limitation. Certainly when made by hand there is no requirement to grove it. I know of no cooking reason either?
The main reason that your burger has these ridges on only one side is simply manufacturing. The ridges are put into the patties to prevent it from the middle coming up on you like bologna does sometimes when you fry it, and to also promote even heating and cooking. The only real reason most companies have for putting it only on one side, is that one flat side is the side they use to move the unfrozen patty around. There is a spatula type device that moves them around during production. If they slide something under the side with ridges before the patty is frozen it would mess it up before it was frozen. So you only see the pattern on one side on most of your mass produced frozen patties. Secondary reason is smaller but, some companies place pieces of wax paper between patties for easier separation after freezing, and the smooth side is the side that the patty rests on during or after freezing because it sticks to the wax paper more easily.
What sort of streaking? A pattern of lumps or is there color streaking?
If there's color streaking and the meat is supposed to be raw, the meat's probably bad.
If there ridges or a pattern on one side it's from the hamburger patty press.
It does not matter which side you cook first. While with most meats you want to cook the "presentation side" (the side that will be up on a plate) first, with hamburger, because it's usually inside a bun and hidden, you don't generally cook one side differently than the other for any particular reason.
UPDATE:
The hamburger patty press uses dimples on one side (which produce the ridged pattern) in order to increase the pressure on the meat and the resulting compression of the patty. A more compressed patty results in more efficient packing (the same mass fits in a smaller volume) and a more stable patty (less likely to fall apart during cooking).
If you've ever seen roadwork which includes preparing a dirt surface to be layered with gravel or asphalt, there is a compression process involving what I think is called a sheep's foot roller, which is like a steam roller, except the roller/compression drum/wheel is studded with "feet" that result in a waffle-like appearance in the rolled dirt. This is done because this pattern increases the compression possible on any given portion of earth, creating a significantly more stable surface on which the road surface will be layed.
The hamburger patty press uses exactly the same technique for pretty much the same reason.
if you look closely at the Burger Press available here you will see the pattern that you are asking about built into the press. The lines are also in the bottom of the handle. The indentions and the dimple actual help promote even cooking through the meat. Also (according to the manufacturer) the dimple prevents the middle of the burger from swelling.
which doesn't explain why the pattern exists only on one side (or rather, why is the press designed to apply the pattern on only one side, and not the other). I've seen patties that have patterns on both sides, but they're not as common as those having them on one side only (or none at all).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.784749 | 2011-11-20T20:58:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19032",
"authors": [
"Buthaina",
"Jared Strapp",
"Nemo",
"Olivier Cailloux",
"Peckish",
"Rich Seviora",
"Skip",
"TFD",
"basher",
"framebit",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41300",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41335",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41338",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5770",
"jwenting"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
122880 | "Don't salt lentils while cooking": true or myth?
We've all heard the advice: don't add salt when cooking lentils, because they'll toughen or not become soft or variations on that theme. For example, on lentils.org:
Be sure to season with salt after cooking – if salt is added before, the lentils will become tough.
The thing is, the same advice is given for basically all dried legumes, but Serious Eats debunked that - at least for beans (specifically, cannellini beans). But lentils aren't much like beans, neither in size, cooked texture, nor even really in cooking processes.1 So I'm not sure if the Serious Eats experiment really applies to lentils.
Has anyone either confirmed or debunked the don't-add-salt thing specifically for lentils?
1For example, soaking lentils in my experience just adds to the preparation time: it doesn't seem to make an appreciable difference in how long it takes to cook them, but it adds the time you had to take to soak them.
I can only answer based on personal experience. I salt my lentils lightly at the beginning of cooking, and have never had an issue with them failing to soften or with the skins being tough. This goes for grey lentils, puy lentils, beluga lentils, and various types of dal.
That said, I haven't done a scientific test of cooking times; if it takes 10% longer for my dal to cook because I salted the water, I don't know that I'd notice.
I recommend against salting them heavily just because you might end up with lentils that are too salty.
If you look at lentil recipes, there is not agreement on whether to salt or not. In fact, this one begins with a salt brine...others say salt makes beans tough. I think the salt making beans (lentils included) tough is a myth has been debunked. This post refers to Harold McGee, who I would trust on the issue. It is acid that keeps beans from softening. The real issue with salt is that evaporation during cooking will increase your salt concentration. If you don't keep track of this, you can end up with overly salty beans. That, in and of itself, might be a good reason to wait, almost until completion, to salt your beans.
Thank you for your response, but with respect, did you even read my question? I know people have debunked the salt thing for beans. I'm asking specifically about lentils. Not beans. Lentils. You know, tiny little lens-shaped things, come in various colors? So small that soaking isn't needed and nobody in their right mind is gonna sit there counting burst vs. unburst like Serious Eats did?
@Marti I read your question. Lentils are legumes, along with many other variety of beans...small beans, but beans none-the-less.
The fact that lentils are a type of legume is about as culinarily useful as saying that tomatoes are botanically a fruit: perfectly true, but also completely irrelevant.
Also, I covered all of this in my question, so again: did you even read it?
@Marti I'm not here to argue, take the info I provided and make use of it, or don't. From what I've learned salt does not make lentils (or any other bean) tough. That seems to be in agreement with FuzzyChef, another person on here with quite a bit of experience. I'm really not sure what more you want from me.
Old beans and lentils are difficult to get to cook properly. Salt is not the culprit.
Well I just learned the hard way. DO NOT ADD SALT AT THE BEGINNING! I didn't read the recipe all the way through and I am cooking lentils for the first time. I always add salt to regular beans with no issues. I have lentils cooking on the stove right now and couldn't understand, that after 25 minutes they were like I was eating small raw peas. Then I read the recipe through. I feel like an idiot. I checked again at 45 minutes and they are slightly (very slightly) better. I got nothing to lose, so I'm going for an hour. Lesson learned the hard way!
If you’ve never cooked lentils before, how do you know that the salt was the issue? Particularly given the other sources in answers to this question, suggesting that adding salt at the beginning does not toughen lentils?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.785327 | 2022-12-31T23:51:35 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122880",
"authors": [
"Marti",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
7866 | What kind of flour is needed for strudel/fillo dough?
In Hungary, they sell "rétesliszt", strudel-flour. What makes it better for strudel? Is it higher gluten? Lower? Softer? Harder? Which flour in a typical (USA) supermarket comes closest to rétesliszt?
I know from experience that all-purpose flour sucks for making strudel dough, and for that reason I usually just buy the frozen fillo (phyllo) stuff, but it's really not the same thing at all - it's too paper-thin and the sheets are too small. In a pinch, puff pastry rolled out real thin can also work, but the result will be a very German-style strudel.
Your best bet is a stone ground bread flour or hard flour in the US that means finding a local mill. At your standard supermarket a high protein bread flour is your only option if you can find it there. I generally have to venture out to a Whole Foods market to find that as my "local" grocery store doesn't carry it. You could also try Tipo 00, I have run across it in some specialty stores. You are looking for the highest gluten content you can find so that you can get the elasticity you need to make proper strudel.
Italian Tipo 00 is a rating of fineness of the grind. There are 00 pastry flours with very low gluten content and 00 pizza flours with much higher protein. Looking at http://www.pannonmill.hu/indexen.php?f=31&pr=6 I'm pretty sure it needs to be high protein.
Thank you for that bit of information, I was under the impression that Tipo 00 was only a high protein flour, I did not know they also had softer varieties.
(Since I haven't gotten an authoritative answer in the past twelve years, I'll post what I've been able to figure out.)
Most sources agree that rétesliszt is ground less finely than plain flour: it's not quite as coarse as wheat farina ("Cream of Wheat"), but it's definitely enough of a texture difference that you can feel it in the flour. Plain flour clumps when you pinch it; strudel-flour does not.
Some sources also say the strudel-flour has more gluten than regular flour, but that's not a difference that the average consumer can discern via a pinch test.
What I still don't know is how to substitute for or approximate strudel-flour if you live in a country where they've never heard of such a thing, but that might be a separate question.
In Los Angeles-- California Milling-- 50 lb sack of BENCH BOSS-- Can be rolled and stretched as thin as a sheel nylon
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.785665 | 2010-10-05T20:46:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7866",
"authors": [
"Nanette",
"ThinkingCook",
"Varuuknahl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2643"
],
"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
} |
41297 | Which caffeine-free tea herbs have tannins?
I like both the flavor and the social rituals associated with tea, but I don't want to consume caffeine on a regular basis, so I only drink it rarely. And I don't like many of the popular herbal teas.
I recently indulged in a cup of flavored tea in a Turkish style tea salon, then switched to flavored rooibos. And then I realized why the rooibos wasn't cutting it for me, despite all the added sugar and flavor: I was missing the tannins from the real stuff. I generally like astringent, even bitter tastes, and it is probably what makes tea tasty for me.
What herb will give me a substitute for tea such that
it has no caffeine and similar stimulants (I don't care about arguments how chirality makes theine different from caffeine)
it has tannins or other sources of astringent flavor
but without having too assertive flavor of its own (for example, I drink wormwood tea sometimes, but it is heavy stuff and not really versatile)?
Did you purposely spell caffeine in as many different ways as possible? :)
Also, while I realize that no decaffeination process can remove all traces of caffeine, if all you're trying to avoid is the stimulant effects, then a decaf tea should be perfectly suitable. (If you're hypersensitive to caffeine --like my father was-- then decaf would still be too much caffeine, but for most normal people, such trace amounts of caffeine would have no effect.)
@Marti I guess the spelling in my head must be confused because the same word exists with different spellings in different languages. I didn't notice that I had chosen different ones within the same question, but right now, I can't pick the one which is correct in English. Feel free to correct it :) And I have never come across decaffeinated tea, only decaffeinated coffee.
No decaf tea???? Where exactly are you located?
Oak perhaps?
I know oak chips are added to wine and other alcohol for flavor (originally aging in oak barrels, but in this day and age oak chips are likely easier to source and use). Oak adds tannins to the liquid, and the oak chips sourced for home-brewing are chosen to be food-safe, and the flavor is probably both generally good and also neutral, or perhaps I mean flexible, for it to work with so many different brewed drinks. I see no particular reason a tea or extract can't be made of these oak chips, or such chips used to add tannic elements to other teas.
If you have access to oak trees, I think acorns might also work - bitter acorns are edible, but only after soaking until the tannins are down to a manageable quantity - the liquid is usually discarded, but that's because it is very strong, dilution might make a reasonable flavor. The acorns are not poisonous, or else soaking would be about making them safe rather than palatable, and it takes a lot of soaking (several changes of water), so you should get quite a lot of... tannic extract? per volume of acorns that you can use to supplement other teas.
Raspberry leaves, strawberry leaves, and broadleaf plantain all make a somewhat tannic and astringent but relatively neutral tea. I've never tried to find them commercially, however. I do see raspberry leaf tea in stores on occasion, it's popular for soothing various "women's ailments."
Calamus root is probably my favorite bitter herb, but it is rather assertive in flavor and many (myself included) do find that it has a stimulant effect.
I know that you have mentioned rooibos (/red bush, as it is also called) already, but have you tried steeping it for longer?
In my experience, rooibos can be steeped for much longer than black tea without tasting overpowering, and I believe that a longer brew brings out more of the tannins that you're after. I have had a delicious loose rooibos blended with spices, but brewing for a few minutes doesn't give it enough kick. However, leaving it for 10 minutes is great, and doesn't 'spoil' it like (IMO) that would do to normal tea.
Of course, it will get cooler, so you might want to brew it double-strength and top up with freshly-boiled water (or reheat it, if you are happy to do that).
Good luck in your tannin quest!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.785872 | 2014-01-20T20:19:03 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41297",
"authors": [
"Daniël van den Berg",
"Ferit Tuzer",
"GingerRaney ",
"Jeorje",
"Marti",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96233",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97754",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97761",
"rumtscho",
"situs slot online spam"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
122550 | Older recipe using bakers chocolate asking for 4 squares of chocolate - is that equivalent to current squares?
I have an older recipe that calls for 4 squares of bakers chocolate. Will that be the same as the current squares, or do I need to increase the amount of chocolate?
https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/84886/28879
Welcome, Laura! I think this question will be closed as duplicate, which in your case is a good thing: We already have the answers you are looking for ;-)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.786181 | 2022-12-05T18:00:39 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122550",
"authors": [
"Stephie",
"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
} |
84901 | Digestive cookies - substitute in South Africa?
What is a good substitute for UK-style 'digestive cookies' in South Africa? It's for a crumb crust for a chocolate mousse cake.
What's the application? Are you serving them with something or using them in a recipe? If it's a recipe it would help if you could post it.
http://twistedfood.co.uk/triple-chocolate-mocha-mousse-cake/
link to the recipe
related: graham cracker substitutes https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/50371/1672
You'd probably get away with any kind of sweet hard biscuit.
I'm not South African, so I can't help you if you want a local biscuit, but looking at Woolworth's online shop suggests you might actually be able to find Digestives, or there's Bourbons, Shortbread, or even Ginger Nuts if you fancy trying something a little different from the recipe.
Note that although the recipe calls them cookies, it's just using the American term for biscuit (even though it seems to be a British website).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.786250 | 2017-10-09T09:54:57 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84901",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"GdD",
"Mathilda",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62083"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
123161 | Should substituting about half of the sugar with erythritol make cookies lose all crispness?
There are some chocolate chip cookies I've made a couple of times made of (clarified) butter, sugar, oatmeal plus (white or whole wheat) flour, (a small amount of) egg, chocolate chips, vanilla, salt and baking powder, and it's crunchy and crumbly.
They aren't that sugary compared to store-bought cookies, with the sugar percentage without the chocolate being <20%, but it was enough the get the dough crunchy. I read that erythritol actually imparts similar crunchiness as sugar, although without browning, so I replaced ~54% of the sugar with ~1.43 the weight in erythritol (which should have yielded about the same sweetness).
I baked them at the same temperature (160 Celsius/320 Fahrenheit) and for the same length of time, 23 minutes + 15 minutes drying/cooling using the oven's fan (while they're still warm which should help water evaporation). These turned out not crunchy at all, but rather chewy like some dense bread. I think the sweetness is also less noticeable than it should have been.
Is that an unusual behavior for pure erythritol? I forgot the erythritol brand's name as it was filled from a big bag at the store (it was Ery-something), but I did look it up quickly while there and I don't remember whether it mentioned any blended additives. I did notice this thing melts immediately almost into a "syrup" when it touches your tongue, while I read that erythritol dissolves in water but somewhat less than sugar.
What may be the issue? Is it simply that I left too little free sugar in the dough, or perhaps the erythritol might contain additional substances which affected its chemical properties?
I'd guess it's that you added the wrong proportion of erythritol - I think (without having used it) that you need to do a 1:1 volume substitution rather than a 1:1.43 weight to get approx similar sweetness.
@bob1 It's actually cited as having between 60% and 70% the sweetness of sucrose, so 1:1 would result in lower sweetness, but I'm mainly asking about the texture.
Note the difference between volume and mass/weight... The wikipedia article says to do a 1:1 volume substitution for the same sweetness, and should result in the right texture is my understanding. Most recipes I can see use a 1:1 or a 1:1.25 and an additional sweetner. However, it doesn't seem to caramelize, so you might not be able to achieve crunchy!
@bob1 I went by the sweetness per mass ratio, so I replaced the amount of sucrose with the amount of erythritol which should result in a similar level of sweetness. The thing is that I read it might make cookies too hard (which is not necessarily "crunchy", but still), so the fact they became very soft is strange.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.786357 | 2023-01-27T18:44:29 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123161",
"authors": [
"TLSO",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87262"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
45730 | Is there such a thing as too much vanilla?
I have been making cookies for decades and I have noticed a dramatic change in quality based on the usage of vanilla. Using weak vanilla or just not enough will lead to bland cookies, oftentimes regardless of the usage of other ingredients. This has lead me to add twice to three times the amount of vanilla that is called for in my recipes. So far, I have been happy with the results. Is this a common experience? Is there a recognizable upper limit to the addition on vanilla? Or is it that, since I am a fan of vanilla, I am simply making cookies to my personal taste?
I've found that using too much extract causes a metallic aftertaste, but that may be more due to the alcohol used for the extract. Also, too much vanilla flavor overloads the taste buds - you can no longer taste the actual cookie!
I LOVE VANILLA it s great don't worry about your cookies they all turn out great! Just keep making your delicious cookies and wear a bright smile on your face.
I find that at least artificial vanillin (not castoreum), if seriously overused, though I like it in moderate amount, makes me sniff and wonder if somebody stepped in dogfoul...
How much is too much is a totally subjective thing. Yes, there is such a thing as too much, but where that point is will vary among tasters. There is no objective question here to answer. No one answer to the question will be "correct".
I really like vanilla, and I like flavors to be on the rich side, so I tend to be a bit heavy-handed with vanilla. A few (very few) times I have been surprised to have that heavy-handedness criticized. Why would they not like my amazing vanilla ice cream? They experience vanilla differently than I do. What is ideal for me may be overdone, even cloying, to my neighbor.
So, when it comes to various flavorings (vanilla is just one of many), get to know your own "likes" and what your audience likes. After that, you can ignore what the recipe says and just do what feels right to you, knowing your audience and the potency of your ingredients as well.
LD50 for vanillin is about 1.5g/kg (rats), so you'd have a hard time poisoning yourself. The alcohol vanilla is dissolved in is more toxic. Too much of that'll make your cookie dough soggy.
@WayfaringStranger Nice! Yes, the LD50 would objectively be too much vanilla! :)
great story, I feel the same way, I was just wondering if I was unwittingly killing my food.
Even if the price of vanilla has dropped significantly over the past years (at least in Europe), vanilla is still considered a quite expensive flavour. Perhaps that is also why recipes often operate with smaller amounts of vanilla than what is felt to be right.
Just as with any other spice or natural flavouring, it is also very difficult to determine a fixed amount for a recipe. Depending on the quality, one vanilla pod or one teaspoon of vanilla extract can be within a wide range of actual amount of flavour.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.786581 | 2014-07-20T17:13:52 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45730",
"authors": [
"Beatrice",
"Hoytman",
"Jolenealaska",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57141",
"metacubed",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
129369 | Is my sauerkraut fermenting safely?
I put up a batch of sauerkraut using red cabbage. I’m concerned because I didn’t see any bubbling at first. Previous batches began bubbling almost immediately, and a lot.
This batch seemed to be doing nothing for a couple of days. It’s in a 1 gallon glass jar with an air lock, in a dark cupboard.
After two or three days I checked it and it was overflowing out the air lock (I didn’t leave much space). Does this indicate good fermentation or could Clostridium botulinum do that?
After two weeks it’s still red. Does that indicate that it’s acidic enough to prevent Clostridium botulinum growth?
Initially I wasn’t getting enough juice from the raw cabbage so I added salt water.
For flavoring I used juniper berries, black pepper, cardamom, garlic powder, a little home-made habanero pepper sauce, and a little bit of pickle juice for the dill flavor. I don’t know if the acidity of the pickle juice affected fermentation.
How much salt did you use in your brine?
@Brōtsyorfuzthrāx something just below the human LD50. Clare learned cooking from Bender.
Some visual references for red cabbage sauerkraut here. Also for correct salt ratio, which you don't seem to have given any data for, despite attempts at humor in the comments by others. https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/63075/34242 It should be getting pinker rather than remaining dark red.
Hi Clare and welcome to Seasoned Advice!
Some fermentations start quickly, whilst others take a little longer. It varies depending on what you're fermenting, and when and where you're fermenting it. This is part of the reason salt is used in fermentation. The salt helps keep various salt-intolerant organisms at bay until the salt-tolerant lactobacteria can take over and become the dominate organism in the environment.
The lactobacteria release carbon dioxide gas as they digest the sugars in the food. Then they ahem fart out bubbles of CO2, which creates a blanket of heavier than air, gas on the surface of the ferment. This is what displaces and forces the air / oxygen out of the airlock and it's also the reason why people shouldn't constantly be opening the lid / airlock and stirring their ferments.
An active ferment can mean that the brine makes its way into and out of the airlock. In such cases you should remove the airlock, and cover the ferment as you resterilise and refill the airlock. Clostridium botulinum can also create gas as it grows, but whether it creates enough gas to make sauerkraut overflow in just three days is kind of beside the point.
The real issue here is that no one can give you a definitive answer to whether the overflow was caused by fermentation or something else. Given the time frame involved and the ingredients used, I would go as far as saying that it sounds like fermentation is the likely suspect (I've had the same happen a few times in the past) but the only way you'll get an informed, reliable answer is to test the pH of your fermentation. At the very least, you could use some litmus test paper specifically for low pH but the colour of what is being tested can make test strips unreliable.
I'd say you're far better off getting a cheap electronic pH tester, which can be had for less than $10, and assuming you verify their accuracy, should give you a reliable way of telling whether your ferments are safe. Cheap pH testers often have limited lifespans though, as their non-replacable bulbs can get old or dry out. So personally, I opted for a more expensive but much longer lasting and more accurate Apera PH60, which can have its bulb replaced.
After two weeks it’s still red. Does that indicate that it’s acidic
enough to prevent Clostridium botulinum growth?
It could indicate that it's acidic but again, it doesn't guarantee that it is acidic, or acidic enough to be safe.
Initially I wasn’t getting enough juice from the raw cabbage so I
added salt water.
On the subject of salt... always make sure you calculate and measure your salt percentage properly. As I said at the start of the post, salt is there for more than just taste but a lot of new fermenters just eyeball quantities or they use unreliable, volumetric measurements. You should also try to use salt that is free of any additives such as anti-caking agents as they can inhibit fermentation.
For flavoring I used juniper berries, black pepper, cardamom, garlic powder, a little home-made habanero pepper sauce, and a little bit of pickle juice for the dill flavor. I don’t know if the acidity of the pickle juice affected fermentation.
The recipe sounds nice! Without knowing the quantity and acidity of the pickle juice though, it's not possible to say whether it inhibited the fermentation in a significant way.
The cabbage juice being red does indicate that the mix is acidic. Whether it's acidic enough can be hard to tell just with red cabbage, but it does get darker as the acid gets stronger. Botulism doesn't produce acid, so if it's getting steadily darker that's a good sign. If it turns purple, blue, green, or yellow then something is definitely going wrong. Note that the simplest way to avoid botulism in sauerkraut is to not seal it air tight until after the bubbles get going. It doesn't really need to be sealed at all, but sealing does reduce evaporation.
@Perkins "Note that the simplest way to avoid botulism in sauerkraut is to not seal it air tight until after the bubbles get going." Could you provide a citation for that please? It doesn't seam to make sense to me... I'm happy to be proven wrong though.
Botulism can only grow in an oxygen-free environment. Once the lactobacillus gets going, then the acidity level will suppress botulism whether there's oxygen or not. You do still want to keep the dust out since some molds and yeasts can adapt to the high salt and acid levels given enough time. Air tight does suppress a lot of the bad things other than botulism. It will also make yeast produce alcohol instead of vinegar. The lactobacillus doesn't care. Traditional sauerkraut crocks don't seal air tight, they just have a lid and a weight to keep things submerged.
The reason I asked for a citation is that I would like to know whether sealing the container actually increases the chances of C. Bot growing. An unsealed container is more likely to have the CO2 in its head space disturbed, and is therefore more likely to have a higher amount of oxygen present. But I would have thought that would only apply, in a significant way at least, to the head space and not under the water line where the C. Bot may be able to grow. I'd also argue that the advantages in using an airlock outweigh the drawbacks.
I also just wanted to point out that some traditional sauerkraut crocks, specifically the ones with a lid that sits in a water filled channel around the rim, do seal air tight... but the lack of the use of air locks in traditional fermentation may be the results of a lack of access to the cheap, high quality air locks we have today, rather than choice. Having said that though, I do concede that the use of an airlock is not essential but like proper sterilisation procedures, it's simply a way of increasing the probability that the fermentation will be successful and have a desirable outcome.
I don't know of any studies specific to sauerkraut, but you'll find a lot of warnings in the home canning section about vacuum sealing without proper sterilization growing botulism whereas leaving the same thing unsealed does not. If the oxygen increase only affected the headspace then there'd be no need for airlocks. An air-tight seal though suppresses a big swath of the things you don't want growing in it other than botulism, and enough salt will suppress the botulism enough for the lactobacillus to thoroughly outcompete it. So sealing is better unless you doubt the salt.
Here's a good way to explain the headspace: The oxygen exchange rate has to do with surface area. That's why if you take a lot of common fishbowl designs and fill them to the brim, your fish will suffocate, but if you don't fill them past the widest point, then everybody's fine. And that's why alcohol fermenting jug designs tend to have narrow necks, even though that makes cleaning them far harder. And why they need to be filled full or you're far more likely to get vinegar. The airlocks everybody uses narrow the gas-exchange area even further while still preventing pressure buildup.
For pickling you need a particular amount of salt in the saline solution for the food not to spoil. The standard is 6% salt by volume for meat and 8% for vegetables. This means you need a scale to weigh the salt. Different brands of salt vary widely regarding the volume of the salt. It would be best if you weighed the salt.
8% salt solution means 80 grams of salt per litre of brine. If you consider a gallon to be 5 liters then that means 400 grams of salt. Seeing as an ounce is 30 grams that means a 5-liter gallon amount of brine needs 13.33 ounces of salt.
If you consider a gallon as 4 litres then the amount of salt is 320 grams or 10,66 ounces of salt. Do use finely-grained salt, not coarse or flakey. The finer salt mixes best with the water.
If at all possible try to use a fine salt free of mineral additives and especially free of anti-caking agents. Anti-caking agent has a way of producing sediment at the bottom of your brine. As pure a fine sodium chloride as you can source.
The mineral-rich salt common in certain types of finishing salt has a habit of just putting some off-flavours into brines. Won't kill you, just not quite what you want
I think there are several issues with your answer. First of all, pickling and fermentation are not the same thing but perhaps that was a typo? Also an 8% brine solution for fermentation is very high. Speaking of using brine... Most traditional sauerkraut recipes use just the moisture released from the cabbage itself. With maybe a small amount of supplemental brine in the event that the cabbage doesn't release enough liquid to be fully submerged. So I think that give such large quantities as examples is not the best. And finally, your answer doesn't actually address the question being asked.
8% is very high. :) You wouldn't have to worry about the vegetables going bad any time soon, though. But they probably wouldn't ever ferment. Salty permacabbage. Might be good in soups.
@Brōtsyorfuzthrāx I did about 8-9% once with cucumbers and yeah, perfectly good way to preserve them. They stayed nice and crisp even. And the flavors from the onions, dill, and peppers mixed in nicely, but they didn't get the slightest bit sour, even after a year. Also, whatever dish you put them in, leave out the salt. There will be more than enough salt...
@Perkins Great to know. I wonder if that works with tomatoes and other berries that I typically wouldn't want to ferment, but might like to keep something like fresh.
@Brōtsyorfuzthrāx Technically the answer is yes... Most people don't particularly like super salty fruit though... And whereas vegetables can be soaked to remove the excess salt before use, fruit's higher water content makes me suspect that wouldn't be effective. Immersing fruits in honey or other, saturated sugar solutions is more likely to have pleasant results I would think.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.786842 | 2024-10-14T17:49:07 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129369",
"authors": [
"Brōtsyorfuzthrāx",
"Ecnerwal",
"Hollis Hurlbut",
"Perkins",
"RonJohn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63671"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
67852 | Creating a specific cream for a cake?
My grandma used to make a waffle cake with chocolate cream filling, Romanian/Hungarian/Russian style.
My mom is trying to recreate it, without success. But she doesn't exactly know how to make the cream.
I had one recipe with sweet cream and chocolate pudding, but it didn't work well — it was too wet.
I had another recipe with cocoa and halva, where you cook them both with some water, butter and sugar, and it too didn't work — also too wet, and too chocolatey.
How can I find a decent recipe for the filling? Are there any names I should be searching for?
Hello hulkingtickets, as your question stands it'll most likely be closed as primarily opinion based. To make the question more objective, post the recipes that you have already tried and objective criteria in which you want to improve it. It would also help if you were able to describe the cream are trying to emulate in more detail.
Could the filling have been a mousse? They're creamy, with air whipped in.
@Jay : or you could consider this to be more like the 'name that dessert' type questions, and we could try to figure out what it is based on the description.
If you google 'oblatne' you should find many recipes for the chocolate cream filling, assuming this is the dessert you are trying to make. Ukrainian waffle cake may also yield some results.
@Cindy probably a good answer? Seems to match the description.
I take it your grandma is no longer around to ask? Also, exactly where was your grandma from? (Granted, the cuisines are pretty similar for the three countries you list, but the languages are as different as it gets.)
Thanks for all the help.It's probably oblatne like @Cindy said.@Marti: my grandma have been in a few countries in Europe in all the mess that was WW2.
I assume we are talking about a variety of the Eastern European treat called Oblatne (or a variety of that name)? Which consists of five to eight layers of store-bought wafers (not "waffles" - in some languages it's the same term for both, I know), "glued together" by a fatty or caramelly cream, pressed for a few hours and cut into little diamonds? Like below:
Source
There are two main methods to create the cream, one based on condensed milk, dulce de leche or caramel, the other on butter, margarine or shortening. Often with an addition of nuts, chocolate and a dash of alcohol. Often, some raw eggs are included as well, so take the appropriate measures for these recipes.
The common trait is low humidity in the filling, because otherwise the wafers become soggy and - worst case - could even disintegrate.
Recipe requests are off-topic here, but a creative use of the terms wafer, cake, country of origin or some neighboring country, oblatne or oblate and your preferred filling ingredients in your favourite seach engine should set you off in the right direction.
Here's a recipe for a cream I use in Dobos torta; it's thick and could work well in the nápolyi/ostya (waffle cake, oblatne):
4 eggs
200 g powdered sugar
235 g unsalted butter
240 g dark chocolate
17 g vanilla sugar (in the US, you can buy this in European specialty grocery stores)
To make the cream:
Crack the eggs open and put them in the top of a double broiler.
Heat it up until it’s hot but not boiling. Pull it off the heat and
beat it with a whisk until cool.
Beat the butter until very soft and creamy (you can use a food
processor).
Mix the butter and the chocolate and melt in the microwave (3x half
a minute at 200 watts, mix each time).
Mix the vanilla sugar and the melted chocolate, then mix in the
whipped eggs.
Your chocolate cream is ready for spreading.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.787715 | 2016-03-29T15:09:29 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67852",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Charity Carson",
"Cindy",
"Cynthia Given",
"Daniel Bound",
"Fabian Ambriz STUDENT",
"Jay",
"Joe",
"Lily Catron",
"Marti",
"Sarah Vetrano",
"Steve Bennett",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162954",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162956",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162957",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162958",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21969",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"hulkingtickets",
"paul block"
],
"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
} |
28061 | PA style fried chicken with no breading or batter, just a thin amber color crisp coating
When I was a little fellow I lived in the southeastern part of Pennsylvania. Many diners that we ate at had a fried chicken that had just a thin crispy amber coating. The order was usually a half of a chicken. I have been living in North Carolina for 24 years now and have not come across anything close. I would like to know how to make it.
I've lived in the Pittsburgh area all of my life. My great grandma and grandma always made fried chicken the same way. They just tossed the chicken pieces with a dusting of flour, salt and pepper, and pan fried it, in a VERY scant amount of oil, skin side down first, and then turning. Usually they would cover it near the end of cooking, after adding just a small amount of water to the pan and turning it skin side down, to get all the delicious gooey fond off the bottom of the pan.
I can't claim familiarity with that particular area's style of fried chicken, but I have two ideas that may meet that description:
Korean fried chicken wings with ultra-thin crust a la http://www.seriouseats.com/2012/10/the-food-lab-korean-fried-chicken.html
Double fried chicken wings with no batter a la http://www.seriouseats.com/2012/01/the-food-lab-how-to-make-best-buffalo-wings-fry-again-ultimate-crispy-deep-fried-buffalo-wings.html
I know these are recipes for wings, but I would assume this would translate well to other pieces of chicken. Both of them start with a neutral base that you can modify with sauces etc. to your liking. I'm afraid I don't really have a good recipe for breaded fried chicken though, something about good Korean fried chicken makes everything else pale in comparison ;)
Here it is. Straight from my sister in law who was born in Pennsylvania. The first time I saw her cook fried chicken I though she was crazy, no coating and no breading.
Heat the skillet and add just enough oil to cover the bottom of the skillet. If you were lucky enough to plan ahead, you could soak the chicken in salted water, but she didn't. She took it out of the wrapper, rinsed it off and tossed in in the skillet with the hot oil. Salt and pepper the chicken and let it cook on low to medium. Hot enough to cook, but hot enough to scorch the chicken.
When the chicken is browned with a nice 'ccoked' browning, turn it over and cook the other side. Salt and pepper each time you turn it. Cook all sides. It will take about twenty to thirty minutes to cook this way, but the results are terrific. She calls it Yankee Fried Chicken.
When the chicken is cooked through (check by inserting knife into thigh or leg. If the meat or bone is still pink, even slightly pink, cook it longer.
When browned on all sides, remove chicken from pan and set aside. Cover loosely with foil. If necessary, add a tablespoon of butter to the drippings in the pan. Stir in flour, salt and pepper to make a roux. You can make 'Yankee Gravy" by adding hot water to the roux. You can also use chicken stock,
That's how you do it.
Here's the real deal fried chicken without breading... best to use legs or thighs. Soak chicken with skin on at least overnight in a sealed container with buttermilk, plenty of sea salt, and pepper to taste, next day, place chicken on a rack to drain/dry.. heat a good frying pan to medium high heat, not high, with sunflower or peanut oil, enough so it will be half way up the side of the chicken pieces in the pan. When the oil is hot, add your skin on chicken pieces, turning every 2-3 minutes until done, this will be the crispiest, juiciest and most delicious chicken you will ever eat! The skin is the breading and it seals all the flavor in the chicken pieces. Enjoy!
This chicken is the bomb, so crispy and delicious!
I've been cooking for years, I take my chicken, put what seasonings I want on it, then coat the chicken with honey and put it in the deep fryer, no breading, no flour or anything. Cooking is sort of my hobby. Experiment with what you want, keep in mind every cooking method is unique to the person doing it and or writing it.
Does this result in a thin crispy amber coating like the OP described?
Just had something very near that today at a Churches Chicken restaurant in NorthEast Texas. The mgr told me it was fried without batter or flour and is either coated or seasoned with a slightly sweet dry bbq coating that was very thin, almost translucent except for the amber color. Quite tasty.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.788064 | 2012-10-27T19:10:00 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28061",
"authors": [
"Anne Leonard",
"Anne Perkins",
"Cascabel",
"Crabbymcnabby",
"Ginger ",
"Harry Kirby",
"Jeff Leoni",
"John",
"Racer X",
"Yamashiro",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147750",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20492",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64529",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64530",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64542",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64543",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87451",
"john",
"user64533"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
40783 | Cookie dough between batches - Refrigerate? Or no?
I'm making a bunch of cookies, but I only have one cookie sheet that I like and I'd just as soon do it one tray at a time anyway, so I'll be baking the cookies in several batches. They're just regular drop style cookies (recipe). I know that I'll need to cool my cookie sheet between batches, but I'd like to know the best way to handle the dough as it will take probably about two hours to complete all of the baking since I'm making a quadruple batch. Should I refrigerate the dough between batches or leave it at room temperature?
EDIT: Since the issue of cooling the tray between batches has come up in answers, I'd like to point out one small thing. It ain't no thing. It's January. I live in Alaska.
That recipe should only make 2 trays of cookies with a cycle time of about 15 minutes (allowing some time for cooling before reusing the tray). To get 2 hours worth, you would need to be making something like a quadruple batch.
That is exactly what I am doing.
Two hours is on the borderline, so you will have to assess your risk tolerance.
No harm will come to your cookies by refrigerating the dough; in fact, the later trays may actually be superior due to the additional time hydrating the starches. Baking cold dough will only trivially change the baking time.
I would probably err on the side of caution and put the dough in the refrigerator.
One thing that can speed up your tray recycle time is to cool the tray with running water on the back side, so that you can reuse it right away without waiting for it to cool.
You can also pre-scoop cookies onto a plate, which makes moving them on to the tray much faster. You can even refrigerate or freeze these pre-scooped cookies.
I'd personally refrigerate the dough, in part to limit spread so that I didn't have to wait as long for the sheet pan to cool down between batches.
If you have sufficient counter space, you may be able to speed up the cooking by laying out the next batch on parchment paper while another batch is baking.
This allows you to quickly de-pan the cookies onto the cooling rack (once they've rested on the pan for a couple of minutes, as it calls for some carry-over baking) by grabbing the edge of the paper, and pulling the whole thing onto the rack. You then cool down the pan (either SAJ14SAJ's trick with water, or keep something with high thermal mass in the freezer that you can use to cool it quickly), then slide the next sheet on and toss in the oven.
Parchment paper isn't as durable as silicone mats (which can significantly change the baking properties on items like cookies), but you can still generally get 3 or more uses out of them if your spatula isn't so sharp that it tears the paper. I reuse them 'til I see the corners start to brown. (varies depending on the oven temp)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.788448 | 2014-01-01T23:09:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40783",
"authors": [
"George Tsampiras",
"IAN COYNE",
"Jolenealaska",
"Mark Whitmore",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sheryl Nadine Daniels",
"Skeuomorph",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94941",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94943",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94961",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95047",
"user5514554"
],
"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
} |
32007 | What does meringue powder do in butter cream icing?
I've recently been taking a Wilton cake decorating class. Part of the curriculum includes making our own buttercream icing. Many of Wilton's recipes for buttercream and like icings call for the addition of meringue powder. Other icing recipes that I've found online seem to be split as to the use of meringue powder. I've made many buttercreams in the past and have never used it before, and haven't been aware of any specific shortcomings.
What is it that meringue powder does to the icing? I've heard that it will cause the icing to "crust". How is this advantageous, and what am I missing by not using it?
Also, given that meringue powder is essentially egg whites, will using it in shortening-based buttercreams that otherwise would not require refrigeration make my icing require refrigeration?
There are several different types or styles of butter creams. The only one I know of off hand that uses a meringue is Italian butter cream, which is essentially an Italian meringue (whipped egg whites, then further beaten with hot syrup at the soft ball stage) with butter beaten in. You might want to post one of the recipes you are talking about so folks can offer you a more informed opinion; frankly, however, I would be suspicious of a recipe for butter cream that required meringue powder, unless it was just used in lieu of fresh egg whites.
I infer from your comments that you have seen this thread at the Wilton site: http://www.wilton.com/forums/messageview.cfm?catid=7&threadid=119753 I also googled their recipes; most seem to not contain meringue powder. The one that did was "Class Butter Cream". All were variants on the nameless shortening and powdered sugar type of butter cream. I don't see a role for meringue powder in this type at all; they even say you can omit it. Depending on your goals, there may be more delicious butter cream recipes available.
The crusting is important so that any flowers or other intricate decorations will fix their shape and not slump when left out in warmer temperatures. (you don't want to refrigerate iced cakes, as when you remove them from the fridge, you'll get condensation). An icing that crusts quickly means that you can use an icing that's not quite as stiff for your decorations, and after a few hours of decorating, you'll come to appreciate that minor difference.
The crust is also a benefit when trying to get a perfectly smooth cake.
Some other recipes will crust over time, and the recipe that I got from one of my instructors uses more powdered sugar and cream of tartar, but no merangue powder. I suspect it's the starch in the powdered sugar that ensures that it still crusts up.
As for shelf life ... I'm not 100% sure. I believe that the eggwhites have been pasteurized, and I've made flowers, let them dry out, then kept them stored for months at a time ... but I can't remember if those were made with merengue powder or not. I suspect that some batches were.
This explanation makes sense; it sounds like it is trying to be a somewhat better (less nasty?) tasting Royal Icing. Still, for flowers or other fine work, Royal Icing is kind of the Plaster of Paris of the cake decorating world.... :-)
Wilton's own commercial decorating icings, which do crust, do not contain any egg products, so I don't believe that it is actually necessary for crusting. As you hint at in your post, I think it's the starch that does that, not the protein in meringue; the Wilton icings use a small amount of wheat starch.
@SAJ14SAJ : it's not royal icing, as there's fat in it (and quite a bit). Royal won't hold its shape nearly as well as whipped fat, and it doesn't quite firm up the same way ... if it crusts while the center's still squishy, you can do the trick to smooth the icing. If the center firms up close to the same time as the outside, or it's too fluid in the middle, the trick won't work.
According to the packaging from the Wilton brand royal and meringue frostings, the shelf life can be for up to three months if kept in a cool dry place in a sealed/air tight container. The egg products are labeled as pasturized. (I think the FDA requires whole protein products to be pasturized to be sold to the public, but I cant swear to it).
just to confirm -- the 3 months is for it after used, not the product still in the can, right? (3 months seems rather short lifetime for a powder)
I've used the wilton merengue powder in my icing for years. It doesn't alter the taste. Definitely great for making flowers and icing your cakes. It does dry and form a crust sealing in the moisture of your cake. Makes smoothing much easier. I also use the royal icing recipe with the merengue powder. Gets harder than a rock. The only thing I'm not sure of is the shelf life of the frostings.
I use merengue powder in my buttercream frosting during the summer. It's good for high humidity. Your frosting doesn't melt as fast and it's light.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.788749 | 2013-02-17T19:22:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32007",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Brian Clarkson",
"Colliebalollie",
"DannyDannyDanny",
"Ieleene Clark",
"Joe",
"KatConover",
"Oddstr13",
"Redkiss3",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Teeh",
"anne cooze",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101378",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117081",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73574",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73575",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73629",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95281"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
28229 | Cooking a tender pork sirloin (Solomillo al Whisky)
A popular dish in Andalusia consists of pork sirloin chops in a whiskey sauce.
I've tried to recreate this at home by marinading for a short time and then frying, but the meat ends up rather tough, not anything like the tender melt-in-your-mouth variety I recall from Spain. (The marinade called for whiskey, lemon, and mustard, with crushed whole garlic cloves.)
Does anyone have any tips on how to properly cook pork sirloin to that effect?
Have you tried black/iberian pork sirloin (solomillo de pata negra)?
You need to add some detail, are you talking about a whole sirloin, or chops? What is the marinade, and how long are you doing it? Then what method are you using to prepare it?
@J.A.I.L. - are you suggesting that it's simply a matter of the meat used? this could very well be the case, but still I'm sure it can be done better than the dismal results I got.
@GdD - Chops. The marinade called for whiskey lemon and mustard with crushed (but left whole) garlic cloves.
@nbubis I'm suggesting it might be simply the meat. I've noticed surprise among foreigners (I'm Spanish, from Andalusia) when barbequing [iberian] pork and they feel it behaves like beef.
@J.A.I.L. - would you care to share the method used (If you know one)? I saw it served all around Andalusia.
@nbubis: Sorry, I've never prepared it by myself. Next time I'll see a relative who makes it I'll ask her. (Yep: it's my mom)
Why is the downvote?
OK, with chops you have a some considerations, one is the quality of the port, next is how thick they are, last is how long you cook it. First, get the best quality you can. Get friendly with a butcher is my suggestion, as supermarket quality can be spotty. Next, get thicker chops. Your pork is probably tough because it is overcooked, and it is easy to overcook thin chops, so thicker chops stay juicier and more tender. Try to get them at least 1 inch or 2.5cm thick. You want your pork pink in the middle, not cooked through.
Third is how long you fry them. For very thin chops no more than 3 minutes a side, but for 2.5cm ones do 6 minutes on the first side, and 4 on the other. Scale those times up for bigger chops. I use an app called BB Meat Master for my cooking times, but there are websites with the cooking times as well.
Alternatively you could braise them, fry them off quickly, then pour in the marinade, cover, and cook for about 20 minutes depending on thickness.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.789182 | 2012-11-05T08:25:19 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28229",
"authors": [
"Andriea",
"Carr",
"Critterbug",
"Debbie Vail Winkelman",
"GdD",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Jiří Maršík",
"Nathaniel Bubis",
"SA E",
"Sol Keys",
"anand shah",
"dave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64969",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64971",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64978",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64981",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64992",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65047"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
12545 | unused drink packets
So I have a lot of those drink packets that you just add into a bottle of water and shake. It's pretty much adult kool-aid. A while ago my wife and I went a little overboard and bought way too many, which is making me wonder if they have any other uses. I've used them for making cheap drinks (for those who don't deserve the good booze), but haven't really come up with other uses, so I'm turning to you!
Can anyone come up with any good culinary uses for these things? They come in all kinds of flavors. I know I have: Lemonade, Strawberry, Orange, Blueberry, Daquiri, and a host of other flavors I can't think of.
Thanks!
I've played around with this too. The issue I've found is that they are just soooo sweet. Desserts are where you'll need to focus because of that.
I've actually wondered if it's possible to make something passable as a lemon meringue without using citrus, but only Countrytime Lemonade. Is that wrong? (I've had the idea for years, but have never tried)
I have mixed them with unflavored gelatin to get some really interesting flavored deserts.
Additionally, they are a nice addition to a pitcher of iced tea, making it a flavored iced tea. I use at about 1/2 the recommended strength in addition to the tea, two tubes/packets of the flavored stuff for a 1/2 gallon of tea.
waaw, "flavored" iced tea FTW!!
You could use these as an aid to shop bought cake mixes, I sometimes use a commercial pound / sponge cake mix. And then make a homemade icing, you could add the powdered sachet to the icing sugar before mixing, you might have to experiment with the amount for flavour.
You could also try adding to the dry cake mix before adding the wet ingredients. In my mind I'm seeing an orange flavoured cake, then iced with a lemonade icing.
You can eat some - but not all - flavours as coulis on your ice cream (best use vanilla ice cream) or panacotta.
If you add a little Sodium chloride, and somewhat less Potassium chloride you've converted your drink mixes into a Gatorade like sports drink. Recipes are all over the web.
To mute the possibly over sweet qualities, you might try making making some sort of a frozen desset. If you have an ice cream maker you could go for a sorbet, but if you don't, either a granita, or freeze it in smaller containers with some sort of a stick to make popsicles.
And on the alcohol route ... I had a friend who made something he called 'Agent Orange'. It was Tang, replacing the amount of water called for with vodka. (no water at all, just vodka). I also remember another friend adding various kool-aid powders into mixed drinks.
And my brother brought back a recipe from Pennsic which involved Countrytime Lemonade, some brand of lime vodka (can't remember the exact one, but he was rather specific), and well water ... and he insisted it wasn't the same with tap water.
This drink (Agent Orange), can you compare it to a Screwdriver?
Maybe you can make cosmopolitans as well :) (By replacing the cranberry juice with a drink packet)
@Mien : Sorry, no ... I'll have to actually try a screwdriver (and probably an Agent Orange, as it's been ~15 years since I had one) to compare them.
@Mien As teenagers, this is how we used to start a bottle of vodka when we wanted to get drunk quickly. For the first two drinks, you put in the sweet powder, no matter which flavour, without adding water or some other dilutant. It covered somewhat the strong taste for people who didn't like the taste of pure vodka (and remember, we are talking cheapest discounter-brand alc here, often room temp). The taste is only slightly less terrible than drinking the vodka pure. This is not a cocktail, it is a crutch on the road to being an alcoholic (sadly, several of my classmates completed it).
Daiquiri flavored, hmmm?
Here are my ideas.
Sno-cones.
Shave or crush some ice. Mound it using an ice cream scoop.
Sprinkle the powder over the shaved ice.
If you can fashion a paper cone using parchment paper that would be great; if not, just served in a short coffee mug with a teaspoon for scooping.
We used to do this with a penny candy called Lik-m-Aid when I was a kid.
Turn them into flavored ice cubes for use in other drinks
Picking up on the gelatin suggestion above, make Jello shots using
unflavored gelatin, flavor and vodka. Leave out the vodka and give
them to the kids
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.789549 | 2011-02-24T14:22:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12545",
"authors": [
"Izzydorio",
"Joe",
"MACHETE",
"Mien",
"fujy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25833",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25856",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25865",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3721",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"please delete me",
"renee",
"rumtscho",
"trclark81",
"yossarian"
],
"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
} |
122418 | How to add bourbon flavor?
I’ve fermented two batches of sriracha, one in a small bourbon cask, the other in a mason jar.
The bourbon cask fermented batch flavor is fantastic. The mason jar batch is tasty too.
I’m curious how I might add some bourbon flavor to the mason jar batch.
I want to avoid heating the sriracha as I would like to retain the probiotics from the fermentation.
I don’t want to add the bourbon directly to the sriracha as the alcohol will kill much of the probiotics also.
I’m thinking to heat some bourbon in a skillet and then light on fire to burn off the alcohol, then pour the remainder into the sriracha.
What we think of as "bourbon flavor" is due to a combination of things.
Bourbon is aged in a new oak barrel that has been charred on the inside. The important thing is not so much the layer of char as it is the layer of wood with caramelized sugars just under it. As the liquid in the barrel experiences temperature cycles, it expands and contracts, penetrating the caramelized layer and leaching caramelized sugars and other flavor compounds out. The longer the liquid sits in the barrel, the more it will leach out.
You have several options I can think of.
Get another bourbon cask and transfer the contents of the mason jar to it. I can't imagine that the sriracha needs to ferment in the cask, just sit in it for some period of time.
If cost and/or space is at more of a premium than time, once the batch currently in the cask has been bottled, transfer the contents of the mason jar to the cask and let it age. This won't have quite the same effect as the first option, as some of the cask's character has been removed by the first batch. You will probably need to let it sit longer than the first batch did, and even then it probably won't turn out exactly the same.
You can buy toasted oak chips, cubes, and spirals from homebrew suppliers and add them to whatever you're fermenting/aging the sriracha in. You'll get similar results (but not identical) to fermenting/aging in a cask, at a lower price point.
For quicker results, soak some of the toasted oak material mentioned above in hot (but not boiling) water. After a long soak, add some of the water to the sriracha. How long to soak, and how much to add, is a matter of taste.
For the quickest results, add bourbon neat to the sriracha. @Ecnerwal is correct that you probably won't add enough alcohol to severely impact the fermentation. In fact, fermentation of any sort usually produces alcohols as a byproduct, so your probiotics are already used to them to some extent.
Heating to remove alcohol isn't as effective as you might think, and igniting the vapour is of no benefit. Once it's evaporated it's gone from the liquid anyway, and imagine trying to get a flame from wine - you can't, so it will be at least that strong when the flame goes out (actually quite a bit stronger).
A reduction might still be the way to go. You'll never get the alcohol content to zero but you'll be diluting it when you add it to the sauce. However I see two problems. The first is that some of the flavours you want will also evaporate, and not evenly, so the flavour profile will change - this might not matter. The second is that adding mainly water (with a little alcohol) could well affect the keeping properties of the sauce, allowing it to spoil quicker.
In general when I flavour things with tasty spirits, I make a combined reduction and extraction, so for gin I'd add juniper berries and lime zest to the gin as I simmer it very gently. That's not going to be easy with bourbon as the flavour comes from the barrels; I suspect oak chips wouldn't help much.
Your bourbon cask had a small amount of bourbon in the wood.
A similarly small amount of bourbon applied directly won't be enough alcohol to matter to your ferment.
You can take a bit more involved approach sometimes used by beer makers and soak white oak chips or cubes (preferably slightly charred, if really going for "like a barrel" as they are charred on the interior before use) in bourbon, then let them air-dry, then put them in your mason jar.
I was assuming that the flavours from the barrel were extracted directly into the sauce as well as the coming from the saturating bourbon, thus giving more flavour than adding small quantities. In that case your 2nd ("more involved") approach would be needed, but might take some playing with proportions and times. (+1)
Although I would agree that it's not the bourbon but the barrel char you are tasting, it's a bit of a palaver to add that flavor by re-aging it in a cask or adding charred wood, I suggest instead to see if you can replicate the flavor profile using extracts, specifically bourbon extract and liquid smoke. Bourbon extract is obvious, the liquid smoke is to give you the burnt wood flavor. You could also try vanilla, however many bourbon extracts have a vanilla tinge to begin with so I'd only add this if I couldn't get the flavor combination from the other two.
I would use a small amount of the Sriracha you want to flavor, and use eye droppers to add trace amounts of each flavoring. liquid smoke is very concentrated, you could even use a cocktail stick to transfer some instead. Record how much you use to get an idea of how much you'll need for the larger batch, presuming you can replicate the flavor you want.
The bourbon flavour is probably the oak barrel flavour. Try getting a piece of oak char it with a blow torch to activate flavour and house the sauce with the piece of oak in it. That is how you make 10 day whiskey with food grade ethyl alchohol.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.789925 | 2022-11-22T03:23:03 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122418",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
15637 | How can I melt cheese for dipping?
I love dipping things like pretzels in melted cheese.
I've done this lots of times at fairs and other places with 'pretzel carts', but I've never been able to replicate it myself at home.
Whenever I try it, I get really thick, stretchy cheese with a layer of liquid oil sitting on top of it. It's gross, and not good for dipping.
So, how can I melt cheese into a nice, smooth liquid that I can use for dipping in?
I'd love to learn if there's a particular type of cheese that will work best, how to heat the cheese, and any other tips that you can provide.
Wow, this really is a broad question! Can you mention what you already tried?
Related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/20330/8305
Normal cheese melts like that. It is made of proteins, fats, and water, and these separate when they are heated.
For dipping, you need processed cheese. It has additives which keep the fat, fluid and solids mixed in a smooth mass. Also, it really helps to use very slow and even heat. This is the easy option.
If you want to do it "for real", without processed cheese, you have to make a cheese fondue. It is traditionally made with Swiss cheese (I am fond of Appenzeller fondue), but you can use most types of semi-hard yellow cheese. It also contains some fluid, traditionaly white wine, and is emulsified with simple starch. It is preferable to have a special pan for this, as you can serve it heated. But if you make a big portion in a pan with a high thermal capacity, and make it immediately before serving, you can do without the special gear.
What about melting the cheese with cream? Wouldn't that do the trick?
@M.K normally, no. It is doable under some circumstances - like making Alfredo sauce - but you are limited in what you can achieve, and the process is rather finicky.
Try heating a couple table spoons of butter with some flour in a pot for a couple of minutes stirring with a wooden spoon then add enough hot milk to make the mixture smooth. Melting the grated cheese in flour prevents the oils from separating and the proteins from curdling.
(edit) If you want to search for a recipe, a Béchamel sauce with grated cheese added to it is called Mornay sauce
Why the downvote? This is called Béchamel sauce or in English, white sauce, which is a considered one of the 'mother sauces' in French and Italian cooking.
This is how I make any kind of cheese sauce. It works and tastes great.
While this is fine, the volume of cheese you can melt into a smooth consistency before it starts to separate in not as high as when using the fondue style method
@TFD I don't think that is the difference between fondue and Mornay. Fondue is made with wine and Morney is made with milk. I'm sure that with the same amount of either wine or milk that amount cheese that can be added to a smooth consistency before it breaks is pretty close the same.
There is the good way and the cheap way.
The good way is fondue.
Acid and / or alcohol are used to cut up the cheese proteins so it isn't stringy and the cheese is heated gently to not break the emulsion.
You can look up a recipe. <napoleonDynamite>There are, like, an infinity of them.</napoleonDynamite>
The cheap way is processed cheese product. This is most likely what you would have seen for casually dipping a pretzel.
This is a mixture of cheeses that are melted together with emulsifiers and gums and various other things that make them melt smoothly.
Velveeta would be the canonical brand name for this sort of thing.
Around here they like to mix salsa into it, use it as a dip, and call it 'queso' which, in my mind, is both a culinary and linguistic atrocity.
Funny how often culinary and linguistic atrocities go hand in hand.
what's with the napoleonDynamite?
It's a quote from the movie Napoleon Dynamite @Izzydorio
Without taking away anything from the previous answers, I want to add one more reference: Kenji Alt's article on making a perfectly smooth cheese sauce.
He describes the science in great detail, as well as providing lots of documentation of his various experiments. His final recipe comes down to a simple methodology:
Toss the real cheese, shredded, with corn starch which will act as an emulsifier to help keep the sauce from breaking
Add condensed milk to increase the amount of milk proteins and water
Melt slowly
You will note that in many ways, this parallels the very classical fondue recipe that Rumtscho has referred to. It uses starch as an emulsifier and adds liquid (from the condensed milk, instead of wine). The major difference is substantially increasing the protein level (via the condensed milk).
The original recipe specifies EVAPORATED milk. Condensed milk is sweetened.
You can prevent prevent cheese from separating as it heats by adding sodium citrate to the recipe. Sodium citrate is the same ingredient used as the binder in processed cheese and wine-based cheese recipes.
I bought a bag from Amazon that will last me a lifetime: http://www.amazon.com/Sodium-Citrate-Non-GMO-Molecular-Gastronomy/dp/B00BLPNM62/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1418940460&sr=8-2&keywords=sodium+citrate
Here is a simple and excellent cheese sauce recipe that lets you make creamy sauce using high-quality cheeses: http://www.chefsteps.com/activities/cheddar-cheese-sauce
No one knows how far back this kitchen wisdom goes, but in 1912 two Swiss food scientists were working on the problem of sterilizing cheese so that it could be stored, unrefrigerated, in hot climates. Up until this point, the results had been greasy failures; but these scientists discovered that adding the salt of citric acid (sodium citrate) to the cheese could prevent oiling-off. They had invented processed cheese.
Melt (nuke) shredded cheese in milk until it's soft, near melted.
Add sufficient cream cheese to soak up the excess milk and form a dip-like substance when mixed. Works with most cheeses. For instance, you'll get a smooth, yellow cheddar dip. The effect of cream cheese on flavor is pretty minimal. Its effect on texture and oiliness is wonderful.
An EXCERPT from the Huffington Post article "How To Make The Creamiest Nacho Cheese." Entire article at:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/12/how-to-make-nacho-cheese_n_1202697.html
(I leave out the salt since cheese is salty enough for me.)
2 tablespoons butter,
2 tablespoons flour,
1 cup milk (warmed),
8 slices cheddar cheese,
1/2 teaspoons salt,
Jalapeno peppers (optional)
Melt the butter over medium-low heat in a saucepan.
Whisk in the flour one tablespoon at a time to avoid clumping.
Add the milk after the flour has settled. Mix until the sauce has an even consistency.
Add the cheese and salt. After the cheese has melted, turn the burner to low, and allow the sauce to simmer for 10 to 15 minutes.
I think you can just melt cheese. You need:
a bowl.
cheese. (shredded is best.)
a microwave. (duh.)
a fork.
Put the shredded cheese in the bowl. It depends on the time you put the microwave on.. First do a minute, if it's not melted, do 2 minutes. If it's still not, then set it on 3 minutes. Take the cheese out of the microwave and grab a fork. Stir it. There may be some greasy stuff in there. Dump it out. So there ya go! You can add milk, I think it makes it less thick.
The real answer here is "try adding milk." As the question says, if you just melt cheese (real cheese, not processed cheese product) it will give you something really thick and stringy (possibly with separated oil) that's not at all good for dipping.
For all the home cooks bechamel is not the same as melted cheese. The only way to keep pure melted cheese from separating is with sodium citrate, but it will set up if you let it cool down again.
Hello, and welcome to Stack Exchange. Please keep your answers civil and germane; you should take the tour to learn more about how we work.
I can confirm that cornstarch (cornflour if you're in the UK) and evaporated milk works a treat.
By the way, condensed milk and evaporated milk are not the same thing. Condensed milk is really sweet and used for confectionary. It would make a very sweet caramelly cheese sauce. Which sounds gross to me.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.790447 | 2011-06-20T18:11:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15637",
"authors": [
"ART GALLERY",
"Adam S",
"Cascabel",
"Corinne Price",
"Daniel Griscom",
"Grant Metcalfe",
"Hay",
"Izzydorio",
"James ",
"Jay",
"Linda",
"M.K",
"Mien",
"Pam Tinnin",
"Preston",
"Sane Cecil BeautyKilled",
"Suthek",
"TFD",
"Wes Conner",
"White Diesel Suppliers LTD",
"drxzcl",
"feelinferrety",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122607",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33155",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33157",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3721",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4039",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73886",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"michael",
"pandora",
"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
} |
23604 | Are chillies hotter when they're ripe?
This answer might vary between types of chillies, but I'm curious to know when they're hottest.
McGee writes: "Capsaicin appears to accumulate in the fruit concurrently with the pigment during ripening". (On Food and Cooking, p.212)
So yes, chilis get hotter as they ripen (that is, as they turn from green to red). Many chili varieties are picked and sold in stores while still unripe and green (e.g. jalapeño, serrano, poblano), but you will occasionally see ripe, red ones in stores.
All of the dried chilis I've seen in stores have been completely ripened before drying (e.g. chipotles, which are smoked, dried red jalapeños and anchos, which are dried, red poblano peppers).
I've personally observed this effect with padron peppers, which are usually picked green and mild, but can ripen to red, hot peppers if left on the plant.
I know this is an old post, but had to reply. I grew jalapenos this year, and the heat difference between green and fully-ripened red is astounding. The green jalapenos had a very, well, green flavor like that of a green bell pepper, but with a mild heat.
After reading a lot of posts around the web, that almost all seem to say that peppers get "smoother" as they ripen, I interpreted that as meaning that the heat wouldn't increase. My interpretation was faulty! The red, ripened pepper was many, many times hotter than the green. I wasn't expecting that burst of flavor when I popped a slice of pepper in my mouth to experience the "smoothness" of the ripe pepper!
I can't tell you the science behind it, but I can verify that, at least in my garden and with my jalapenos, the ripe peppers are far hotter than the green.
This is my experience, too. There's some sweetness to balance out the heat, but they're definately hotter.
Not really. The chemical that gives chillies their heat is called capsaicin. It is an extremely stable alkaloid, and so remains potent even after a long period of time: note, for example that dried chillies and even chilli flakes are still hot.
Since the capsaicin is mostly concentrated in the placenta wouldn't there be more of it at the point of ripeness, thereby making it "hotter"?
The placenta doesn't disappear per se, I imagine it just dries out. That means there's less water, but the amount of capsaicin shouldn't change all that much.
For my part, I'm not really talking about "after ripeness" (loosing potency) as perhaps "before ripeness". Wouldn't the capsiacian build up on the way to ripeness? Such that if you harvest the pepper too soon it would be less potency?
Yes, I suppose so. I'm coming from the angle of buying chillies at the supermarket, where they are obviously always ripe.
I'm also looking at it from a post-pick point of view. Their heat may well build as they grow and ripen, but I would think it plateaus at a certain point.
Most chiles become more picante as they ripen. But they also become much sweeter. Jalapenos are a good example. Red jalapenos are much more delicious than green ones. Most of the 'heat' is in the seeds and the tissue connecting the seeds to the capsule. You can pare those parts out with a small knife. I eat most of my ripe jalapenos right in the garden, pocket knife in hand!
I have traveled the world seeking hot peppers here is what serious farmers have helped me to understand. Mother nature uses animals to spread seeds. If you notice most peppers have two strategies to make sure animals don't eat the fruits before the seeds are mature. First one when the pods are immature the peppers are well camouflaged (blends in with the srems or leaves) and as they start getting larger and more noticable they get very hot so as to deter animals from eating them until the seeds are ready to be distributed in the animals "poop". Just prior to maturity the placenta is larger and the hottest. Very quickly now the pods change color and become noticable and sweeter to attract the distributors but the placenta membranes start shrinking and the "hot" concentrates briefly. At this moment when they are changing color is the best if you want the heat. A couple of days can make a huge difference in heat and either bitterness or "sweetness", just understand this is not a "sweetness" as in sugar or honey but a reduction in bitterness.
According to my next door neighbour, a chilli farmer, heat isn't determined by colour, but by how long you leave them on the bush.
I think there is also a lot of environmental influences that mess with how spicy a given cultivar/variety will end up - eg, some recommend intentionally introducing phases of under-watering ... not to harvest dried chilies ;) but to activate stress responses in the plant that yield more capsaicin...
They definitely get rotter as they ripen. The green jalapenos in the supermarket are very mild. As they get a touch of red surrounded by yellow they are hotter. I got some, marketed as red jalapenos and they were not hot. In fact they had very little flavour. They must have been purposely hybrid to be mild. I've grown round red ones from the previous years seed for a long time. This year they were on the plant long after they were red and they weren't nearly as hot. It seems to me the sweet spot for heat is as, or just after they change colour. On the same porch my birds eye and cayenne, were quite hot this year, so it didn't seem to be just the season.
Regardless of color, the amount of time on the vine or bush is what matters. Many items start losing flavor or appeal when left on too long. A pepper becomes hotter the longer it is left on. Peppers in the stores are just at the beginning of being ripe. Farmers harvest as soon as they become ripe to make way for the next harvest and to get to the store before bugs and other pests can get to them. We have been growing a wide variety of peppers for years now. At the end of the season, if we have not kept up with picking, we end up wearing gloves. We have had jalapenos that can burn our skin from the touch because the capsaicin starts leeching out the stem.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.791181 | 2012-05-06T09:14:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23604",
"authors": [
"Andrew La Croix",
"Camela Bukid Aldea",
"Cheryl Folston",
"Colin Cushman",
"Cos Callis",
"Dave Friend",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Hawkeye",
"Joe",
"Michael D.",
"Pete Smyth",
"Rowsley",
"Yannelli Eguia",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53470",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53473",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69108",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69126",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
36044 | What does "do." mean in old recipes?
I'm reading through a book of cocktails from 1865 and I often seen the measurement for a given ingredient listed as "do.". What does this mean?
Examples:
40 1/2 ounces of roast and ground cocoa.
6 2/3 do. ground cardamom seeds.
6 2/3 do. ground Ceylon cinnamon.
7 pints of alcohol, 95 per cent.
20 do. water.
Or:
2 gallons of ground malt.
6 do. water, at 142° (degrees) heat.
Or, most bafflingly:
1 pound = 16 ounces
1/2 do. = 8 do.
1/4 do. = 4 do.
I was going to say tablespoon based on the spices but would be a really weird way to measure water
@TFD But the final example I posted makes no sense if "do." is a specific unit of measurement that is not equal to infinity
@Yamikuronue - What if the amount of do. is 0 ounces. Check and mate.
I suspect it means "ditto (the above line)":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ditto_mark seems to indicate that "do." was an old way of abbreviating before the ditto mark (") became widespread.
do. (ditto) simply refers to the unit of measure of the above line. Some recipes bunch up the ingredients by the size of pale you need to pick them up. Hence the ounces, gallons and pounds are put together. More modern recipes might separate them by dry, wet, spice, meat, etc.
This makes the most sense, considering the question.
The second quoted section seems to confirm this too: 1 pound = 16oz, 1/2 pound = 8 oz etc.
I was just looking at a cookbook from the 1860s and had the same question. Googled and found your post, which I think has the answerfor us all!
Making an educated guess here, the answer is in the post you found "most baffling." Seems it was a "key."
1 pound = 16 ounces
1/2 do. = 8 do.
1/4 do. = 4 do.
So, top line sets the rule/measure, which we all know to be true. Then one half "do" is one half pound, and that's why it equals eight ounces (again, we know this is right). One quarter pound would equal four ounces.
Assume, do is short for ditto. So it's a repeat of whatever the immediately preceding measurement was in the recipe (oz, lb, cup, etc.)
Thanks for posting!
Please don't add "thank you" as an answer. Once you have sufficient reputation, you will be able to vote up questions and answers that you found helpful. - From Review
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.792021 | 2013-08-15T13:57:56 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36044",
"authors": [
"Ben",
"Brenda",
"Brenda Warner",
"Dason",
"ElendilTheTall",
"HourGlass",
"Jessica Jillian Ogburn",
"MandoMando",
"Mary Haller",
"Sam",
"Taylor",
"Yamikuronue",
"ariola",
"draksia",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84529",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84538",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84542",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84572",
"user84539"
],
"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
} |
12014 | Is it scientifically verified that bananas will ripen faster when kept in a bowl with other fruit?
I've heard you shouldn't keep bananas in a bowl with other fruit. But they all look so happy together.
What I'd like to see is hard science here. Or at least documented and repeatable observation. For example, I read lots of people saying simply "it's the ethylene gas", but what's eluded my searching eye is a chart of which common fruits emit how much of this gas, or the ripening effect of x amount of this gas for y duration at z distance from other fruits in the vicinity. I'd do an experiment myself, but I don't have any particular biology expertise to properly structure a control, etc., and maybe it's already been done?
While I'm not saying this oft-heard claim is false, I am saying I've neither been convinced that it's verifiably so as far as having been proven, nor convinced that any ripening-hastening is of significant concern (shortens the life of a banana by a day or more). If it is, we'll have to issue a cease-and-desist order to my household regarding the convenient stacking of all our colorful fruit friends in one place.
Follow-up inquiry: Even if this banana ripening-rate-quickening is true for apples and oranges, are there certain fruits that are okay to leave in the bowl with bananas?
Follow up questions should really be asked separately ... but in this case, it'd might be closed as a duplicate; see How should I organize my fruits for storage?
Understood on the follow-up thing. It could be edited out, as it may not contribute to the value of the question. I hadn't noticed the other inquiry before. I had my head too stuck on the banana part of this - backwardly, as Michael pointed out.
For Apples, see:
The Role of Ethylene in Determining Apple Harvest and Storage Life, in the May 1986
Post Harvest Pomology Newsletter, Vol. 4(1)
There are also various websites that give instructions if you'd like to do experiments yourself (generally geared towards classroom instruction):
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryexperiments/ss/ethyleneexp.htm
http://botany.org/bsa/misc/mcintosh/badapple.html
... but for a more complete list, go to Google Scholar, and search for 'ethylene' + whatever fruit you're interested in; you'll find stuff going back many, many decades.
I think you've got this mostly backwards. The reason not to store bananas with other fruit is that the ripening bananas emit a lot of ethylene gas and will cause the other fruit to spoil more quickly. You can also use this to your advantage: got a pear that you want to ripen quicker? Put it in a paper bag with ripe bananas overnight.
Other fruit emits ethylene as well, but generally in large quantities only when they are already quite ripe.
Here is a pretty good reference: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0531/p15s01-lifo.html
This kid's suggests something like that - 1 ripe banana ripens others. In my experience, oranges don't easily over-ripen, so does this mean there's nothing wrong with keeping oranges and bananas in the same bowl?
Correct: oranges aren't ethylene-sensitive. I've got a list somewhere - basically the fruits that can ripen after picking are ethylene sensitive; those that can't, aren't.
The more ripe the fruit, the more ethylene gas it'll give off; hence the 'one bad apple spoils the bunch'
@zanlock : http://postharvest.tfrec.wsu.edu/pages/N4I1C ; "The cornerstone for successful ethylene control in storage is to start by harvesting preclimacteric fruit; isolating it from climacteric fruit and other sources of ethylene; and using a scrubber to remove ethylene as it is generated by the fruit" ; and instructions for testing it yourself : http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistryexperiments/ss/ethyleneexp.htm
@MichaelNatkin Business Insider (oddly) published such a list of fruit and their ethylene properties.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.792361 | 2011-02-10T09:10:06 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12014",
"authors": [
"Candy Bricker",
"Cocowalla",
"Daniel R.",
"EvanWeeks",
"Joe",
"Lindsay",
"MasterShizzle",
"Michael Natkin",
"Urdungo",
"bishop",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142538",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24753",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24754",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24805",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24837",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46090",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
12600 | What grains (and in what ratios) go into a nine-grain flour?
Many recipes are available for making nine-grain bread, but they presuppose that you have nine-grain flour. We have a wheat grinder so we would like to use it to make our flour to make the bread.
There is no fixed set of grains or ratios that define nine-grain flour. It is just meant to generically suggest "uber-healthy". Some things you may want to use include: whole wheat, rye, triticale, barley, oats, buckwheat, spelt, emmer, millet, flax, etc. Most so-called 9-grains or 12-grain etc will "cheat" and include wheat in multiple forms, like wheat flour, cracked wheat, vital wheat gluten and so forth. In any case, if you are going to use it for bread, you'll probably want at least 50-75% wheat flour so that there is enough gluten to successfully rise. The rest can be in any proportion that pleases you for taste or nutritional purposes.
We ended up buying a nine grain mix from a Mennonite bulk store. It doesn't tell exact ratios, but by law it has to list the ingredients in order of abundance:
Red wheat
White wheat
Rye
Barley
Corn
Millet
Oats
Flax
Buckwheat
and how was the bread?
@Doug Excellent. My favorite bread ever.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.792692 | 2011-02-26T06:54:32 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12600",
"authors": [
"Christopher Bottoms",
"Daniel",
"Doug",
"brunn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2583",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25965",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25966",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25977",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26008",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4777",
"krugmeister65",
"snidelys4"
],
"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
} |
7703 | What is substitute for rum in baking?
Some cake recipes calls for rum, and there is none available. How to substitute? If possible, it should be non-alcoholic.
Also, what is its role in baking or cooking?
The most accurate substitution would simply be rum extract. It is concentrated rum with a huge kick of flavor, and much less alcohol. A little goes a long way.
If you're going to stick with a strong liquor my first choice would be a bourbon, it's a similarly "sweet" liquor that tastes good in baking. Another good option would be cachaça.
If you're avoiding liquor, then you may be able to use vanilla extract. Non-alcoholic varieties are available. According to Ochef you can also use molasses thinned with pineapple juice.
The rum is used simply for flavor.
@vwiggins. You are incorrect. Alcohol never totally disappears. For baking, after 1 hour 25% remains. 2.5 hours, 5% remains.
@chris. Where do you get these figures? Given that ethanol's boiling point is far below most baking temperatures (as well as that of water), I've always understood that it would indeed evaporate during any baking or cooking. My organic chemistry lab experience bears this out.
@kajaco This myth is dying a hard death. the first link is a plain text explanation and the second is for further reading (including the published papers) http://cooking.cdkitchen.com/AHealthyBite/385.html http://www.google.com/search?aq=0&oq=alcohol+retention+in&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=alcohol+retention+in+food+preparation
I would warrant there is more alcohol in apple sauce that has simply been frozen and defrosted than in a cake with 1/2 a teaspoon of rum extract, but I no longer have a lab to test this hypothesis. I'll have to see if any food hackers out there will indulge my experiment.
@sarge_smith. That first link does NOT give enough info to warrant the conclusion that baking doesn't remove a substantial amount of the alcohol. The range of retention was 4% to 85%, and the only specific method mentioned with results was flaming (~78%). For all that link says, baking may be in the 4% retention range, which is quite good esp. considering the small quantities relative to overall volume. (Don't have time right now to check the Google search results, nor look up the original article.)
@kajaco agreed that would be why i stuck the second link in there... the first article is just a plain english summary... there are multiple scholastic papers on the other link.
Apart from flavour, spirits can play another role: adding temporary moisture that can be useful in the mixing process. Spirits add water and alcohol, which allows you to mix the ingredients, but the alcohol will evaporate in the oven, so the baked dessert will not have all that moisture.
I read a recipe in Cooks Illustrated where they replaced water with vodka to get a better dough for pies, but I never used that for cakes.
If the texture of the cake without rum works, you need it only for flavour, you can use another spirit or spice for that.
Then moisture is the wrong word... I should have picked a different one. What I meant is that it gives you more liquid while mixing without adding it to the final result.
You are correct, I read the same article. I think "temporary moisture" describes it reasonably accurately.
@roux Edited a little to clarify
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.792832 | 2010-09-30T07:20:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7703",
"authors": [
"Chris Cudmore",
"Julio",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"kajaco",
"sarge_smith",
"vwiggins"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
8230 | Non-cow's milk replacement for Parmesan cheese in Genovese pesto
My family loves Genovese pesto and we'd started making our own (with varied success). One of our number has been diagnosed as intolerant to cow's milk. This rules out pretty much all shop-bought varieties, so we now have to take the homemade route seriously. To help us out, please can you suggest non-cow's milk cheeses that we could use instead of Parmesan?
Finding a non-cow subsitute for parmesan is a difficult task - Grana, the closest, is made from cow milk as well so it's no good.
You can try using Pecorino which is made from sheep milk, and has a slightly stronger flavour.
I've never tried it personally, but it's not rare in some regions of Italy to make pesto with pecorino, so it's definitely worth a try!
Grana Padana basically is Parmesean, but because of 'Parmigiano Reggiano's PDO status since 1996, it can't call itself 'parmesean'. (however, PDO being a European Union thing, American cheesemakers can still make 'parmesean' so long as they don't try to sell it in Europe)
For completeness: Grana Padano is made a few miles away from Parmigiano Reggiano. The former north of the Po river, the latter south. But there is a difference: cows that make Parmigiano Reggiano eat only grass and fermentation is natural, cows that make Grana Padano eat anything else and fermentation has to be stopped at the right point with the use of formaldeide.
There are a lot of different Pecorinos. Maybe the one that best suits pesto is Pecorino Romano. It will be quite stronger though.
I also trade Parmesan for Pecorino Romano in all dishes with Parmesan, it's a great substitute if you don't want cow milk's cheeses. I think it also tastes better.
I've been making my pesto with Pecorino Romano (may just be labeled 'Romano'; also, look for the brand name Locatelli) for years, even before I figure out I had issues with cow's milk. (note, there are a few different versions of Pecorino, as it basically means 'from sheep'; Pecorino Romano is specifically a hard grating cheese).
Some people don't like the Pecorino Romano; I remember discussing food with my former boss who had grown up in Italy (and even ran for Italian Parliment a few years back), and he thought Pecorino Romano was too salty and strongly flavored to use in risotto. (of course, I make my own stock, so I still needed to add salt from other means).
The only other non-cows milk cheese that I can think of that might work, that's might be easily found would be Manchego Viejo; it's an older varient of Manchego that grates well.
I would've recommended Cheese Net's World Cheese Index, but it looks like the site's gone ... you may have luck through Archive.org's Wayback Machine
I often make my pestos with pecorinos.
The original recipe (in Italian, here a version in English also, at page 7 - warnings, it's a pdf) for pesto alla genovese (Genovese pesto), by Consorzio del pesto alla genovese (Genovese Pesto Consortium), requires both Parmigiano Reggiano - or Grana Padano - (cow's milk cheese) and pecorino (sheep's milk cheese) but in a 3:1 ratio (3 parts of parigiano and 1 part of pecorino). Therefore pecorino (I prefer pecorino romano in this recipe) is required, it cannot be a substitute for a true pesto alla genovese.
I suggest to make a little portion apart with pecorino only for the person with intolerance (pesto alla genovese is quite easy to prepare). But beware: as Joe wrote, pecorino is more salty and strongly flavored than parmigiano.
I agree that using Pecorino Romano is a good and simple solution to this problem. I have also tried goat "Parmesan" which I found tasted really good, and not very goaty. Our local farmers market has a goat farm that sells a wide variety of goatsmilk cheese in types that would normally be made with cows milk, so I am rather lucky.
The other question linked by sarge_smith in the comments covers the common substitutes I can think of (including cow's milk substitutes, despite the question title). They do all tend to be nearly as expensive as parmigiano reggiano, though - in the $10-20/lb range at my grocery store.
So, just in case price is your concern, reggianito is a decent and much cheaper substitute. It's an Argentinian cheese, originally made by immigrant Italians who missed their native cheese. It's not aged as long as parmigiano reggiano, but it's still a nice hard cheese for grating on pasta, or the sorts of recipes you probably have in mind.
Wikipedia says it's often sold in the US as parmesan; I can't really speak to that except to say that I don't think I've ever seen "made in Argentina" on a wedge of "parmesan". My grocery store carries it, though, and it's significantly cheaper than even the cheap US parmesan, let alone the good imported stuff.
In my opinion you can generally substitute pecorino romano or grana padano in place of parmesan (parmigiano reggiano). If price is your concern you'll find both those cheeses slightly cheaper than parmesan.
The thenibble.com website has a cheese comparison chart for the Italian hard cheeses.
Oh my God !!! Pecorino Romano is a "pecorino", that means made with sheep milk, not cow milk ... you are blaspheme! :)
@AlberT ... buono pero'
Si, molto buono ... I'm from Rome, so I like it very much, but it is better suited for "Spaghetti alla Amatriciana", or "Spaghetti cacio e pepe", not as an alternative to recipes needing "Parmiggiano Reggiano" :)
Grana Padano or Trentin Grana are both original Italian cheese with similar flavour as long as they are very different for an experienced "user" ...
I'm against other "imitations", specifically born to be exported, being fruited by a less skilled environment and making it think they can be quite the same ... as I said in other similar isuue question, I'm not going to do a religious war, but I can assure "parmesan", "reggianito" and other surrogates are what they are ... surrogates!
BTW, "parmesan" is not "Parmigiano Reggiano" ... the latter is the top quality italian DOP cheese, being different (much flavored) that its sons, Trentin Gana and Grana Padano. Each of these tree products are great original italian cheese, with different characteristics ... everything else is "the same" only in the measure the user don't have the ability to distinguish.
My 2 cents
There is a vendor at my farmer's market with an aged, hard goat cheese that is very similar to parmesan, but that probably won't do you much good. (Unless you're in San Francisco.)
If you aren't being too heavy-handed with the cheese, straight pecorino-romano may work, but the flavor is pretty intense. The stuff I buy tends to be salty, so you'll want to back off on the salt. You might also try aged manchego (manchego viejo), something at least a year old should grate well. Or a combination of manchego and pecorino (in a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio).
If you have a good cheese shop near you, just ask. They're usually run by people with a keen interest in cheese and a lot of domain knowledge.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.793120 | 2010-10-17T20:26:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8230",
"authors": [
"4sha",
"Aliya",
"Daniel Zoran",
"JCL1178",
"Jill",
"Joe",
"Kathy",
"Kevin Reid",
"SAMI",
"Sara Sakura",
"Tea Drinker",
"bookends",
"drAlberT",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16995",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17585",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18553",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35224",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58629",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"mico",
"papin",
"rena",
"sprite"
],
"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
} |
96844 | Good qualities of ovens/microwaves for baking cake
My aunt wants to start her own bakery where she is planning to sell different kinds of biscuits, cakes, and desserts. But she cannot afford to buy an industrial oven right now as she wants to start small.
So my questions are,
What types of oven (traditional, convection, convection-microwave, etc.) are best for commercial scale baking (especially cakes)?
What are the most important qualities of a commercially available oven/microwave for good, consistent baking results?
You may want to see this Q/A about convection microwave ovens.
Thanks for the link. But that question only answers that we cannot expect good result from convection microwave oven. Which just discard convection microwave from my list. Can you please recommend which one is good for baking? I am editing my question.
This is why I gave you the link: for further information instead of closing as a duplicate.
Welcome to the site! Unfortunately your question is off-topic as it's both too broad and opinion based. There are many ovens and what is available is dependent on your location, what she can buy is limited to budget.
@GdD Thanks for the review. For your information, I didn't want to have a product recomendation(not like LG-MS3200) but an equipment recomendation (like what type of oven should I buy like Toaster oven: because it provide heat evenly) which I thought would be okay to ask as asking about kitchen equipment is okay by the the help center. Let me know please if I misunderstand anything.
I'm going to +1 this, because my initial reaction is "if she wants to sell baked goods, not way she's going to be able to make something people will want to buy with any kind of microwave" - but then it occurs to me that I am, in no way, a baking expert. It will be interesting to see my assumptions challenged or validated.
@GdD I read this question as “what type of domestic oven is best suited for this specific use case”, asking for characteristics of different oven types. This should be answerable based on technical details, not just opinion?
I'm not going to claim this is an exhaustive list, especially as I'm not a commercial baker, but a few things that I would personally consider:
What is she baking? What size vessels does it need? How tall does it rise? This will affect how can she fit in the oven at one time (how many per shelf, how many shelves for the height it needs). Note that you don't want to pack them too closely, as you need space around them, even for convection.
What is the largest sheet pan it can fit with a couple of inches (5+ cm) around each side?
If electric, how much power does she have available? (will it require getting an electrician in to run heavier wire?)
I'd also look to see if there are any places that deal in used restaurant equipment. In the US, restaurants have a rather high failure rate, and there are places that specialize in liquidating restaurants / auctioning off everything in them.
A good thermostat which will hold correct temperature for long time is the most important thing, but I don't know how you can check that.
I was thinking of that, but I don't think it's that important. My own aunt had a successful bakery business using a traditional wood fired oven. No thermostat, temperature changing constantly. Some the good home bakers I know also have ovens with very bad thermostats. Especially for somebody doing commercial, it is less important than for normal home use. As a bakery, you don't try new recipes all the time, you gather enough experience to make your recipe work with your oven's idiosyncrasies. Especially since bad thermostats don't "jump around", they have a constant offset.
You have issues with 'precision' vs. 'accuracy'. An inaccurate oven might be 50 degrees off ... and if you know that, you're fine and can correct for. An imprecise oven is bad, as you don't know how far off it is at any given time. Most are imprecise to some degree (wait 'til the temperature drops below a lower threshold, heat back up 'til you hit a higher threshold,etc.). It's the precision that you have to be careful about ... and how evenly it heats if it's not convection.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.793629 | 2019-03-10T06:43:58 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96844",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Joe",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Stephie",
"arif",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
8363 | Advantages of using a non-glass teapot?
I currently have a borosilicate glass teapot. Glass seems to have the advantage that it will not absorb flavours and so can be used for all styles of tea.
What are some of the advantages of using a clay or ceramic teapot over glass? I am not interested in the differences in style or size, just the material used.
Edit: anyone with information on clay teapots, such as the Yixing, and its (dis)advantages?
It depends on personal tastes (both aesthetic and flavour). Ceramic pots certainly retain heat longer which suits black tea as a pot can be on the go for a while. Clay is for the connoisseur and should be kept for one specific tea. These ideally need to be used regularly so don't suit most households (including me).
I'd personally have:
A western style ceramic pot (or two, one small, one large) for black teas like Kenyan,
Ceylon or Assam based teas which I'd only rinse out (unless it got forgotten and grew mold! in which case it gets a good scrub)
A glass pot for strongly flavoured teas or heavy tannin tea like Lapsang Souchong
or chai (if i make it in a pot) which would be cleaned each time
An eastern style ceramic pot for green tea as they generally keep the larger leaves back.
The biggest difference I've found is that warming the pot is more significant when using ceramic or clay over glass as the material absorbs more heat.
What is an eastern style pot? Is this a cup-like device with a lid to strain out the leaves (sorry, don't know the name), or something else entirely?
I meant a glazed pot in the style of a traditional Chinese clay pot but lower maintenance. These normally have a non ceramic handle (wicker etc.) from the top and many have a strainer built into the spout to keep back the large leaves
There are some good articles out there on tea pot choice http://vitaliteas.com/how-to-choose-a-teapot/ for instance.
Clay is porous. The aromatic elements of a tea will stay inside the pores and come out for the next brewings. After a few brewings, the teapot will be "coated" and the aromatic peaks of the particular tea will be emphasized, giving it a more satisfying taste.
For this reason, clay teapots should be reserved for one family of tea only (e.g. flowery oolongs, pu-erh, wuxi rocks tea, high mountain taiwanese, etc.). It would make no sense to enhance the particular flavors specific to leaves from a category A in a brewing of tea of a category B with different aromas. Yes, that means that if you like different families, you must invest in one clay teapot for each. Glass, iron or ceramic teapots do not show this behavior and can be used with any category of tea during their life.
Also, clay teapots have been traditionnaly used only for oolong and pu-erh teas, and some Chinese black ones. It's quite unusual to brew green, white or Indian black teas in clay teapots. It may enhance those kinds of tea too, but you would have to make your tries by yourself to estimate that.
As a side note, since clay keeps flavors, never wash a clay teapot (or cup) with detergents ! Plain hot water will suffice.
I find with glass teapots they get extremely hot, where a ceramic tea pot does not. In my experience the Tea also stays hotter in a ceramic teapot.
The ceramic teapots are harder to clean though, and you can't see the tea brewing as easy.
OK.. I guess there is no right or wrong answer for this question, so let me start this with a story.
"Many years ago, there was a poor guy in a remote Chinese Village and he owned a clay teapot and the teapot had been using for generations. One day a city man came to the village and saw the teapot and he was very impressed by the teapot, so he decided to buy the teapot and paid thousands for it. He told the village guy that he would pick it up next day. The village was so excited and he reckoned he needed to give the pot a big clean, so the buyer would be happy about it.
Next day, the city man came back and saw the teapot was very clean, it was so clean that there was not stain at all. The city man then was very disappointed and decided to drop the sale. The village man didn't know what went wrong and just found out that the teapot wasn't worth anything, but the tea stain that got built up by generations was worth the most."
This story tells us that Chinese have a long history of using clay pots and the clay pots themselves enhance the tea favour because the "stain" adds favour to tea. Also, temperature can be controled better with clay pot.
REMEMBER the mort IMPORTANT THING ABOUT TEA!!! You are not supposed to leave tea in the teapot for more than couple of mins as the acids from tea would come out if you leave the tea in pot for too long.
What I wanna say is advantage of using clay pot will enhance tea favour, but it's a very personal choice. Glass pot is fine and just don't leav tea in the pot for too long.
Also, avoid using metal pots as the chemical reactions between tea and metal don't go too well..
Cheers
I think that a lot of the difference is aesthetic.
Tea will eventually stain anything, including glass.
If the stains are inside the creamic teapot, they won't bother anyone, and can quietly add a touch to the flavour.
In a glass teapot, the stains are visible from outside, and might put some people off their tea.
Won't break if you drop it?
Other than that, you're bound to get a metallic taste out of any metal teapot (that isn't enameled, and most of them will be) that you use to make any tea with even a hint of acidity (most teas are somewhat acidic). The more reactive the metal (copper, silver, iron) the more taste. Of course, the tea cools off super fast in those as well, so it doesn't have much leach time.
I'd stick with glass for the best experience, though I've seen a number of restaurants use small stainless steel pots to good effect.
Never even thought of using of using stainless, that can be saved for the food service industry. Any experience with clay or ceramic teapots?
@ryan anderson: Ceramic is very nice, and very classy. For clay, I have a honkin urn I use to make sun tea, and that's it.
Glass and ceramic teapot are pretty similar except that the glass teapot will get really hot, but you can see your mix of tea in it and it's easier to clean.
Have a nice cup of tea Ryan!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.793972 | 2010-10-20T19:20:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8363",
"authors": [
"Dennis",
"Don Gillis",
"Ella White",
"Hooman",
"James McElroy",
"Lois F",
"Mario",
"Martin Dürrmeier",
"NatureObeyed",
"Richard Dingwall",
"Ryan Anderson",
"Satanicpuppy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17196",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94528",
"vwiggins"
],
"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
} |
12078 | Soya sauce. Are they different for variety of dishes?
Soya sauce: Whenever I buy new Soya sauce, it tastes quite different. Normally I use it in noodles and manchurian.
Any tips to buy it. During my reading, people mentioned thick/thin soya sauce. But in groceries I did not found something like this mentioned in description.
The latest one I bought, (it's same brand as previous one, same colored bottle), tastes too hot :(
I'm having trouble understanding what your question is. Can you try to be a little more specific than "any tips to buy it"?
Do you mean too salty or too strong?? Normally soy-sauces are not hot..
@ntt: if add too much pepper then it's too hot. this hot I mean. Sorry for my poor English. Hope I am able to explain the taste.
Wow!! That's very unusual.. Normally Soy-sauces are strong (intense soy taste) or salty. But rarely hot (chilli/pepper hot).. Maybe it'd be interesting to see a photo of your Soy-sauce bottle.. :)
If you heard people talking about "thick" vs. "thin" soy sauce, they were probably actually referring to dark vs. light soy sauce.
Dark soy sauce does not actually refer to the colour. It does tend to be darker than natural fermented soy sauce, but if you're comparing to the hydrolyzed kind (the most common sold in stores), it will look about the same in terms of colour. What actually distinguishes dark soy sauce is that it is aged longer and has added molasses, which makes it thick, sticky and syrupy.
Dark soy sauce does taste quite different from light soy sauce, even when it's the same brand. Dark soy sauce replaces some of the saltiness of light soy sauce with sweetness instead, and in general just has a "bolder" taste. It's usually used as a cooking ingredient, not a condiment. I've heard, but can't verify, that it is more common in Japanese cooking than other Asian cuisines (although I have used it with much success in Chinese and Thai dishes).
I've started to see a lot more ordinary grocery stores carrying dark soy sauce, but until recently it was difficult to find unless you went to an Asian grocery store, and may still be difficult in some regions. Unless the bottle specifically says dark soy sauce, it is light soy sauce.
You should not directly substitute one for the other.
As for your comment about the one you bought tasting too "hot" - you must have bought a chili-infused soy sauce or something. Ordinary soy sauce (dark or light) is never spicy-hot.
I've also seen dark soy sauce sold as 'superior soy sauce', but I don't know if that's just an american thing. There's also the japanese tamari, which can be found in wheat-free varieties, which is useful if you're cooking for someone who has a wheat sensitivity, and the indonesean kejap (might be spelled ketjap or kecup) of which there's multiple varieties, such as kejap manis, a spiced, sweetened thick soy sauce. (and I mean thick, not just dark)
@Joe: In the Asian supermarkets here (and a few of the regular ones) you can buy Superior Light or Superior Dark soy sauce - I'm not sure what the "superior" means but it seems to be independent of the type of sauce and specific to a few brands like Pearl River Bridge.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.794574 | 2011-02-12T09:09:56 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12078",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Joe",
"Kris",
"Saar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24883",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24961",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3037",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"notthetup",
"tbrhdhd",
"user24961"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
28507 | When is a Utility Knife to be preferred over a Chef's or a Paring knife?
A Utility knife is a kitchen knife that is midway in size between a Chef's knife and a Paring knife.
Although I own a Utility knife, I don't believe that I have ever used it except when my Chef's knife was unavailable. I took a look around to see what uses I might have missed. Wikipedia says (without citation) that this knife is "derided as filler for knife sets" which squares with my experience. A few links call this type of knife a Sandwich knife because it is, ostensibly, good for cutting sandwich cheese and meat. Here's what one source says:
The utility knife is good for cutting larger vegetables and sandwich
meats that are not large enough for a chef's knife
I have a hard time swallowing this because, whether I'm chopping very small items, say Kaffir lime leaves, or large vegetables, say an aubergine, the Chef's knife still feels most comfortable in my hand.
Can someone help me picture a legitimate use for this knife where a Chef's knife or Paring knife wouldn't do better?
There's no question that a 4 or 5 inch utility knife is going to see a lot less use than your chef's knife or your paring knife, both of which have innumerable uses. The utility knife is a lot more specific, really being for cases where the paring knife is too short and the chef's knife is too heavy or thick. I have a 4" utility knife, which (of course) I got for free with a 6" Sabatier chef's knife. It gets used a couple times a week, for:
scoring onions in order to mince them
cutting limes in half (a chef's knife seems like overkill here)
splitting small peppers
slicing large California shallots
cutting cheese
... and similar occasional, accessory uses.
Part of the problem with the 4" utility knife is that it's really a dwarf 6"-8" utility knife. The 6" or 8" utility knife, now commonly called a "vegetable knife", is far more useful; the long, thin blade is excellent for making paper-thin vegetable and fruit slices, and can be used as a fileting knife if you don't have one. At the 4" size, though, the utility knife is useful only for cutting things which happen to be small, and only if you don't already have a more general knife dirty.
If what you're really asking is "can I get rid of this knife?", the answer is "yes".
Plus 10 for your excellent get-directly-to-the-point in the last sentence! :^D A caveat, though: if someone with smaller hands than the OP has or will have occasion to use his kitchen, it might be worth whatever annoyance it brings for their safety and comfort.
And the one other use -- when you have to put out a cheese plate or similar, and the paring knife is too small (as I'd never put out a Chef's knife for that). Also, as mine gets so little use, it tends to stay sharp enough that it's good for slicing tomatoes ... and it's the backup for when I've dirtied my other knives and don't want to stop & wash. But yes, I don't really need it.
Marge, I don't know about that. My sweetie has tiny hands (her father is an oral surgeon), and she uses a 6" chef's knife most of the time. Maybe the 4" utility would be good for a child ...
I though it possible that the Utility knife was once a cost-cutting alternative to buying both a Chef's knife and a Paring knife. So a "legitimate use", to answer my own question, would be, when you can only afford one knife. I looked into the history of this knife to see what truth there might be in this.
Amateur History of the Utility Knife
According to Merriam-Webster, the first known use of the term "utility knife" was in 1946. My own amateur efforts uncovered culinary uses of the term going back as far as 1921. It is only in 1940 that I find a reference to this knife where it is defined to any extent,
Utility knives. We believe every set should contain a knife suitable
for general utility purposes-a blade somewhat longer than a paring
knife's, so that it can slice tomato, cut grapefruit or melons and
take care of dozens of cutting jobs. --Good housekeeping (1940): Volume 111, Number 3 p105 and p191
There was nothing in this article to suggest that a Utility knife should be considered as an alternative to owning more specialised knives. Quite the opposite, the reader is told that every kitchen should have a Paring knife, a Slicing knife, Carving knife, Bread knife, Butcher knife and a Utility knife.
The earlier references to Utility knives also follow this pattern,
The most important items of cutlery and small equipment for the
kitchen include: One bread knife, One carving knife, One utility knife,
Two small paring knives, One grapefruit knife [...] --The new book of etiquette (1924) Lillian Eichler Watson p179
The size of the blade varies between 4 and 8 inches depending on sources and at times this knife is confounded with both the Paring knife and the Chef's knife. The stated uses also vary, as would be expected from the name. To give just two examples,
Utiity 5" Slices, cuts and core fruits and vegetables; trims meats.
--The Industry Leader Hardware Retailer (1968) p176
and somewhat more convincingly,
A six-to-eight-inch blade for cutting
small vegetables, deboning chicken when a chefs knife is too clumsy
and a paring knife to delicate --The home answer book (1995)
The rather curious conclusion (curious to me at least) is that the Utility knife appeared at a time when it was common to own a number of specialised knives. It seems that the Utility knife was as superfluous then as it is now. Nevertheless, Utility knives started to appear in product catalogues somewhere between 1924 and 1947 and increased in popularity from thereon.
Many home cooks use utility knives more often than paring knives
Reasons:
Home cooking often involves "one off" tasks like cutting fruit, tomatoes, onions, etc
Utility knives can be made very sharp because the shorter blade allows for much thinner steel, which reduces friction on food while, promotes better cutting precision, and helps support greater edge bevel angles on the blade.
Utility knives place the edge of the blade closer to the hand, so ergonomically they can work better for fine cuts (but the lack of knuckle clearance makes it unsuitable for chopping actions)
A utility blade is a lot lighter and more maneuverable than an 8" or 10" chef's knife, but can still cut common home cooking products which paring knives cannot cut effectively (fruit, potatoes and tomatoes, cucumbers, onions, garlic, etc)
So many home cooks prefer utility knives over paring knives because they have greater task range than parers, are lighter/more maneuverable than chefs knives, are easier to wash, more precise/sharper, or are more suitable for one-off or small volume cutting.
A utility knife does what a chef's knife does, but not as well, and is intended to paired with a different chef's knife than what 99% of home cooks use. It may sound redundant, but I think of it this way: a utility knife is cheaper, usually smaller, lighter, easier to use/sharpen/clean, and less intimidating for someone who isn't in the kitchen much.
Chef's knives came out a professional setting, and do need practice and maybe some training to use safely and effectively. 50 years ago, not only did households not have the money for a nice pro knife, it would have been looked down upon as a domestic interest, unneeded, too much for a woman etc. Not only that, most home cooks wouldn't have had any influence from the cooking industry like we do now with magazines and tv shows, so they probably would have just bought the cheapest knife-looking instrument available.
We live in a different age, where we all have access to all the equipment and information of any "professional" field we want. I think the 8 inch chef's knife is the anomaly of history, not the utility knife. 8 inch chef's knives are the in-between knife in all reality if you ask me. Too small to make easy work of a big chunk of protein, and too fatiguing for a pile of vegetable. I think a 10 inch chef's knife and an 8 inch utility is the proper kitchen setup. When you have those and start to use them, it becomes clear what the SUV style home knives lack, and why they don't get used.
Previously I answered that a legitimate use for a utility knife might be when you can only afford one knife. In the same post I undermine my own answer showing how I found no historical evidence for this. I wonder if I wasn't more interested in venting frustration at having a poor knife than providing a good answer.
Leaving aside my dubious attempt at an answer, I did find a good use for my utility knife a while back when peeling fresh ginger. I alternated between in-the-hands peeling and on-the-cutting-board chopping off of medium sized chunks of root to peel.
This seems to me both a general and legitimate use for the utility knife.
A good use for the utility knife is when you need to alternate between in-the-hands and on-the-chopping-board use.
i'm a career line cook currently in a james beard award winning kitchen. i use my utility knife during service for everything. it's better for precision than my chef's knife. it's better for butchering whole animals. it's better for keeping in an apron pocket (sheathed). it's my preferred knife. i use a utility knife and a usuba for everything. i've stopped putting my 8.25" chef's in my knife roll.
Here is what I use the shun classic 6" utility for. When my chefs knife in use with other foods and need to make some slices in small light work too big for a paring knife, and to avoid washing the chefs knife, I then use the utility knife. I also use the utility knife to slice sandwiches, de-bone foul, and on small portions of fish, because the blade is short, thin, more flexible and easier to manuver than the 8" chefs knife.
Utility knives are tweeners, not good for paring and far less useful than a 6-8" chef's knife for cutting vegetables and meats. After looking at mine for years, and using it only rarely, I converted it to a letter opener, a task at which it excels.
I know this is an old question but the website that caused me to come here looking for the difference between a paring knife and a utility knife advertises a serrated utility knife as opposed to a plain edged paring knife (which is perhaps a recent development in the knife world). It doesn't account for the difference in length but a serrated utility knife would be good for tough skinned yet smaller veggies such as tomatoes. My brother has a pizza shop and uses a smaller version of a bread knife to slice tomatoes and it makes short work of them. He uses a bread knife for cutting pineapples which is also quick.
Utility knife is unnecessary if you have chefs knife and paring knife. It can do both small and big tasks, but shines at neither. i rarely use mine.
I have a mid quality 6" utility. I use it for butchering venison. The 6" actually goes with me on the hunt which is a tremendous help having a knife that was designed to cut on a board. Once the game is back in my kitchen I take bone-in quarters and field dressed chunks down to steaks and ready for the oven roasts. It works well de-boning and making trimming cuts around seemingly endless number of tendons that are awkward with my larger chef's knife. The paring is a little undersized for some of these cuts and any filet knife has not held up for more than 10 minutes. I'll mention that I have the chef, utility & paring knives out on a very large counter and rotate through a series of 2 sinks and 3 boards. I acknowledge this scope of butchery uncommon to kitchens. Most hunters don't process their own game to this degree and most chefs are starting with processed cuts.
The other time where I like to utility is when I have to cut up 1 onion or 2 limes. Like another said, moving from cuts in hand to cuts on a small board. This would probably be less common in a restaurant kitchen.
The bust use of the utility knife that I have found (and I use it often) if for what it sounds like... Utilities. I use it for cutting wire, tape, opening up boxes, everything under the sun. Heck, I've even used it to cut a hole in my drywall for an electrical switch. I think its a great knife to own in a knife set because lets be honest, you know when you need a knife to open something up you turn to the kitchen knives. This way I only end up dulling one useless knife instead of a precious chef knife or paring knife.
For most of these purposes, the other sort of "utility knife" tends to be better -- box cutters and snap-blade knives -- especially for the drywall work. (although for larger in situ cuts , you'll want a drywall saw or keyhole saw) The only thing they won't do in that list is function well as a screwdriver.
Instead of a utility knife for those in-between tasks, I simply use a steak knife. It slices tomatoes, sandwiches, and potatoes perfectly. They are running a Cuisinart knife promotion at our supermarket and I've gotten a chef's knife and 2 paring knives and I skipped the so called utility knife.
This doesn't really provide an answer to the question that was asked.
Usually utility Knife used for general purpose but when you have specefic task e.g - Slicing a Potatoe, Removing hull from Strawberry, removing skin from a fruit then you shoud go fo Paring Knife.
Hello, and welcome to Seasoned advice. Your answer got flagged as spam, probably because it does not add any new information, but includes a link. I will give you the benefit of doubt and just delete the link instead of the entire post. In the future, you are more likely to gain upvotes if you add new information to the discussion, instead of repeating what has already been said.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.794846 | 2012-11-19T02:20:21 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28507",
"authors": [
"Anne",
"David Kay",
"Donna",
"Erica",
"FuzzyChef",
"Hey",
"J Thornton",
"Joe",
"John",
"Kelsey Dietrich",
"Lauren Peterson",
"Linda Busler",
"MargeGunderson",
"Mayle",
"Sharon Lei Todd Stephens",
"Stacey Burns",
"dzknots",
"freginold",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131616",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154935",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155586",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65815",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65926",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"ram",
"rumtscho",
"user12676"
],
"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
} |
28788 | Gyuto knife - What it can & can't cut? What cutting techniques?
I bought a Gyuto knife but now I am unsure what I can cut with it. The manufacturer says I shouldn't try to cut bones or frozen things with it, which seems clear to me.
But how about raw potatoes & sweet potatoes? They also can be pretty hard. And what about an avocado or mango where cut along the stone in the center of the fruit? Is a Gyuto the right tool for that?
Also, is it ok to firmly press garlic on the cutting bord with the side of the knife?
And what about the technique? I know how to use a Santoku or Gyuto with the "cutting motion", but what about chopping? Actually I thought all japanese knifes are made for chopping, but I heard someone that the blade can break.
Info about the knife: The center of the knife consists of VG-10 steel, coated with a chrome alloy. The blade is 24 cm long, HR is 60.
You can do anything with this knife that you would do with your santoku or Western-style chef's knife. These are real tools, and they are not especially delicate. It is certainly possible to chip the edge or tip (which requires an annoying amount of work to fix), if you drop the knife or, as the manufacturer warns, whack it against bones. This is a consequence of the relatively high hardness of your blade -- not of the fact that it's a gyuto -- but the flip side is that it should retain its edge very nicely for normal work. (A softer steel would end up with a rolled edge or dent rather than a chip.)
I guess that by "chopping" you mean quickly lifting and pushing the blade down through food so that it hits the cutting board. That's perfectly normal usage, and a plastic, wood, or rubber cutting board should not hurt your knife at all. (No glass! Do run it over a steel it often as you use it, though.) The foods you mentioned -- potatoes and fruit pits -- may seem hard, but they are much softer than the edge of your knife.
Nice answer, and +1 for NO GLASS.
Not all gyutos are suitable for honing on a steel.
VG-10 is a very versatile steel, which is exactly why it's popular with high-end chef's knives and gyutos.
You should be able to use the gyuto with most cutting techniques except:
Hard chopping - hard steel (even VG-10) is more prone to chipping, and gyutos are not really designed to support this movement
Cutting very hard products - Cutting a pit stone, or bone is not really what a gyuto should be used for. This will blunt the edge quickly or even damage it. By the same token, a marble or glass cutting board will cause the same effect on the knife.
Cutting movements involving high torque on the edge - Doing things like carving pumpkins or levering the pit out of a peach is not a good idea with any gyuto, because you risk fracturing the edge or screwing up the alignment.
Hard edges actually stand up to moderate chopping impact far better than european style edges, UP TO A LIMIT. That's how they are meant to be used. +1 for mentioning torque: forceful cross-chopping/mincing/walking is best left to european knives or thicker asian knives (sturdy cleavers, symmetric debas).
Also: A VG10 gyuto might be sharpened anywhere between 9/9degrees (Takamura out of the box) and 22/22degrees - which makes a substantial difference in what the edge will survive or not.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.795849 | 2012-12-01T12:24:11 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28788",
"authors": [
"Adam Zielinski",
"Bradford Loesch",
"Chris",
"JoeFish",
"Nick",
"Willa",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66658",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66659",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8522",
"lamb_da_calculus",
"pipe",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
8885 | Can Fresh unboiled egg pasta be used for lasagna?
I want to make a lasagna quickly, and I don't want to be bothered with boiling the noodles OR going to the store. Would strips of freshly made pasta cook properly layered with the other ingredients? Could I use one large sheet of pasta per layer instead of several strips?
You don't want to be bothered with boiling noodles, yet you're willing to make fresh pasta? You have a very different definition of what's "bothersome" than I do.
It's not really about the reasoning. I just hate handling boiled noodles, I don't have a real deadline, except my wife wants lasagna for dinner.
Not quite an answer -- but Cook's Illustrated had a recipe for a skillet lasagne, where they broke up the regular store lasagne noodles into the sauce, and added blobs of ricotta towards the end, if I remember correctly. I've also done casseroles that are all of the ingredients of lasagne, but just use wide egg noodles, mixed, and baked.
I've seen cooks work with unboiled noodles in lasagnes before. The noodles felt more rustic, but the dishes worked overall.
Like Bob said, surely boiling some noodles is way less of a bother than breaking out the pasta machine?
If you really want to make fresh pasta, I don't see any reason you couldn't use it for lasagna without boiling it - the reason one boils dry noodles is because it's hard to get them to soften in the time it takes to bake the lasagna. But just like when cooking fresh noodles, you need to be careful not to overcook it, so make sure all your fillings are fully cooked before you start layering. It also should be perfectly fine to not cut the noodles into strips - the reason dried noodles come that way is for easier handling.
It is possible to make lasagna using dried lasagna noodles without boiling them first, but you need to add more water and bake it longer. A search for "no-boil lasagna" will turn up scores of recipes.
I've cooked with both home-made lasagne noodles, and with uncooked noodles (before they came out with the 'no boil' noodles ... you had to cook 'em for a good 90 minutes or so, and add extra liquid, as Marti mentioned)
Fresh pasta in lasagne comes out much differently than store bought noodles ... I grew up with it, but a few of my friends weren't thrilled with the texture.
And even then, we'd let it dry out some for an hour or two first, and then boil it, then assemble ... so it's not really a time savings over just using store-bought noodles (unless the trip to the store is such a problem). Also, rolling it can be time consuming, unless you have a pasta roller ... in which case, it's rarely the right size for the dish you're using, so you still need to use two strips or so to cut it down as you're working.
I'd say it'd be worth an experiment, but you're going to have to work quickly -- the pasta's not set up yet by cooking, so it liable to start getting soggy and dissolving if it sits too long.
Another alternative for faster lasagne would be to use wonton wrappers -- they're basically pasta in sheet form, undried. It might be faster than making your own, but you might need to double 'em up to get the right noodle to sauce ratio.
you certainly can, provided that you make the bechamel a bit more liquid and the lasagne a bit thinner. We do that in Italy to save time, but I personally find the traditional way leads to a better texture.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.796147 | 2010-11-05T17:14:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8885",
"authors": [
"Adam",
"Bob",
"Bruce Alderson",
"JKirchartz",
"Joe",
"Marwen Trabelsi",
"Stephen",
"Stéphan",
"dsign",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18173",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18187",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"pdbartlett"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
13222 | Getting stains off of a glass top stove
I have had a glass top stove for about three years now. I have two spots that have stained black. The stains look like a patch of burnt food, however they are flat to the surface. I have tried to use the white ceramic cook top stuff you can buy (to no avail). I have tried to scrape it off with a razor (also to no avail, and this is why I know that it is flat to the surface of the stove). Any ideas?
First of all, razor on glass is a bad idea. I hope I don't have to explain why. Just think about what you're doing there.
You definitely did the right thing by buying the cooktop cleaner (I assume you used Cerama-Bryte or some similar product), but that's only half the equation; if you just use a cloth or paper towel with that, you won't get good results. There's a product called a "Scrunge" that's specifically designed for cleaning (scrubbing) glass cook tops. Use that with the cleaning solution and it can clean almost anything off.
With a little bit of elbow grease (okay, a lot of elbow grease) I managed to clean off over a year of caked-on grease and charcoal around the burner rings that I was never able to get with the Cerama-Bryte alone. I don't want this to sound like a product endorsement as there may be other, similar kinds of specialized "sponges" on the market, but this is the only one I know of that's safe to use on glass (i.e. won't scratch it like a scouring pad or those double-sided 3M sponges).
You can also try baking soda. Make a concentrated paste (say 3 parts baking soda to 1 part water) and scrub it in as hard as you can. This is often enough to clean by itself, but if that fails...
Finally, you can use the baking soda/vinegar track. Use roughly equal parts of each but don't mix them in advance. Instead, pour vinegar onto the stain and sprinkle on the baking soda afterward, or vice versa, and scrub right away while it's fizzing. That will usually dissolve anything under it.
There is a special tool you can buy that implements a razor, and that is what I was talking about. Cerama-Bryte is the stuff that I used. Thanks for the tip on Scrunge, I will definitely be getting that.
I completely agree about the baking soda/ bicarbonate of soda and water suggestion . Just leave it for about 1/2 hour or so before you start scrubbing in order to give it a chance to work.
of course if it's burnt in badly enough, nothing will get rid of it.
I hate to make a fool of myself, but why is a razor on glass a bad idea? I use razor blades all the time to scrape off paint, plaster and other things stuck to window or sheet glass.
Glass is generally harder than steel. Not stronger, but harder. So glass would scratch steel, not steel scratching glass in most circumstances.
Speaking as someone coming to this site for the first time, it sounds incredibly arrogant and unhelpful to say "razor on glass is a bad idea. I hope I don't have to explain why." I and OP must be incredibly stupid not to know why.
@SAJ14SAJ - Glass may indeed be scratched by steel if you're not careful. I've had a broken window wiper scrape a permanent arc on my windshield once, and they don't sell steel autmotive ice-scrapers for a reason (there are a few brass ones, tho.)
Generally you would use the razor blade parallel to the glass surface so it shouldn't scratch the glass. It sounds like that's how OP was doing it, so I don't see how it's obviously a bad idea.
Have you tried melamine foam (e.g. Magic Erasers)? I use it to clean a lot of stuff, ceramics, stainless steel, glass (glass top stove and glassware) etc. Just soak the foam in water and rub it on the stain. It cleans by friction and won't scratch the surface.
toilet bowl cleaner will also etch the glass. Also using a razor blade flat on the glass will NOT hurt it. How do you get a sticker off a window? Razor blade.
toilet bowl cleaner and an SOS pad will take everything off.
Yes, it will take everything off - including the finish. Don't do this.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.796466 | 2011-03-16T23:47:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13222",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Allen Newman",
"Andrei Marincas",
"EfForEffort",
"Josue Espinosa",
"Kat",
"RI Swamp Yankee",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"Wulfhart",
"ashish saxena",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146941",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146943",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35352",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79436",
"jwenting",
"mrwienerdog",
"nixy ",
"ssherar",
"user27422"
],
"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
} |
6529 | What are the main styles of pizza that are popular in America?
Background: I found a pizza in Italy that was sold as "American pizza", and that used bell peppers, corn, and hot salami as toppings. In the USA, is there a pizza that is called "American pizza"?
Are there well-defined regional styles of pizza in America? If so, what are they called and what are their distinguishing characteristics?
@Michael at Herbivoracious: Thank you for the editing; now the question is, indeed, much better. Sometimes I am not able to correctly express the question I have in my mind.
Aside: Many countries have there own strange ingredients they put on "pizza". In Australia, we love BBQ sauce (mixed with the usual tomato paste), in Japan, I saw a lot of tuna (and other seafood) and corn (never seen corn on US or Aussie pizzas, though I have seen prawns).
I'm surprised no-one's mentioned calzone (unless it's lurking under an alias). Am I the only one who eats this when I'm in the States?
@Tobias - ever tried a stromboli? A calzone and stromboli are basically the same except that the sauce is baked into a stromboli while served on the side or poured on top with a calzone.
I love calzone. As far as I remember, in Italy the sauce is placed on top of calzone before to bake it; to say it all, they place a little of tomato sauce on top of calzone.
@GalacticCowboy in my experience, strombolis only contain mozzarella cheese whereas calzones contain mozarella and ricotta. at least, this seems to be the case in the NYC area.
Hmmm... peppers, corn, and salami? I've never had it, but I'd be willing to try it. Signed, an American.
No.
Those are not common pizza toppings in America at all.
In America there are these (rather well known) pizza styles:
Chicago style
Chicago style pizza is a deep-dish pizza that is baked in a thick heavy cornmeal based crust. The toppings are also added in reverse order of a traditional pizza. First the cheese is added, then a pound or more of sausage is added in a dense patty layer, finally it is topped with sauce. You eat it with a fork and knife.
New York style
New York style pizza is wide thin-crust pizza. The crust is made with a very high gluten bread flour and hand-tossed. Some say that it gets a lot of it's flavor from the NYC water. It is typically cut into only 8 slices for a large pie. You fold the piece in half to eat.
New Haven style
New Haven style pizza is a bit lesser known, and originates from New Haven, Connecticut. There it is commonly called "apizza". It is similar to a New York style pizza in that it has a thin crust, but it is always brick oven fired until crispy. You should not be able to fold a New Haven slice of pizza in half without cracking it. It should also be crispy enough to stand up to it's own weight when held by the crust.
In a New Haven pizza a "plain" does not have mozzarella. A plain pizza consists solely of sauce, oregano, and a bit of parmesan and romano grated on top. Mozzarella is considered a separate topping.
They are most known for their white pizzas. These have no tomatoes at all, the "sauce" consists of olive oil, oregano, chopped garlic, and grated parmesan. The most well known is the clam pie which has fresh clams as a topping. It is generally frowned upon to order this with mozarella.
Verace pizza napoletana style
Although this is the original Neapolitan pizza, it has become very popular in the Pacific Northwest (and maybe elsewhere?). There is a certifying organization, which has stringent requirements for the crust ingredients, oven and so forth. The pies are very thin in the interior, with a slightly puffy edge, and are typically lightly charred in spots, which contributes a lot of flavor. Toppings tend to be minimalist.
@hobodave - what is New Haven style. I've never heard of it. I'm a pizza fanatic and I love the other two styles, so...
Definitely worth a +1 if you list a short explanation of each of those styles.
@hobodave - those are certainly 3 important styles, but generally speaking that says more about the crust than the toppings, right, so a little bit ot?
@Michael - in my experience the different order of toppings is pretty key between Chicago and NY styles.
@hobodave - but I'd love for you ask and answer your own question separate from this "what are the common styles of pizza in the us?"
@Aaronut: Updated
@Michael: I prefer to elaborate when answering questions that are phrased poorly (yes/no).
@hobodave - can you point to a big Chicago-style place that actually uses cornmeal? In my experience the crust is not cornmeal based (both from eating at Chicago style places and doing a lot of research toward the perfect homemade crust): http://www.pizzamaking.com/forum/index.php?topic=4576.0
@hobodave - fair enough; I'll edit the question a bit then so that your answer, which is primarily about crust rather than choice of toppings (which seemed to be what the OP was asking) is more relevant.
@Michael: The only one that is "primarily" crust based is New York.
@justkt: Gino's East. They are arguably the most well known and best. (Uno's sucks) http://slice.seriouseats.com/archives/2008/10/ginos-east-one-of-chicagos-best-deep-dish-pizzas-review-illinois.html
@hobodave - see edit; let me know if you think that makes the question tie together better with your answer (which I like a lot). I think I'll add a part about vera pizza napoletana, which has taken the west coast by storm - it is of course the original Italian style but we are making it our own now.
What about 'California style', which is more about ingredients than the crust? There's also a style that's more common to Maryland (specifically, the Ledos Pizza chain), that's more a biscuit crust.
@Joe: Everyone knows California has terrible pizza, and bagels. :)
@hobodave - Fair enough. Uno's counts if you mean the real (first) one. Other than that - dead on agreed. My Chicago style recipe uses the chain Uno's as what not to do.
@Michael: Looks good.
I've never had a pizza with a primarily corn-based crust. Corn meal is used as ball-bearings to get the pizza off the peel, though, but that wouldn't apply to Chicago style which is baked in a pan.
Why is it so easy to imagine some American saying "VER - ace"?
There is also the tomato pie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomato_pie) which is similar in style to the Neapolitan.
The neopolitan is by far my favorite, although I enjoy the others too. I'm lucky enough to have one nearby and it looks like I have one of the "certified" ones local too, will have to check it out.
I feel like this list ignores the most popular pizza chains in the US. Papa Johns, Dominos, Pizza Hut, Little Caesar's, etc...they don't seem to fit into any of these groups.
We call that style of pizza Cognitive Dissonance here in America. Corn anywhere in or near a pizza? That's just crazy talk. In fact, now that i think about it, i can't remember seeing corn in the same room as pizza. (Maybe they're mortal enemies, or alter egos.)
Others have described the various official American pizza styles and provided great links. Here's a more anecdotal list:
School pizza - this is (or was, before it became illegal to feed children) typically cheese or peperoni or sausage pizza, horrible to pizza mavens but well-received when you're 15. Either cooked in-house or catered by Pizza Hut, which i note is currently promoting the Big Italy Pizza, shaped like a hockey rink, in the traditional Italian fashion. In my experience, pizza prepared in-house must adhere to the following pattern: cheese pizza is round while meat pizza is rectangular, to serve as something of a visual aid for the kids who have trouble identifying toppings.
Chain delivery pizza - here, we're talking Dominos, Donatos, the aforementioned Pizza Hut, Papa Johns, etc. etc. etc. Your choices are either thick, thin, or hand-tossed, with a wide variety of meats and vegetable toppings (though, oddly enough, no corn), and red or white sauces. They also like to sell bread sticks with your pizza to ensure you have enough carbs to survive (in America, we're dangerously thin, you see). You can choose delivery, pick-up, and sometimes dine-in.
Local chain pizza - these places offer a slightly-more-robust dining experience, and will often deliver. They have the normal array of toppings, sometimes a green sauce, and often a few specialties, like Caribbean, Mediterranean, Mexican, or what-have-you. Their menus are more varied, and the pizzas are often enjoyed by little league and high school sports teams after a game.
Actual Restaurant - here you are most likely to unearth something slightly crazy, but usually pretty tasty. They take more chances, mix things up, and turn out fantastic pizza. You can find a thick white cheese monster with Colossal Shrimp, smothered in Garlic butter. Or at Piece in Chicago: Clam & Bacon white pizza. Ian's: Mac & Cheese, Lasagna, ...
In fact, i'd say Ian's pizza menu is borderline insane. Almost freakshow weird. S'mores? BBQ Potato Bacon Ranch? Yeah, they went out of their way to put the nuttiest stuff imaginable on their menus. And this works! Honestly, we Americans love this kind of thinking!
But what is the one thing don't they have? Corn.
+1 for mentioning Ian's -- although to be fair, Ian's is largely derivative of Antonio's in Amherst, MA (where Ian worked before starting his own first shop in Madison, WI). I don't know the lineage of the style before that, if indeed Antonio's wasn't the genesis.
Corn on pizza is actually a British thing. Go figure.
Actually, corn meal makes an excellent lubricant for the peel.
I really like the Thai chicken pizza: chicken, peanuts, onions, and some sort of cheese, with a Thai peanut sauce instead of a red sauce. It's such an American fusion sort of choice.
Check out this very comprehensive article on Slice that describes the regional pizza styles in America. Each style below links directly to a nice description and picture.
http://slice.seriouseats.com/archives/2008/01/a-list-of-regional-pizza-styles.html
The article lists 21 distinct styles:
Neapolitan-style pizza
New York–Neapolitan (aka "Neapolitan-American")
New York–style
Sicilian-style pizza
Grandma-style pizza
New Haven–style apizza
Grilled pizza
Bar-style pizza
Trenton tomato pies
Old Forge–style pizza
Detroit-style pizza
Deep dish
Stuffed pizza
Chicago thin-crust pizza
Midwest-style pizza
St. Louis–style pizza
California-style pizza
Ohio Vally–style pizza
New England Greek–style pizza
D.C. jumbo slices
Pizza parlor–style pizza
This isn't comprehensive (What? No Providence-style?), but it's a lot more complete than the other answers, probably because it's sourced from a well researched article. Upvoted.
Common Toppings in the United States are:
Meat
Pepperoni
Ham
Bacon
Ground Beef
Italian Sausage
Vegetables
Green Bell Peppers
Red Bell Peppers
Onions
Mushrooms
Black Olives
There are a couple other toppings that are used almost exclusively on a single pizza type
BBQ Chicken Pizza - Chicken with BBQ sauce instead of a tomato based sauce
Hawaiian Pizza - Ham and Pineapple
Of course, one of the great things about pizza is, you can put almost anything on it. Whatever your taste preference is.
While this is all true, it seems that uncommon toppings are becoming more and more popular - or maybe that's just that I live in an area where a new specialty pizza joint appears weekly.
@justkt, agreed, was just adding to my answer how you can do whatever you want really. I listed those as the common "American" selection that I've seen.
There are four pizza toppings or combinations that are the most popular in the US:
Cheese - nothing but tomato sauce and mozzarella (sometimes a blend of cheeses)
Pepperoni - add pepperoni to a cheese pizza
Supreme - many variations, but commonly tomato sauce, mozzarella, pepperoni, loose ground pork sausage (or "Italian" sausage), bell peppers, mushrooms and onions (often black olives)
all meat - many variations, but often tomato sauce, mozzarella, three or more of: pepperoni, ground beef, loose ground pork sausage (or "Italian" sausage), ham, bacon, Canadian bacon, other "cased" and sliced meats such as salami, etc.
Also popular:
Veggie: some combination of vegetables with tomato sauce and mozarella
Hawaiian: ham or Canadian bacon and pineapple with tomato sauce and mozzarella
Margherita: red tomato sauce, white mozzarella cheese, green basil
BBQ - barbecue (aka BBQ, Bar-B-Q, etc.) sauce and shredded or diced chicken, pork or beef (usually brisket)
White - no sauce or sometimes alfredo sauce, mozzarella or another white cheese and spinach
Many menus list available toppings, crust types, sauce choices and sizes and the customer chooses their own combination
In addition to the other crust styles already mentioned by hobodave, there are quite a few variations mostly of thickness, crispness and chewiness (also variations in added ingredients such as garlic or herbs and even cheese). Some restaurants serve a "Neopolitan" style which may or may not be authentic but frequently the only discernible distinction is that it's rectangular instead of round.
American pizzas typically are covered fairly heavily in toppings in contrast to what I understand to be the case with genuine Italian pizzas.
With the increase in the number of good restaurants, international travel, cooking and travel shows on TV, etc., awareness of and interest in authenticity and variety have increased and many people have ventured outside their familiar territory to try new things.
See also the Wikipedia article Pizza in the United States.
No, there is no such thing. That is just one of those wacky things where folks in one country are doing a sort of caricature of what they think folks in another country eat. Hilarious, but in no way authentic.
So you're saying that an authentic Cuban sandwich isn't actually made with chopped cigars?
More hilarious in that American-style Pizza is but a caricature of true Italian pizza in the first place! Somehow this "double caricature" has ended up back in the home country.
Short version: American pizza has pepperoni, the meat product that's like a really bad hot salami (pepperoni means pepper in Italian). Corn in pizza is weird, but most non-Americans think Americans only eat corn and only drink coke.
Long version: America is a very big country. More than 5x the population of Italy and many more times the size... I lived there for 3 years and I love pizza, so I did some research trying to find what pizza meant there. It means many different things and they have some of the best and worst pizzerias in the world.
Some places with their own style are:
New York, probably the most famous. I don't think there is a city with more places that selling pizza anywhere in the world. Maybe only 10% of them are good, but some of them are really good. Check slice for names, like DiFara. Which makes the simplest and most amazing pizza I've ever had. In NY they also have a lot of weird toppings, but not on the good places.
Chicago, with the famous deep pizza and the more classical style (see what the guys from Chicago Pizza Club review). Most common topping is sausage.
The midwest. They cut the pizza in squares and it's not famous for being good. They also use a lot of sausage.
New Haven, representing Connecticut and most of New England, it's supposed to be more close to the Italian. The most famous topping are clams.
California, famous for the weird toppings, see California Pizza Kitchen as an example. They also have classical pizzas that are really good, but none believes them.
The Pacific Northwest area has a lot of places certified, so I guess is actually the closest one to Italian, but I found a lot of variety in the toppings of the regular places. They pay more attention to the quality, in general.
Chains. They are everywhere and are terrible and shameless in using any kind of topping. I would believe they shell pizza with corn.
Pepperone in Italian refers to, for example, bell pepper; the translation for black pepper is pepe. I always wondered why English uses one word, where in Italian we use two different words. :-)
A friend from Italy told me it could be that ground pepper (aka paprika) is used for some cured meats. I know paprika is used in chorizo and black pepper in salami, so it might be true.
Except for people from Germany, Switzerland and Italy, the rest of the people that I know think of meat when hearing pepperoni thanks to America.
"The midwest. They cut the pizza in squares and it's not famous for being good. They also use a lot of sausage." - being from the midwest, it sounds like you're describing Pizza King, which really falls under the "Chains" section. Their "pizza" is cardboard-like crust smeared with a ketchupy sauce and greasy meats, and known more for being cheap than good. I can name at least 3 local pizza restaurants that are absolutely fabulous. In one case they do cut their pizza in squares, but it's awesome none the less.
The Midwest is also very big, but you´ll have to agree that the proportion of good pizzerias there is worse than in the East coast. I´ll ask you next time.
At least, we agree on the square cut happening there. Could that count as American? I haven´t seen it anywhere else.
@kiamlaluno : I'm no food historian, but supposedly the reason for the capsicum being called 'pepper' was that Columbus was attempting to get to India for the spice trade, as was attempting to bring back 'pepper'. Instead, he brought back capsicums. And he named the indigenous people he found 'Indians' while he was at it.
It's often claimed that modern pizza originates from the US Chicago and Detroit area. In Italy it was a simple bread dish with a few flavorings on top, and for poor people. Then in the US it started getting more elaborate toppings; then this got exported to Italy by returning expats, some of whom started businesses offering this US-style, topping heavy pizza. Then demand by American visitors (some say mostly troops during WWII) expecting the local "authentic" pizza to be a refined dish expanded these returnees' businesses and prompted them to refine it to met this demand. This cultural back-and-forth-and-back-again is refered to as the pizza effect sometimes. I think with respects to pizza this has happened several times already, in various ways, and this might be just the latest iteration of this phenomenon.
But most people here in Europe I think know Americans don't eat corn on pizza. There's other pizzas that have corn as a topping, I think it probably refers more to the bell peppers and the hot salami, which is imitating the American "pepperoni" (which is not and actual Italian word, there's a word "peperoni" which means something compeltely different) which is a spicy salami-like meat product and the stereotypical American topping. Corn as spereotypically American might and probably does play a role, but in American pizza chains here don't have corn on pizzas so I think it's not a misunderstanding. I think Americans might not realize people use geographical terms like that as shorthand like that without actually implying that this is an authentic dish from there, I guess here in Europe people we can do that because different countries are more nearby and we actually see what they're like firsthand. While Americans might interpret these things much more literally as might be the case here.
Being from Ann Arbor, Michigan, I'm also familiar with "Detroit-style" pizza. This is a rectangular pizza cooked in a deep metal pan. The crust is crunchy, chewy, and rather oily, and the toppings go right to the edge, forming a crispy border of browned cheese and sauce against the rim of the pan. Toppings are placed under the cheese, and sauce on top.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.797017 | 2010-09-01T19:47:18 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6529",
"authors": [
"A person",
"Aaronut",
"Cheryli VanAlstine",
"Dennis Williamson",
"GalacticCowboy",
"Jeff",
"Joe",
"Julio",
"MGOwen",
"ManiacZX",
"Michael Natkin",
"Noldorin",
"Pinko",
"RI Swamp Yankee",
"Rob P.",
"Tobias Op Den Brouw",
"Yamikuronue",
"avpaderno",
"erichui",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36969",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47518",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47667",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6250",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8457",
"justkt",
"patrick",
"thursdaysgeek"
],
"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
} |
66512 | When baking quick breads and cakes, can I premix wet ingredients the night before?
When baking quick breads and cakes, I've premixed dry ingredients the night before to save time. Can I premix wet ingredients as well?
I understand that I can't premix the full batter when using leavening agents -- I am curious if I can save some time the day of while preparing the batter by premixing both the wet and dry ingredients separately beforehand.
The following is an example of a recipe for which I was thinking of doing this (wet ingredients would be the egg and buttermilk mixture):
Ingredients
1 1/4 cups buttermilk, milk, or yogurt (or 1 1/4 cups milk plus 1 tablespoon white vinegar; see Step 2), plus more as needed
2 tablespoons butter or extra virgin olive oil
1 1/2 cups medium-grind cornmeal
1/2 cup all-purpose flour
1 1/2 teaspoons baking powder
1 teaspoon salt
1 tablespoon sugar, plus more if you like sweet corn bread
1 egg
Instructions
Preheat the oven to 375°F.
If you’re using buttermilk, milk, or yogurt, ignore this step. If not, make the soured milk: Warm the milk gently—1 minute in the microwave is sufficient, just enough to take the chill off—and add the vinegar. Let it rest while you prepare the other ingredients.
Put the butter in a medium ovenproof skillet or an 8-inch square baking pan over medium heat; heat until good and hot, about 2 minutes, then turn off the heat. Combine the dry ingredients in a bowl. Mix the egg into the buttermilk. Stir the liquid into the dry ingredients (just enough to combine); if it seems too dry, add another tablespoon or two of buttermilk. Pour the batter into the prepared skillet or pan, smooth out the top if necessary, and put in the oven.
Bake about 30 minutes, until the top is lightly browned and the sides have pulled away from the pan; a toothpick inserted into the center will come out clean. Serve hot or warm.
Source: Good Old Fashioned Corn Bread by Mark Bittman
Sure.
With quick breads you just don't want to activate your leavened prematurely. That happens when the wet and dry mix so you're fine.
Two things to watch out for:
The eggs and buttermilk are going to be more prone to spoiling after they are removed from their containers. Additionally, the batter could pick up funny flavors from the fridge. Storing in an appropriate container in the fridge and using it the next day would avoid any issues.
The wet ingredients, including the eggs, are emulsified when they are mixed. The oil dissolves into the buttermilk with the help of the egg yolks. This emulsification is important for the texture of quick breads. The emulsion is not indestructible. If you find your oil has separated in the morning you may need to beat it again to reemulsify before combining with the dry.
Note: your title says "and cakes". Cakes are assembled with different methods such as creaming or beating egg whites. These could not be done in advance without destroying the texture of the cake.
I think it depends on the cake. The one I made last night (from America's Test Kitchen) mixes wet ingredients together, cuts butter into dry (including sugar) and then adds the wet to the dry in two batches. I can't imagine why it wouldn't work if the wet ingredients were premixed.
I dunno, the buttermilk could ceviche the eggs which may not be desirable. When making cake it's all mixed and baked relatively quickly, and not sitting to let the acidity of the butter milk to work on the egg.
@catija- I haven't seen the biscuit method used for cakes. I agree that mixing beforehand would be fine for that method.
@escoce- I thought of that. It needs experimenting but my opinion is that the buttermilk isn't acidic enough to reduce the binding power of the eggs.
I really appreciate this thorough answer, but it doesn't quite definitively answer the most important question: will mixing the wet ingredients 24 hours in advance cause the eggs and buttermilk to interact any differently than mixing them immediately before baking? I'd like to leave this open for a little longer before marking as answered.
I make several recipes of muffins for a monthly fundraiser (banana nut, pumpkin cream cheese, cappuccino chocolate chip with cream cheese topping). I mix all the dry ingredients 3 days before and the same for the wet with the exception of the eggs, and one calls for buttermilk & bananas. I assemble everything at 5:am at the event kitchen with several other volunteers and it is a madhouse. Even with the prepping, I have forgotten to put in different things at different times. When it all goes well they are fine. I have on occasion had to toss everything back in the bowl to add the forgotten part. Sadly more often than I would like to admit. There is no way I could pull this event off without pre-mixing a few days before.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.798902 | 2016-02-15T05:00:32 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66512",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Eric Hunt",
"Escoce",
"Hakan B.",
"Leonie Jordan",
"Sobachatina",
"Valerie Blackwell",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159307",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159308",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159314",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3637",
"irene whitworth",
"james dickson",
"twigg the Welsh urban gardener"
],
"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
} |
15446 | Pre-Cooking Steak in a bag, Any suggestions?
I tried something on the weekend, and it seemed to work well, so I thought I'd ask for comments.
We'd planned to make steak for dinner, and it happened to come in a vacuum-packet plastic. So before opening the bag I dropped it into some hot water (about 170F) for a couple hours. The temp obviously fluctuated a bit, but I topped it off with hot water from time to time.
I like my steak "lightly seared", so pretty much "blue". So out the bag, into a bit of oil, then into the (very hot) pan. Maybe 60 seconds each side (probably not even that much). Out. Rested. Eat.
It was very soft - and perhaps predictably "warm through" - which was different as "blue" can end up being quite cold. Was very tender though.
So to my question - any suggested improvements on the technique? Would it benefit to keep the steak in the water longer? (I'm thinking of trying a 24 hour period next).
One down side is that marinading of the meat (in the bag) isn't possible - so good quality meat with good flavor is a must.
Interesting, I never thought of trying to cook it in the supermarket packaging, but I suppose it's not much different from vac-packing for sous vide. I'll have to try it.
Hi Elendi - yeah I don't have a vacuum pack machine - but I've seen other stuff done in a waterbath - so it was a bit spur-of-the-moment. And specifically 'cause it was vacuum packed - usually the stuff we get is just on a tray with cling-film.
Check what type of plastic is used, make sure its one that can take the heat w/o leaching plasticizers, etc.
You've basically re-invented sous-vide cookery for steak. Steak is about the easiest food to cook sous-vide. You can find a lot of resources describing it on the web, but here's a few notes
1) 170F for 2 hours undoubtedly left your steak very well-done. Not a problem if that's how you like it, but also not necessary. You can get medium rare by cooking in the 130-135F range for two hours. Cooking sous-vide below 130F (necessary to get steak rare) is not recommended for safety reasons, as temperatures that low can encourage the growth of dangerous bacteria.
2) With sous-vide, there's no need to rest a steak after searing it. Resting grilled steaks is necessary to give heat time to move from the outside of the steak to the center, and actually get it cooked to the desired temperature. With sous-vide, you already did that in the water.
3) With an impromptu sous-vide setup like yours, you probably don't want to cook for more than a few hours. You risk your temperature getting too low overnight, and then you're down in the bacteriologically dangerous ranges. You can get some great effects cooking longer (I had 24 hour marinated skirt steak last night that was amazing), but you should probably do so with powered equipment. There are home sous-vide machines available (a bit pricy) or you can build your own. There are dozens of different rigs described on the web. I built mine for about $100.
4)Longer cooking times are better for tougher cuts anyway. If you're just looking to do ribeyes and strips, then two or three hours is fine.
5)You can marinade, but obviously not in supermarket bags (unless the supermarket marinades, e.g. pork tenderloin). To do so, you either need to purchase a vacuum sealer (not too expensive), or be clever with drawing air out of ziploc bag and sealing it very tightly.
thanks for the comment Dave. Regarding the steak itself it wasn't well-done or anything like that - indeed there was no color change at all. It was still very rare - visually "raw" - after the bath. Perhaps I'm getting my math wrong - it was about 70 C (which I wouldn't expect to "cook" the meat much). Maybe my thermometer needs checking :-)
I like the comment about other things though - there's a lot of other things that come vacuum packet from the supermarket. And I like the idea of a powered device - I'll investigate that.
Oh, and I grilled it after bathing it - hence the rest. Would you say the rest is not needed even if I grill it? That would help a lot in serving it "warm". (My wife complains that the steak is too cold sometimes.)
70C is a little under 160F.. Still well done, but not quite as bad as 170F. Personally I like mine a little under 140F. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_(meat) for some targets
There's some disagreement over whether or not a rest is needed with sous vide. I'd say you want to rest after grilling, since muscle fibers will relax as they cool, allowing them to retain more moisture. Cut in too soon, everything spills out, and your steak is dry. When not searing post-bath, I drop my meat into a 120F water bath (hot tap water for me) for ~10 minutes for a controlled rest, getting optimally succulent results.
What was the temperature of the steak before you added it to the water? If it was very cold (or frozen), that could account for your doneness. Also, the longer you cook the steak the more collagen (tough connective tissue) will convert to delicious gelatin. As @Dave implied, certain (usually tougher) cuts of meat start off with more collagen than others, and thereby benefit from longer cooking times. Finally, you can even use a good blowtorch instead of a pan/grill to sear the outside of the meat (it's quicker and makes for less cleanup).
@ESultanik - It was at room temperature before it went in. I used to blowtorch my steak rather than grilling, but unfortunately my blowtorch is broken at the moment. I agree it's less fuss, and also gets the really charred outside with the really underdone inside.
Everything you really need to know is available from Douglas Baldwin's A Practical Guide to Sous Vide. Lots of good safety info, cooking times, etc. Some things are not immediately obvious with this cooking technique (like time being a function of thickness rather than temperature with normal cooking techniques).
As others have said, this is sous vide. One thing to remember is that sous vide meats are generally bagged right before they go into the water bath (often with flavourings and aromatics). If you buy meat from the butcher in a cryovac bag, it's very likely to have been wet-aging in that bag for some time, which can cause some really funky, smelly compounds to be created. It's a signature smell of cyrovac'd meat - it's not a nice smell, and it dissipates quickly on contact with air, but I wouldn't want to cook in a bath of it.
So, suggestion - if you like this technique (and it is an awesome one), buy a vacuum-bagger, and re-bag your meat before you bath it!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.799432 | 2011-06-14T09:32:14 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15446",
"authors": [
"Bruce",
"ESultanik",
"ElendilTheTall",
"John Siu",
"MDrollette",
"Marie Ward",
"Ray",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32711",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32726",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6459",
"nylon",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
28259 | How to choose the right diameter size of saucepans?
I am looking to buy a saucepan. The 3 sizes available are 16cm, 18cm and 20cm.
I am tempted to get the largest as I'd rather have too much space than not enough, plus (I'm not sure if this is relevant), but I think that with a distribution of liquid over a wider surface would help cook the recipe more evenly and faster.
Is it better to have a larger saucepan, or are there times when a smaller saucepan is better?
I would like to use it to cook soup, potatoes, carrots, spaghetti, etc. Mainly for 1-2 people.
What do you want to use it for? Also, there is some confusion about what a "saucepan" is, I assume you mean a cylindrical vessel with round walls, medium-high, one long handle?
Here are examples of saucepans http://www.hartsofstur.com/acatalog/Jamie_Oliver_Stainless_Steel_Cookware.html
I am not sure if you want a pot (sides at least 10 cm high) or a pan (like a frying pan or saute pan.) I'll answer for pan since that's what you said. For a pot, it's less critical assuming it holds all the food. You can put a shallow amount of water in a big pot or a deep amount of water in a smaller pot, which may then boil over. You might as well get the bigger one if you're only getting one, unless it's bigger than the stove ring you intend to put it on.
On the matter of a pan, it's impossible to give a specific answer without knowing how many people you are cooking for. A pan that's right for a one-pot meal for 6 people is far too big for say frying one egg in butter - you'll need to use way more butter and you'll have some burning in the parts of the pan that don't have any egg on them.
The disadvantage of a too-small pan is that fried food will steam instead of frying due to crowding, or that what you're cooking will spill over the edges making much more mess in your kitchen. The disadvantage of a too-large pan is that it's heavy, takes up a lot of room, and possibly scorches and burns in the empty spots, or reduces too fast if it's ful of liquid, again with possibly scorching.
I like to have one pan that just holds two eggs, for frying one or two eggs, and one that's about the size of a dinner plate, for everything else (omelettes for two, sauteed veg for 4, the filling for shepherds pie that feeds 8, poaching fish, etc.) I also have one super large pan that I keep in the pantry and haul out for things like frying 6 hamburger patties at once. But I could get by without that one.
If you're cooking for one and can only get one pan at the moment, don't get it larger than a dinner plate. Then pay attention to whether it is more often too big or too small, and keep that in mind when the time comes to buy a second one.
Good answer but I believe you're discussing saute pans, not sauce pans.
You actually answered about saucepans and frying pans. I was only really thinking about saucepans, but it is useful to know about frying pans too. Thank you :-)
Get both a small and a large, as there are uses for both. I have both a small and a large and use both regularly. I have a medium one too but rarely use it.
For example if you want to scramble 3 eggs using a small pan works better than large, but you'd want a large one for 12 eggs.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.799937 | 2012-11-06T14:22:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28259",
"authors": [
"AdamHurwitz",
"Addison Schuhardt",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Sybil West",
"Techboy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65065",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65121",
"jdadvice",
"np20",
"rumtscho",
"seasonedquestion",
"محمد المشيرعي"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
14167 | Can water in which pasta was cooked be used to make gravy?
After boiling pasta and setting the water in which the pasta was boiled aside I noticed that after the water cooled it thickened. It sort of has the consistency of gravy. Would I be able to make gravy with this instead of using starch?
The thickening is from starches that come off the pasta. Do you mean without additional starches?
yea without additional starches
Technically yes, but WHY?! (the idea reminds me of the old joke of [insert your pet peeve group here]'s construction work being instantly recognizable, because the screws are always hammered into the wall).
I think you should read McGee on this one. Basically he says the 'water' from boiling pasta is very rich in flavor.
Italian recipes often suggest adding pasta water to adjust the consistency of a sauce, but this thick water is almost a sauce in itself. When I anointed a batch of spaghetti with olive oil and then tossed it with a couple of ladles-full, the oil dispersed into tiny droplets in the liquid, and the oily coating became an especially creamy one.
Restaurant cooks prize thick pasta water. In “Heat,” his best-selling account of working in Mario Batali’s restaurant Babbo, Bill Buford describes how in the course of an evening, water in the pasta cooker goes from clear to cloudy to muddy, a stage that is “yucky-sounding but wonderful,” because the water “behaves like a sauce thickener, binding the elements and flavoring the pasta with the flavor of itself.”
You can't make a 'true' gravy, but you can put a little of the water into the sauce you are using to loosen it a little if it has reduced too far, or to make it go a bit further.
Pasta water acts as a thicker, not a loosener. It will cause a sauce to stretch tho.
Put 3 ladlefuls of pasta water into a sauce and see how thick it gets without boiling it down! There's not that much starch in it, it's not like a cornstarch slurry.
depends entirely on the amount of water to pasta. If you were to put three ladles of mine in a sauce it would be concrete. Starch thickens things, just how it works, it thickens more than three ladles of water does.
I am ethnically Italian. Whenever my grandmother would make pasta she would keep the water that was leftover. Within a day or two she would combine the water with Parmigiano rinds, whole onions (skin and all), celery ends and carrot knobs (all cooked very slowly) to make the broth she would use for vegetable soup, pasta sauce and the liquid to raise the browns from cooked meats (veal particularly). The broth left-over is so rich and delicious with a flavour incomparable to anything I've experienced in other cuisine. KEEP IT. USE IT.
Just to add a little to this discussion. There should never be that much starch left over in your water to really thicken a tomato sauce. I will have to back @ElendilTheTall here. All the thickening power of the starch should already be completely used up in that cooking water, and the cooking water should be thinner than your tomato sauce so the net result should be thinning it.
That being said something that has been thickened with starch will as it cools get thicker (its actually more of a gelling or coagulation). It should actually thin back out if you reheat it, albeit maybe not to the point it once was. But that might be why you noticed your pasta water getting thicker.
Most Italian chefs that I know add pasta water to there sauce to bring it together with the noodle as starch is attracted to starch. The principle being it will help the sauce better coat the noodle.
If you want to get clever though, I can definitely say you can make gravy with pasta water. Many pasta sauces are actually referred to as gravy. So could say the finishing touch to your gravy would in fact be pasta water :)
As for a thanksgiving style gravy I would say I hope not. If your pasta water has enough residual starch to thicken up your stock and/or pan drippings then you probably aren't using enough water when cooking your pasta.
I just wanted to follow up on @BaffledCook. I do agree that pasta water is very flavorful. And Italian cooks do save it. "behaves like a thickener, binding the elements and flavoring the pasta with the flavor of itself" is true. I did note that Italian cooks add pasta water to bring the sauce together with the noodle and bind the two (starch sticks with starch). But all the actual thickening power has already been released into the water to you have thick water. The only real way it would thinker your sauce is if your pasta water is actually thicker than sauce, it is not enough for gravy.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.800225 | 2011-04-20T02:34:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14167",
"authors": [
"Bluebird",
"Duane A Daugherty",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Haedrian",
"Terry Tester",
"ergodicsum",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29758",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29760",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6755",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95929",
"jeffwllms",
"mfg",
"que",
"rumtscho",
"sarge_smith",
"user345394"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
24026 | How do I substitute stevia for sorbitol?
I have a cake recipe that calls for 1/2 cup of sorbitol. I would like to use stevia instead since I am concerned about the side effects of sorbitol. How do I make that substitution? I could just add water to the stevia equivalent for the sorbitol amount to bring the stevia to 1/2 cup of volume. But I don't know if that will have the same effect as using the sorbitol. I know that using unsweetened applesauce will help with moisture retention. Any suggestions?
If you have negative reactions to sorbitol, erythritol is probably a better substitute than stevia, because - as you note - sorbitol is more than just a sweetener, and erythritol is very similar in function but generally without the side-effects.
Could you specify, please, gel or powder or paste form of sorbitol so that the posters below can formulate a proper substitute? The original recipe might be of use too. Cheers.
According to stevia.net one tablespoon of stevia (in powder or liquid form) is the 'equivalent' of one cup of sugar.
Similarly, lowcarbdiets.about.com tells us that sorbitol is 60% of the 'sweetness' of sugar.
Using sugar as a common denominator, 1/2 cup of sorbitol = .83 cup of sugar and so you should use ~.83 Tablespoons of stevia to gain the relative sweetness.
1 cup of sorbitol = 1.66 cups of sugar 'sweetness', so .83 cups of
sugar would be 'as sweet' as 1/2 cup sorbitol
That calculated, I would mix 1 tablespoon of stevia with 1 cup of unsweetened applesauce and then use 3/4 of a cup + 1 tablespoons of the mixture, and then adjust from there.
1 cup = 16 tablespoons, .83 cup = 13.3 tablespoons
Conversions like this are admittedly 'imprecise' but this should give you a good approximation to start from...your mileage may vary.
This doesn't address the question. The OP isn't concerned about sweetness, but about the other effects of sorbitol which stevia doesn't have.
@rumtscho I have used the technique described to substitute stevia for sugar in cake recipes, with great success. As I read the "How do I..." question it directly answers the OPs question. Without knowing the specific recipe it is the closest thing to an answer that can be provided. The principal question was "How do I" not "Should I". Aaronut gave a good comment on whether stevia is a good choice as a substitute, but I stand behind the suggestion for the best way to go about making the substitution.
sugar is a sweetener and aerator, but depending on the recipe, you can include air in other ways. Sorbitol is used for keeping a dough moist, sweetening it, and thickening it, all at once. Stevia only covers the sweetening part, and if you read the question correctly, you will see that the OP has already thought of using an amount of stevia which will provide the same sweetness, but it worried about missing the other effects.
@rumtscho you say "Sorbitol is used for keeping a dough moist, sweetening it, and thickening it, all at once." Which of these functions to you suggest that the combination of applesauce and stevia, in the right proportions, would not accomplish?
Applesauce isn't exactly a humectant, it's more of a fat substitute. That's OK, it might still help keep the dough perceivably more "moist", although (a) I don't see how it would help with thickening, due to its high water content, and (b) I don't see any explanation here of how you arrived at 1 cup of applesauce - why would the volume of applesauce, which is mostly water, be almost the same as the volume of sorbitol, which is normally in powder form? That's fundamentally the issue which the question is trying to address.
@Aaronut, I can't claim to know all the chemistry involved but I have used this formula successfully in the past as a practical matter. I believe that the pectin in the applesauce serves to thicken the batter.
anonymous editor: If you have an alternative source or opinion on the content of a response you are welcome (even encouraged) to post a new answer. Changing an existing answer to comply with your change is considered inappropriate.
Polydextrose is for the humectant with sucralose for the sweetness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polydextrose
http://www.tateandlyle.com/ingredientsandservices/Chooseaningredientorservice/EuropeMiddleEastAndAfrica/Documents/PolydextroseSTALITETateLyleOct2009.pdf
ive not used polydextrose too much, but try a 60/40 polydextrose/sucralose mix to replace the sorbitol by volume (not weight)
According to that wikipedia page, polydexrose contains 10% sorbitol, so that's probably not a good solution. Plus it doesn't answer the OP's question of using stevia, which is a plant based ingredient, as opposed to something chemically synthesized.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.800642 | 2012-05-27T00:35:26 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24026",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Cos Callis",
"Laine",
"Pat Sommer",
"bobby",
"fittyf50",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54542",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"lemontwist",
"rumtscho",
"user54540",
"user54541"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
24059 | When to add seasoning to oven-baked french fries?
When baking French fries in the oven, either from a frozen package, or made from cut potatoes, is it better to add seasoning, such as salt, pepper, paprika, etc., before placing the fries in the oven or after? When should one add vinegar or lime juice?
This is personal preference. Either before or after works, both taste different
Dry seasonings can be added either before or after cooking French Fries. However, for oven-baked potatoes, you want to avoid adding wet seasonings before cooking, as it may impair the crunchiness of the final product.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.800998 | 2012-05-29T08:38:26 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24059",
"authors": [
"Adam Kučera",
"Luke",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54650",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54691",
"mohit",
"tara-tripathy",
"user54643",
"user54690"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
24154 | Best substitute for Gin
There are a huge number of cocktail recipes that, being allergic to juniper, I've never been able to try because they contain gin. I know that juniper is a fairly distinctive flavor and gin won't be easy to substitute for, but I'm hoping there is some non-juniper-containing liquor which may be "close enough."
I'm not sure if you just want to be able to make the recipes, or if you also want to have the juniper taste without the allergic reaction so to speak. Finding a substitute shouldn't be too hard, but they won't quite have the same taste. Vodka is suggested for martini-type drinks:
This is a tough one to pull off, but in general, if you are making martini-type drinks, gin can sometimes be substituted for vodka, and vice versa. While these alcohols taste quite different, the texture and appearance of a cocktail is not altered by switching, and can often be just as good.
From: http://www.drinknation.com/bartending/substitute
I came across a video on making something gin-like out of vodka, but it says “juniper berries are the key ingredient.” Perhaps you could still add the cardamom and other spices to match the gin flavor more closely though. Here's another page with similar instructions (check the page for the recipe):
But what many people don’t realize is that gin and vodka begin life in the exact same way. You could even say that gin is nothing more than infused vodka. [...] In his book The Complete Guide to Spirits (HarperCollins, 2004), Anthony Dias Blue describes cold compounding as a legitimate method for producing gin.
From: http://www.jeffreymorgenthaler.com/2007/how-to-make-your-own-gin-without-a-still/
For other types of drinks, Cook's Thesaurus lists a few other possible substitutions:
gin This is distilled from grains and similar to vodka except that it's flavored with juniper berries, herbs, peels, and spices. London gin = dry gin = English gin = London dry gin is the preferred gin for martinis and other mixed drinks. American gin is similar, but isn't quite as heavy and dry as London gin. Hollands gin = sweet gin = Dutch gin = Geneva gin = Jenever is sweeter and more aromatic than other gins and isn't normally used for mixed drinks. Tanqueray and Beefeater are well-respected brands. Don't confuse gin with sloe gin, which is sweetened.
Substitutes: vodka (This turns a martini into a vodka martini, a gimlet into a vodka gimlet, a gin and tonic into a vodka and tonic, a Tom Collins into a vodka Collins, and so forth.) OR white rum OR whiskey OR tequila OR brandy (This turns an Alexander into a Brandy Alexander.)
From: http://www.foodsubs.com/Liquor.html
As was said in previous answer, gin is basically infused vodka, and there's lots of different gin recipes. But as a replacement for juniper I would try something piney with bitterness. Rosemary and certain varieties of hops (used in beer) come to mind. Both are very easy to get your hands on, as hops are sold in any good homebrew store. There are also citrusy varieties of hops, so you'd want to experiment and do some research if going that route (hops chart). Bay leaves might also work.
Rosemary or hops infused vodka won't be all the way there though, as gin again, may have many other flavorings. From Wikipedia:
"London Dry gin is usually distilled in the presence of accenting citrus elements, such as lemon and bitter orange peel, as well as a subtle combination of other spices, including any of anise, angelica root and seed, orris root, licorice root, cinnamon, almond, cubeb, savory, lime peel, grapefruit peel, dragon eye, saffron, baobab, frankincense, coriander, grains of paradise, nutmeg and cassia bark."
Hendrick's gin adds rose and cucumber. If you look areound there are countless other recipes you can find on homedistilling, homebrewing and mixology sites.
bergamot, bayleaf, nigella seed, celery... I may have to give some of the above a try
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.801087 | 2012-06-01T21:46:05 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24154",
"authors": [
"Alaska Man",
"Brenda",
"Chaitali",
"Christyn Waisanen",
"Dee Torrance Robinson",
"James",
"Jimena Gonzalez",
"Pat Sommer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54889",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54894",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54897",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54903",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"jones",
"northerner",
"quuuzaeY4ahh"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
13704 | What's the origin of the name of the "Chinese Cookie" found in Jewish deli's in the US?
At a classic Los Angeles Deli for lunch yesterday, I snagged my usual take-out guilty pleasure for later: a fresh-baked Chinese Cookie. This is a four or five inch diameter short-bread cookie with a dollop of chocolate frosting in the center. They appear to be a standard fare at every Deli I've visited.
The thing is, although it is unquestionably a cookie, there isn't anything obviously Chinese about it. So, why the name?
Update: Here's a link to a kosher supplier's product page for their version of this cookie.
It is something I've only found in Jewish Deli's. Yesterday it was Langers across from MacArthur Park, but I've also had them from Cantor's on Fairfax, Brent's up in the Valley, and Billy's in Glendale.
The ingredients label on the wrapper of yesterday's says eggs, cake flour, sugar, shortening, baking powder, baking soda, chocolate.
I've actually never heard of these. Can you link to to a picture or something? A search for "chinese cookie" on Google just brings up fortune cookies.
I grew up in the L.A. area and I've never heard of anything like this. The only cookies I associate with the adjective "Chinese" are fortune cookies and almond cookies.
@Brendan, google is almost useless for things like this. In Google Image Search, fortune cookies dominate the results. If you add -fortune to the search, then you get almond cookies and several I don't know the names of. Cancel those terms, and you start getting pictures of cute Chinese girls in the mix. I stopped there.
@Marti, I think this is strictly a Jewish Deli thing, and not at all an LA-specific thing. I'm guessing they are found in New York Delis too....
@daniel, that is probably the true underlying reason, of course. I was just hoping there was a story behind the name that would help it make sense. :-)
I've eaten many kosher cookies of that type in New York and have never heard them called "Chinese" AFAIR. I think it must be a regional term. Maybe move the question to English.SE? Some of the etymology people may be able to help.
The recipe for Jewish Deli "Chinese Cookies" seems awfully similar to the recipe for Chinese almond biscuits, except that the lard is replaced with shortening (to keep it Kosher) and chocolate is added. A recipe for Chinese almond biscuits was printed as a "standard Chinese cookie" in The Thousand Recipe Chinese Cookbook as early as 1984, and this exact same recipe was reprinted in From Lokshen to Lo Mein: The Jewish Love Affair with Chinese Food. Given that love affair with Chinese food, I am guessing that at some point in time a cook at a deli decided to recreate the beloved Chinese recipe, either due to his or her own love of the baked good or by request.
I know a Jewish guy who owned and operated a Chinese restaurant in the 1970s (staffed with Cantonese cooks), so the intercultural culinary collaboration is a definite possibility. (Almond biscuits are very popular in Hong Kong, which is the epicenter of Cantonese cuisine.) A Glatt Kosher Israeli-style restaurant close to where I used to work recently converted to a Glatt Kosher Chinese-style restaurant (under the same management, and likely with the same cooks)!
Edit (more speculation): If the "Chinese cookie" is in fact a descendant of the almond biscuit, it may have been originally motivated by its almond content: It wouldn't be hard to replace the small amount of wheat flour in the recipe with something like almond flour, thus making the cookies Kosher for Passover.
Edit (even more speculation): About 95% of the ethnic Chinese are lactose intolerant. Therefore, almost all Chinese confections are dairy-free. If you think about it, there aren't many Western cookie recipes that don't call for some form of dairy. The laws of kashrut prohibit eating meat alongside dairy in a single meal. In other words, if someone who keeps kosher were to eat a meal with meat, he or she would then have to follow it with a non-dairy desert. Therefore, Jewish delis may have adapted a Chinese cookie recipe to provide non-dairy desert options for their kosher clientele.
This doesn't really answer your question; but I'm not sure you're going to get a better answer than "its origins are shrouded in historical mystery" as the following Jewish Life TV blog entry from 2009 asked a similar question but has, at least so far, not received any useful comments. It does suggest there's a link with the almond cookies found in Chinese bakeries, hence perhaps the name:
The history of the Chinese Drop cookie is not well documented. If I were to write its history, I would fancy it would involve a Chinese baker, a Chinese Almond cookie, a Jewish Baker, and a dollop of chocolate and of course ground walnuts. From the blending of cultures, the Chinese Drop Cookie is born as a somewhat crumbly and crispy treat. Unlike its cousin, the Chinese Drop Cookie features the chocolate dollop and ground walnuts instead of the almonds.
Post a Comment: Have a good Chinese Drop Cookie recipe? Know the history of the Chinese Drop Cookie? Tell us about your favorite bakery.
Source: http://www.jltv.tv/blog.php?user=dumpling&blogentry_id=729
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.801415 | 2011-04-04T00:53:43 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13704",
"authors": [
"Brendan Long",
"Dave Finday",
"J.A. Zrinscak",
"Marti",
"Michele De Pascalis",
"Nick",
"RBerteig",
"Unheilig",
"Varun Rathore",
"Vladimir Reshetnikov",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28692",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29617",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29661",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5983",
"msh210"
],
"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
} |
12107 | Why doesn't mayonnaise taste like pure oil?
The mayonnaise I tried making myself today (first try ever) wasn't entirely bad but there was something off-putting to the taste too, as if eating a spoon of pure oil. Now if I had never had store-bought mayo I would think that's normal, considering that by far most of what goes into making mayo is pure oil. But I don't recall experiencing a similar off-putting taste in any store-bought mayonnaise, including the one I have in the fridge at the moment. So why is it that mayo (at least store-bought) doesn't seem to taste like pure oil?
My current hunch towards explaining this (after some Google'ing) is the following. Mayonnaise is an emulsion of a large amount of small drops of oil in a small amount of something watery (vinegar, lemon juice, …). The bigger the drops, the more the mayo still resembles pure oil, and hence tastes and feels like it in your mouth. Conversely, the smaller the drops, the less it resembles pure oil and (for some reason I don't understand) it tastes different or just gives a different mouth feel. Does that make sense? It would mean that next time I try to make mayonnaise I should whisk it more vigorously to get smaller drops of oil? Does that mean mayonnaise is better if you make it with a blender, as it's easier to get smaller drops?
I also considered it might be that I just don't like the taste of the oil I used ("salad oil", the fine print says it's "100% canola"). But I don't think that's it, considering that another store-bought mayo which I like is also made with canola oil (found the ingredient list online, the store-bought mayo I have in the fridge right now is another brand which vaguely says "vegetable oil" in the ingredient list).
What did you put in it? Traditional mayo uses raw eggs, which definitely don't taste like oil.
+1 For causing a good answer on emulsions. (and for the Pratchett inspired ID)
Re: your edit - the properties of an emulsion depend on size and dispersion of the suspended particles. A blender will improve dispersion and may manage to "slice" some of the particles as well, but the best way to get small drops is to use small drops in the first place, i.e. by dispensing the oil with an eyedropper or syringe.
Are you referring to the question as to whether mayo is better if made with a blender? It was there before, in my last edit I just added the "emulsion" tag (I just hit 300 rep., kind of experimenting with that). Thanks though for providing some additional info on the blender question too!
Try making mayonnaise from a yummy oil like macadamia nut if that's affordable where you are... The original mayonnaise was made with olive oil which can make it quite strong-flavored.
Starting from the basics: Mayonnaise, as you know, is a combination of water-based liquids, water-soluble ingredients, and lipids (fats/oils). Since water and lipids are immiscible, that makes mayonnaise an emulsion.
Because the droplets (of fat) suspended in an emulsion are not actually dissolved, the properties of that emulsion depend entirely on the size of those droplets and their dispersion. The most likely reason that your mayonnaise tasted like oil is that it actually was pure oil in spots.
The technical term for this is flocculation.
(source: Cube Cola)
This is probably what happened to you - it's possible that if you had really poor dispersion, you might have even been closer to the "coalescence" stage.
To use a more tangible example, consider what happens when you dissolve flour or corn starch in cold water, then heat it. The starch gelatinizes and you end up with a fairly uniform, thick paste. Now think of what happens if you toss it into hot water; you'll tend to end up with something that isn't uniform, instead you'll end up with big globs of cooked flour floating around in thin, cloudy water.
Keep in mind that the chemistry is completely different with an emulsion - in fact, there technically is no chemistry happening with an emulsion until emulsifiers come into the picture - but the concept is the same. You might not be able to see those globs of oil floating around in the water as well as you can see the globs of flour, but if you didn't get proper dispersion and suspension, they're there, and they will taste exactly how you'd expect a glob of pure oil to taste.
Traditional mayonnaise uses raw egg yolk (containing lecithin) and mustard (containing mucilage), both of which act as emulsifiers. These are called "emulsifiers" mainly because they help the emulsion to stay stable, which is why the store-bought mayonnaise doesn't separate (it also probably has a few extra additives). However, they aren't all that helpful for getting that initial dispersion; the most efficient way to do that is to let small drops of oil into a liquid that is being constantly and uniformly agitated.
You can do this by stirring, but an even better way is to use an immersion blender with emulsifying blade. Note that this is not the flat aerating blade that is often confused with the emulsifying blade, nor is it the star-shaped liquefying blade that is the default on most sticks and many manufacturers confusingly call an "emulsifying" blade. The one you want looks a bit like a hubcap; it's flat with several slits or holes and is sometimes also called a "smoothie blade" or "whisk blade":
or
(the one I'm talking about is the bottom left)
These things are perfect for preparations like mayonnaise, but if you don't have one, you can get halfway decent results with a wire whisk. You'll just need to use a lot of elbow grease.
If you get really good dispersion, and use sufficient emulsifiers such that the emulsion doesn't separate too fast, then I promise you, your mayo won't have that "fatty" taste and it will be 1000 times better than the store-bought goop.
Excellent answer - this is the mistake I made the first time as well, mostly due to being in too much of a rush. Better preparation led to much better results the second time around.
Aaronut's answer can't be beat if your issue was primarily textural.
As a matter of flavor, though, if your flavor, rather than texture, was too oily, perhaps you should have added some additional acid (lemon juice or some form of vinegar) to your base. You may also find that additional sugar more closely approximates the mayonnaise you're accustomed to. (Japanese mayonnaise, for example, is even sweeter than the American or French counterpart, in my experience). You'll probably need more sugar as you add acidity, unless you're looking for something for artichokes or something similar.
I've found neutral oils most closely match my expectations of the taste of mayonnaise. Olive oil works, but it has a strong taste and almost a different animal in my mind. But there are better quality neutral oils, too. Perhaps you need fresher oil, or something with a more pleasant smell.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned is why you should absolutely avoid using extra virgin olive oil. Not for any of the reasons mentioned so far, but because it will become very bitter due to it's unique chemical properties. I discovered it the hard way and The Bitter Truth About Olive Oil explains why. I cringe every time I see someone like Jamie Oliver or another famous cook put EVOO in the blender.
Note that you can get away with using plain (non-virgin) olive oil, but I agree with @JasonTrue that the more neutral oils better match my expectations of home made mayo flavor.
Extract from the article:
According to Cook’s Illustrated, extra-virgin olive oil is the only kind of oil susceptible to becoming bitter. Even pure olive oil can handle blending better than the extra-virgin kind. The reason is because extra-virgin olive oil contains a high percentage of molecular compounds called polyphenols (thought to be cancer-fighters), which are normally coated in fatty acids. Under standard conditions, the fatty acids in the oil prevent polyphenols from dispersing in an aqueous environment. This is because oil and water do not mix.
When these fat molecules are broken into droplets in an emulsion, however, the polyphenols are distributed into the solution and their bitter taste can become apparent. When the emulsion is only lightly blended, the bitterness is not perceptible. But a blender or food processor breaks the droplets down into smaller sizes, increasing polyphenol dispersal. These suspended polyphenols can ruin an otherwise delicious recipe.
The easiest way to avoid this problem is to use either pure olive oil or a different kind of oil altogether, such as canola or safflower oil. Alternatively, if you would like to keep the rich taste of extra-virgin olive oil you can hand whisk your emulsion rather than using a blender. Just be careful not to over work the mixture. You can also start your recipe by blending a small amount of stable oil (e.g. canola), then hand whisking your extra-virgin olive oil in at the end.
Your mayo will only taste as good as the ingredients you use, so using a nice olive oil will certainly be better than canola oil (and one definite advantage to making it yourself). The main key, though, is to add the oil slowly... so it's not so much more whisking or blending, as thoroughly incorporating the oil a tiny bit at a time. The other main ingredient in homemade mayo is egg yolk, so some of your flavour and mouth-feel should come from that.
You might find the detail given in this recipe helpful to compare to the technique you used.
Also, many mayonnaise recipes include a bit of mustard, which acts as an additional emulsifier (the egg yolks provide lecithin which is an emulsifier). So adding a little mustard may make the flavour more to your liking.
Thanks for the tips. However, I was already following similar instructions about adding the oil slowly one bit at a time and incorporating it fully so I'm not sure I still did something wrong there. As for trying olive oil I will definitely try that some time to see if I like olive oil-based mayo more, but that in itself does not help me with my puzzlement as to why my mayonnaise with canola had this off-putting oily taste and the store-bought canola-based mayonnaise didn't. Could still be that the oil was low quality though, will try a different brand next time.
You should avoid using EVOO for mayonnaise as it has quite a strong flavour of its own. I use a mix of vegetable oil and standard olive oil in my mayonnaise, as well as a teaspoon of mustard. Seasoning is also important - plenty of pepper and salt to taste once the mayo is mixed is essential.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.802012 | 2011-02-13T20:50:49 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12107",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Allison",
"Andrew Hows",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Kelly",
"Kjuly",
"Orbling",
"Rinzwind",
"Shog9",
"Slartibartfast",
"fontophilic",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24958",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25354",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"john plourd",
"w00t"
],
"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
} |
10600 | Preview for "The New Best Recipe"? Suitability for vegetarians?
Is there a site that offers a "look inside" preview of the book "The New Best Recipe"? I checked both Amazon and Google Books, but I couldn't preview it in either.
The approach of the book sounds interesting, but before ordering, I'd like to see for myself how the recipes are laid out and how much explanation is given for why a particular recipe worked out the best. Also, I'd like to check that it contains enough recipes suitable for vegetarians to be useful to me.
If no online preview can be found, some description from someone who owns a copy would be useful too.
Check your local library. I know it seems obvious, but so often people forget that the library either has, or often can get, almost anything you want. I am in Ohio, for instance, and my library lets me order online from libraries all over the state. In fact, in the middle of writing this comment I went and ordered it for myself. I didn't realize until then that this is a Cooks Illustrated book...while I don't own this one, I have several others and they have been universally and consistently good.
Thanks for the suggestion. I'm not in an English-speaking country though. I'm not sure whether the book has appeared in translation, or whether it's possible to get it through international inter-library lending (and I'm guessing the charge for that might not be worth getting a preview instead of just outright buying it sight unseen).
@Doug : the generic term for borrowing from other libraries is 'ILL' (Inter-Library Loan); but I also know that specifically for the Cooks Illustrated stuff, my local library had subscribed to a service, so you could watch videos of America's Test Kitchen if you provided your library card number.
It is an excellent book. I pretty much learned how to cook out of it. All the recipes are wonderful. My favorite thing about it is the discussion of what else they tried in order to get to a particular recipe. Finding out what didn't work about a recipe and why you're doing things the way you are has taught me more about cooking than any other single source. There are no pictures, if that's your thing. But I don't really find them necessary. The book has tons of standard recipes and is well organized. I highly recommend this book to everyone....
...except you. Actually, that's not entirely true, but the book has a strong meat focus. I don't know what the standard is for a vegetarian to buy an omnivore cookbook, but I'd guess that at least half the stuff in this one has meat. If you're comfortable subbing out ingredients and ignoring large portions of the book, then it's great. But you will need to ignore quite a lot of it.
Looking up online I noted that Jack Bishop (the America's Test Kitchen taste test guy...which is Cooks Illustrated) has a Vegetarian cookbook. http://www.amazon.com/Year-Vegetarian-Kitchen-Seasonal-Friends/dp/0618239979
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.802775 | 2010-12-30T16:12:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10600",
"authors": [
"Deepak Sharma",
"Doug Johnson-Cookloose",
"Eric Miller",
"Fred the Magic Wonder Dog",
"Joe",
"Jonathan Lam",
"Kelcey",
"Rinzwind",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21726",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21727",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21729",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21730",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21731",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"laurencemadill"
],
"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
} |
24123 | How long will food last in a refrigerator that is turned off?
We will be having a power outage in our building soon and our fridges are pretty full. The power will be off for about 10 hours. Will our food last safely during this time?
I'm not sure how long, but don't open the fridge during that time; keeping it shut increases the lifespan.
This really depends on the efficiency of the unit that you have. It depends very much so on that.
[Edited] I think 10 hours would be safe enough for most food: the first couple of hours the fridge will still be quite cold, and after that it takes more than a few ours for most food to spoil. When I leave milk out of the fridge for three hours at room temperature (say, 20 °C), nothing happens. I do this often. And the temperature inside the fridge will never reach room temperature in those 10 hours. When it is really hot in summer, it might spoil after 2 hours outside the fridge, but otherwise it takes much longer.
Cheese, food in jars, sauces, leftover cooked food: none of these are more sensitive to spoiling than milk. Fresh herbs are probably equally sensitive. Eggs are much less sensitive. The most sensitive kinds of food I can think of are probably raw meat and raw fish without preservatives. Smoked or salted meat and fish do not count: they can be kept much longer. I think even raw meat and fish will pull through, but you might want to apply the following tips to be sure.
Tip 1: put as much material in your fridge as possible, a day before the outage. That will "absorb the cold" that your fridge feeds it while power is still on. Then, once power goes out, the "cold reserve" in your fridge will be significantly increased, so that the average temperature of the interior will stay colder for a much longer time. The higher the volumetric heat capacity, the better. See this table ('volumetric heat capacity') for the best material; water probably wins. So stuffing bags of water in every nook and cranny would seem like a good idea. Or else bottles.
Tip 2: if you have a freezer, stuff it with bags and/or bottles of water, and put most of those in the fridge once power goes out (swap with some of the bags/bottles that were in the fridge). The freezer will probably do better, because it has much better insulation than the fridge. And put the most sensitive foods in the freezer maybe a few hours after power goes out (or maybe later—lest they freeze after all).
Actually, start putting as much water bags/bottles in the freezer as you can several hours before power goes out, and move them to the fridge once frozen. They will remain half-frozen for hours and hours in the fridge, so they will add extra coolness to the fridge. This way you're "saving up" cold from the freezer and increasing your cold reserve even more.
Tip 3: most refrigerators have a temperature slide/wheel/thing, which determines what temperature the thermostat aims at. You could set the slide to maximum power (so lowest temperature) a few hours before the power outage. Most people, including me, have the slide somewhere in the middle normally. The slide usually doesn't mark the exact temperature, but rather some symbols. It is usually found inside the refrigerator.
Tip 4: cook and/or eat any raw fish and meat before the outage. I think it would not be necessary at all if you follow the above tips, but cooking your meat now may just be simpler. Then either store the cooked meat or eat it. Incidentally, I wouldn't half-cook any meat: that may actually increase the rate of bacterial growth if it doesn't kill the bacteria completely. But something like salmon can be (fully) cooked first, reheated later.
As others have mentioned, it depends a lot on the efficiency of your fridge, how much or little food there's in, the temperature of the room the fridge is in and so on. The USDA has a whole page about “Keeping Food Safe During an Emergency.” A power outage of 10 hours seems rather long though considering they state you can expect the fridge to keep the food safe for about 4 hours (without any further preparations). Check the page for additional advice.
Keep the refrigerator and freezer doors closed as much as possible to maintain the cold temperature. The refrigerator will keep food safely cold for about 4 hours if it is unopened. A full freezer will hold the temperature for approximately 48 hours (24 hours if it is half full) if the door remains closed. Obtain dry or block ice to keep your refrigerator as cold as possible if the power is going to be out for a prolonged period of time. Fifty pounds of dry ice should hold an 18-cubic foot full freezer for 2 days. Plan ahead and know where dry ice and block ice can be purchased.
Ziplock bags of water in the freezer work great as ice-packs- for both the fridge and freezer.
Also, once my apartment was due to get hit by a hurricane when I would be gone for the weekend. I was concerned that the power might go out for an extended period of time and I'd have no idea how long the fridge was without power. Since I would be gone for several days, the fridge would easily have enough time to refreeze potentially spoiled food.
So to see if items in the fridge had melted and later refrozen, I left a frozen tray of ice cubes upside down in the freezer.
With this tip, if power is restored when you're away (or just during the night when you're asleep), then check to see if the ice cubes separated from the tray. If they're just loose, you're probably okay. But if they have melted at all then you know the freezer dropped below freezing long enough for items to melt. The size and shape of the melted ice cubes can also be a good indicator of how much melting occurred.
Make or buy ice and put that on the top shelf of the fridge. Also, use a thermometer to check the temperature of the highest shelf with food after the power returns. If it's below 7ºC-8ºC, I'd risk it.
You should also take Yamikuronue's advise to NOT open the fridge during the outage.
Oh, but make sure to also put something in to catch the water when the ice melts (it will). E.g., put the ice in bowls.
If the door is not opened. 24 hours. 1 gal ice jug. Place in fridge & 1 small battery fan blowing on it will keep most cool 8 hours. With door opened several times.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.803055 | 2012-05-30T20:02:07 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24123",
"authors": [
"Carol",
"Farouk Ibrahim",
"GodTaxist",
"Hagoy",
"Jean Hominal",
"Lea Verou",
"NSGod",
"Nick Zammerilla",
"Pedro Reis",
"Saveen",
"Somenath Sinha",
"Yamikuronue",
"derobert",
"dpollitt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54804",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54805",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54806",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54811",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54815",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55678",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7243",
"jimmy",
"user55678"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
10703 | Bread Dough Dried out in Fridge
Last night, I mixed and worked some dough and put it in the fridge overnight. I didn't account for enough rise, and it rose out of the bowl and out from under the plastic wrap covering it. The edges of the dough which are exposed to the air are hard. Can I just trim this part off and still have a successful bread experience, or is this dough ruined?
I would recommend cutting off the really dried out part. To try and rehydrate it would be dificult, and the rest of the dough is the proper proportions...
I decided to do this, basically for speed. I only lost about 5% of the dough, I'd guess. We'll see how it goes -- this is my first time baking bread besides the "no-knead" recipe, which I have been underwhelmed by.
@syrion - if this bread doesn't come out right at first, keep trying. I was underwhelmed by some of my first real bread recipes, but that was because I needed to learn some things.
I think if you knead the dried out part back into your dough, and spritz in a little more water, then let it come back to room temperature, it will be rehydrate and be fine. I'm assuming it is say 5% of the dough that is dried out. If it is 25%, go ahead and cut it off.
Try working in a little more liquid into your dough until it is a proper tackiness or slight stickiness (the exact texture will depend on your recipe). Just knead some more water in. Let the dough come to room temperature, shape, let rise, and bake.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.803554 | 2011-01-03T16:38:07 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10703",
"authors": [
"Bullines",
"Mary Seiler",
"Raj Rao",
"Scott Barta",
"ali",
"asthasr",
"gavenkoa",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21928",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21932",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21934",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4080",
"justkt"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
91976 | Meatballs and Spaghetti in the InstantPot separately
I am pretty much a newbie at pressure cooking.
I've been following this recipe for meatballs and spaghetti, and it comes out great. The thing is that my kids would prefer that the spaghetti is not mixed in with the sauce. So I've been trying to figure out how to make spaghetti and meatballs in the IP at the same time, but not mixed together. I've tried twice now, and both times the meatballs came out raw.
The first time I tried, I had frozen meatballs that were all stuck together. I put them + sauce in a covered round pan on top of the spaghetti (with 3.5 cups of water) and cooked at high pressure for 9 minutes. The meatballs were completely raw and the spaghetti was good (though there was still water left that I had to drain out). I ended up putting the meatballs in again and then they got fully cooked.
The second time I tried, I separated the frozen meatballs so they were all individual. I again put them and the sauce in a covered round pan on top of the spaghetti (with only 2 cups of water). Cooked at high pressure for 9 minutes. At the end of cooking time, I did a natural release. The spaghetti was half raw/half cooked/half stuck to the bottom of the pan. The meatballs were still raw.
Has anyone ever done this before? I can't find any tips online to do this.
I have't done it, so I don't know if this will work, but here's what I would suggest:
Pasta will cook more quickly if you soak it before cooking. (it also allows you to get 'al dente' with gluten-free pasta)
You can then put the pasta in the inner pot, while the meatballs are closer to the heat. But you might have to experiment for just how long to soak the pasta before putting it in the pot, and what temperature water to use in the pot. (you do the soak in room temperature water)
I'd also recommend changing your type of pasta. Strand pasta is notorious for the need to stir to prevent it from clumping together; something like fusilli (spirals) won't contact each other as much, so they won't have as much variation in doneness.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.803713 | 2018-08-30T12:46:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91976",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
11299 | How necessary is it to marinade meat before making jerkies?
So I just got myself a dehydrator, for the purpose of making jerkies.
I was thinking of just seasoning the meat lightly instead of marinating them, which takes considerably more time, needs more sauce and a bit more effort.
Would it make a lot of difference? I suppose I could always experiment, but from the "making sure I won't get sick from parasites" point of view, will a super dry jerky be safe if it's not been marinated?
Also, would it depend on the meat?
Marinating your meat makes it safer primarily by introducing it to salt, which kills bacteria. It is possible to make jerky safely without it, though you need to be careful.
You should use lean meat; fat is the most likely component in the meat to go bad.
It's also important to regulate the temperature closely and make sure hold the meat at temperature for long enough.
You can get some really really nasty bacteria if you don't cure meat correctly, so it's worth taking some time on it. Check out this guide on safely making jerky in a home dehydrator for more info.
I'm using an excalibur dehydrator, putting on on jerky temperature straight away. Wouldn't the dehydrator (at that temperature, too) kill the bacteria? At any rate, I've marinated it, maybe could use a bit more salt though..
awesome link. cutting edge information in that guide. thanks!
Two methods of protecting you from bacteria chemically, is with vinegar and sugar (brown). These are not sure fire remedies. Five minutes of boiling prior to drying is a mechanical method as is ten minutes of oven heating to 175 degrees after drying. Salt cure curing is a safe bet too and if you want less salt after curing add potato slices to the mixture over night and remove in the morning. A lot of the salt will be gone.
Hello, I'd love to have more info about the oven method. I'd love to make jerky without salt, because I would use it for backpacking and the less salt you consume, the less water you need. Is there any source about the 175F degrees (is that F or C) system? Thanks
Yes. If you don't, you've made biltong instead.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.804262 | 2011-01-21T02:32:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11299",
"authors": [
"Dakatine",
"Helen Kinsella",
"Riccardo",
"Sphinges",
"dskinner",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23171",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23182",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35473",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41733",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4391",
"kamziro",
"sebpa",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
22822 | Getting flavor powders to stick to nuts
I've just checked for some recipes online on how to make flavored (in particular, hot and spicy) peanuts. It seems that in every one of these recipes, there has to be some kind of roasting procedure (coating with oil, powdering and then oven-roast), or cooking them, in order to get the powder to "stick" to the nuts.
What I'm wondering is which two of these methods will yield better results, and whether a food dehydrator (I got the excalibur ones) can be used to "dry" these nuts.
Perhaps it's possible to get the flavor to stick some other, easier and less messier way?
edit -- another question : is the oil necessary for flavoring them? I mean, nuts are oily naturally, so would heating them in the pan and then putting the chili/garlic powder or parmesan straight after be good enough?
Nuts are much tastier when they are roasted. Dehydrating may be ok but it will not do the same thing for their flavor or texture.
Nuts have a lot of oil but there is not enough on their exterior for powders to stick to. Of course some of the powder would stick anyway- and with parmesan even more would when the cheese melted. If you are ok with a milder flavor and a lot of powder left in the bowl when you eat them then you could try to use less or no oil.
It is possible that you could make it work with some other liquid other than oil but oil tastes good and won't dry out. Additionally for spicy peanuts, capsaicin is soluble in fat so the oil will actually be intensified.
I don't know about an easier/less messy way because I don't consider this to be particularly difficult or messy. Just toss nuts with oil, then powder, spread on a pan and bake. Doesn't get much simpler than that.
Another alternative that has become popular is kettle roasted nuts.
The nuts are cooked in a large kettle with an agitator to keep them from settling and burning. Usually they also candied. The process is much stickier and flavorings adhere much better.
At home, oil popcorn poppers with agitators are available that can beautifully make kettle roasted nuts. Manual versions are sturdy and inexpensive.
Put them in the microwave for about 30 seconds, they become oily, put in your spices and mix well, hey presto the seasoning sticks, let them cool!
2 whisked egg whites to 4 cups of nuts is specified in a recipe here
. It says they do not need refrigeration after baking in oven for 15-20 minutes.
If you don't like egg white, maybe try ground chia seeds mixed with water as a substitute.
I typically like to just throw them in a wide shallow pan and heat them gently until they shimmer a bit from the oils being released naturally and then quickly toss them with whatever seasoning you prefer.
Alternatively, you could also give them a quick mist with some cooking spray which would minimize the amount of oil needed and allow the seasonings to adhere. I would suggest this method if you are using pre-roasted nuts so that you don't risk turning them bitter by heating them too much.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.804478 | 2012-04-06T16:10:32 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22822",
"authors": [
"Dee Dee",
"Dinesh Patre",
"Ivor Martin",
"Ornella McGarvey-Miles",
"Tricia Garcia",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137700",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137703",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51508",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66946"
],
"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
} |
25944 | What is the brown sauce in authentic Chinese fried rice?
There is a lady at work that makes the most awesome and most delicious Chicken Fried Rice on the planet. She uses white rice with some sort of brown sauce that is added when frying the rice in the wok. She won't tell anyone what that brown sauce is other than she is using soy sauce. Not true! It is extremely mild, and slightly brown in color. Does anyone have any idea?
Your description is pretty vague - are you sure it's not just a light soy sauce, especially if she's telling you that it's soy sauce? And... you say she adds it when frying - so you've seen it? Is it something she mixed up beforehand?
Also is it liquid like soy sauce or thicker?
Could also be hoisin sauce but likely soy sauce or tamari.
Adding all the flavours of the fried rice into one sauce will make it easier to use in a commercial environment (and more consistent). To that end, you can expect some ginger and soy sauce, and possibly some sugar
Not all soy sauces are the same, not by any stretch of the imagination. A mild, lightly colored soy sauce can still be just soy sauce.
If it really is authentic, then it is soy sauce. Some recipes also use oyster sauce but I would not call that authentic or traditional.
Soy sauce can mean many things; it might just be a different soy sauce from what you're used to. There are light vs. dark soy sauces, and also fermented vs. hydrolyzed kinds. A naturally fermented light soy sauce would probably be (a) mild and (b) slightly brown.
Some other common types of sauce that I've seen used in stir fries are hoisin and satay. But, as with oyster sauce, I wouldn't call those authentic or traditional. That "some sort of brown sauce" is almost certainly soy sauce. It might include XO sauce, although you would notice a seafoody taste in that case.
Not knowing what Chinese style or if influenced by Malaysian Vietnamese cuisine etc, there are a number of possibilities...
As you said slightly brown (meaning not dark?), I will hazard that it is a fermented bean sauce; more savory tangy than salty. They come in many varieties from yellowy to caramely to toasty in color. Thickness much like ketchup which varies in runniness too.
Just a guess
Most likely to be some form of Dark Soy Sauce, especially if it was a thin liquid. A few drops would have changed the colour of the rice substantially. (Of course a Dark Soy Sauce diluted with water would help control the amount of colour change desired.)
Oyster sauce or black bean sauce.
Could you expand this answer a bit? How do they look like? Taste? How to difference them?...
It could just be Soy Sauce mixed with Cornstarch. That adds a nice sheen to the rice.
back in the late 60's, early 70's my mother was a waitress in an authentic chinese where the owners came from Hong Kong when i was young.. we had a little jar of browning sauce for the rice.. i believe it was made by La Choy. it was very thick, dark, and gooey. you only needed to put in a very little bit in the wok to a bunch of rice.
A Chinese woman who works at a restaurant supply place put me on to "Thick Sauce" It's a molasses-like sauce, which gives the rice a rich brown color. A little goes a long way. It can be found in oriental stores.
I suspect it is Maggi's seasoning sauce, which you find in all oriental markets. Joyce Chen's cookbook says in China, you NEVER add soy sauce to make fried rice. She refers to a "brown sauce".
This is certainly not true. I am Chinese and we routinely add soy sauce to fried rice. It's a rather common variant.
Not authentic, but a cap full of Kitchen Bouquet works well for me.
Place the cold cooked rice in a zip lock, add the soy and oyster sauce, add a cap full of Kitchen Bouquet and mix well, this way you can squeeze out any lumps. This now becomes a rich brown rice ready for frying with the other ingredients.
The cooked rice was 1 3/4 cup of dry jasmine rice.
The cap of KB is about 1t., less can be used.
The sauce is Dynasty brand brown gravy sauce, a very thick, sticky substance with little flavor of its own. If added to rice when about done, just before mixing in the eggs and veggies you get the old fashioned dark brown fried rice. McQuink
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.804767 | 2012-09-01T20:33:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25944",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chris",
"Daniel Centore",
"Devon Fortier",
"ElendilTheTall",
"J.A.I.L.",
"MrStealYoGiga MrStealYoGiga",
"Nelson Phu",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Spammer",
"Tracy Long",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107484",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123837",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71131",
"lemontwist",
"xuq01"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
33255 | Food safety with mixing raw meat
Is it safe to place raw beef on the same surface that a full raw chicken has been on? I intend to roast the beef but I'm wondering if I should take any precautions?
Excuse my confusion, Rachel, but wouldn't it just be best practice (and easier) to clean your surface or use a clean cutting board instead of going through the rigmarole of worrying about pathogens entering the whole muscle cut roast through a thermometer hole? Beef can be served at lower temperatures so it seems a bit of a no-brainer to not cross-contaminate your beef with raw chicken. Your family/guests will probably appreciate the extra effort also! :-)
Rachel's comment in an answer below expands on the original question, indicating it was the butcher that introduced cross-contamination and not her.
In general, it is not a good idea to use the same surface for poultry and other foods; you would have to assume that cross-contamination has happened.
In this specific case, since you mention roasting, assuming it is a whole muscle cut, even if contaminated, the pathogens will not quickly penetrate to the interior—they will remain on the surface. Don't cut slits in the meat (such as for inserting garlic, or the cross-hatching on a pork roast) which would allow penetration deeper into the roast.
Assuming you cook it so that the exterior reaches at least 155°F/68.5°C, then your roast should be fine. Just make sure it is well browned which is a sure sign that the surface temperature has (well) exceeded 155 F.
Yes, it's a whole muscle cut and I intend to roast it with one of those meat thermometers in it, but it's staying in the fridge overnight until getting roasted tomorrow. It was at the butchers that I saw him put it on the same surface a chicken had been on to cut it up. Thought it looked a little weird - thank you for replying :)
Don't put the meat thermometer in it until roasting is well underway, then. You don't want to push any pathogens down into the center. You don't really need to measure temperature of a roast until it is nearing being done. If a professional butcher did that, you may choose to report them to the health authorities where you live; that is completely unacceptable cross-contamination and professionals should know better.
No. Salmonella (common contaminant of raw chicken) has a much higher denature point that e-coli (common contaminant of beef). Your beef would need to be cooked to a much higher internal temperature which ruins the point of even having beef in the first place.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.805159 | 2013-04-05T16:35:07 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33255",
"authors": [
"Anne Marie",
"Eric Scherrer",
"Erica",
"JJ Geewax",
"Jakub",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Patrick Pool",
"Rachel",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7574",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77042",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77044",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77062",
"user77043",
"user77062"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
22026 | Why does my butter icing melt so quickly?
I've been making cupcakes for a while now and I use butter icing. They come out pretty and taste nice, but they melt so quickly. Sometimes it's impossible to pipe, because the icing goes so sloppy. When I go to parties and see other cupcakes, they stay on the table all day and the icing doesn't melt.
Are they using something different? If so, does anyone know what?
Are you sure they are using purely butter in the other cupcakes, and not a mix with shortening or other stiffer fat?
For the sake of the question, I think posting the exact recipe of your icing would be helpful.
You have allowed you cupcakes to completely cook before frosting, correct?
@derobert: Naturally, you meant to say 'cool' instead of 'cook' there. Sorry for the typo...
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4835/what-kind-of-frosting-doesnt-need-to-be-refrigerated
Many frostings incorporate more than butter as the fat in the icing. I recently made ones using shortening, coconut butter, and coconut milk solids. These three are all fats that have higher melting points and are more reliable at higher temperatures in comparison to butter.
If you wish to retain as much of the butter mouthfeel as possible, you might consider switching to a buttercream mixture that splices in shortening or even margarine as both are more workable at room temperature. You might also try some of the other variations on buttercream.
Best practices for icing or frosting in any case are all over the web;
This extensive article has a real gem to be wary of; keep the butter around 65-70 to ensure you aren't dipping too low or hot. There's plenty of additional information and a listing of strengths and weaknesses of the varieties.
Here is a run-down of how to frost the cake itself.
As alluded to in the comments, don't put meltable frosting/icing on a hot cake.
If you are going to keep the frosting in the heat and sunlight, you are definitely going to want to add some shortening or coconut butter in there; that's why it's called Decorator's icing, they put shortening in it so it can hang out at summer weddings.
I usually add vegetable shortening to my frosting recipe so that it doesn't melt easily. I live in India and it's hot in here for crying out loud.
Another helpful tip is to add 2 tsp Meringue powder to your each icing batch, that tends to avoid the weepy icing.
Hope this helps.
(Source: Years of commercial bakery experience and my fair lot of sad weepy but delicious cupcakes)
Once I had such a problem so I thought of adding some All purpose flour to it. It somewhat stiffens.
That seems like it would impart an unwanted taste.
@Preston : many have starch in them, because they use powdered sugar, which contains some cornstarch. I'd personally use Wondra over AP flour, or cornstarch, but the starch will help to stiffen it and protect slightly against slumping from heat.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.805407 | 2012-03-05T23:29:53 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22026",
"authors": [
"ArkieAnony",
"Jay",
"Joe",
"Preston",
"Tom",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"mfg"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
34168 | How to make chocolate cigarellos in a quicker way?
I wanted to make chocolate cigarellos from scratch and looked it up but all I could find was this, which the author describes as being time consuming. Can someone suggest any other way to make them that might be quicker?
They are going to be fundamentally time consuming to make, especially without automated equipment. You can buy them ready made from various sources. One example: http://www.chocolatetradingco.com/buy/dark-chocolate-cigarellos
@SAJ14SAJ: I was wondering if someone has tried to make them in plastic straws and how would you make the ends from being runny
One thing you can do is use much longer pieces of acetate and cut the long cigarillos afterwards gently with a hot knife. That way your spreading and rolling action is cut down to 1/2 or 1/3.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.805674 | 2013-05-16T13:09:00 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34168",
"authors": [
"Al Schrader",
"Brian Gorman",
"ChaseMedallion",
"Divi",
"HDMurica",
"Jaiveer",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"TXElliot",
"cook_queen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79490",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79491",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94901",
"redhatvicky"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
35890 | Could you use other liquors than vodka in pie dough?
Cook's Illustrated has developed a recipe for pie dough that substitutes vodka for some of the water, making dough mixable but developing less gluten (tough pastry). It works! Has anyone tried using rum or whiskey in place of vodka, in hopes of getting a flavored crust, for perhaps a pecan or banana cream pie? If so did it work out for you?
Yes. We use apple jack in apple pie crust, which is a hard liquor with a sweet apple flavor. (As I recall, we took this idea from Alton Brown in an Apple Pie episode.) The apple jack provides the same benefit for flaky crust, and more apple flavor.
And you can tell the difference verus a non-applejack crust?
We haven't done a strict side-by-side apple pie test of vodka crust vs. apple jack crust, but the apple jack inclusion is the recipe our household swears by.
In the (extensive) comments after his newest pie crust article, as far as using other spirits, Kenji Alt says "definitely worth a try, though I've never actually been able to taste any flavor off of the booze or liquid I use in a pie crust, it's such a small amount. If you really strain you can taste it, but it's not obvious..." http://sweets.seriouseats.com/2011/07/the-food-lab-the-science-of-pie-how-to-make-pie-crust-easy-recipe.html?ref=sweets-sb3
Judging by the recipe posted on Serious Eats, there are about 2 tablespoons of vodka per crust. Substituting two tablespoons of rum or other liquor may be enough to lend a minimum of fragrance, but I would not expect a strong flavor. I am not sure it would be perceptible in the over all flavor balance of the complete pie with its filling. You would need to use an extract (which is much stronger) to get a robust result.
On the other hand, if you are substituting for convenience because you don't have vodka conveniently available, as long as the proof or alcohol percentage is compatible to vodka, the chemistry will be the same.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.805801 | 2013-08-09T17:26:16 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35890",
"authors": [
"Alan Scott Elkins",
"Chih-Chan Tien",
"KatieK",
"Reina de Vainilla",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Shinox",
"Uncle Long Hair",
"Wendy Miller",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84156",
"kaleidoscope",
"lidbanger"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
35620 | How to thicken garlic dressing
Nineteen times out of twenty when I make a salad dressing from olive oil, salt, dill, garlic and apple cider vinegar, blended in a pint measuring cup with an electric powered hand mixer, it comes out a nice, creamy liquid. The twentieth time it turns into something much thicker, a kind of dip that is really delicious. I gather this is called, "emulsification." However, it only happens infrequently by accident, no matter how I vary the amounts of ingredients. Can you tell me hos to make this happen reliably? Thanks!
What you get is called an aioli. You can try looking for recipes for eggless aioli. The garlic should already help with the consistency, but some recipes also call for mustard (as emulsifier).
Actually, you can make an emulsion using just garlic and olive oil! It's a very old spanish recipe traditionally done by hand taking mind numbing time.
Seeing that you want to achieve thickness using your existing ingredients (no cheating with emulsifiers) here is a suggestion that should work (i haven't done it, just seen it done).
Pay attention to the freshness of the garlics. I believe the garlic oil may be a key here. So choose freshest garlic and don't go short.
Hold all of the oil for now and most of the vinegar, but enough vinegar so your mixer grabs and starts (you should have all garlic, and a bit of vinegar)
Run your mixer and add oil one drop at a time.
As the mixture thickens you can add more vinegar and more oil. Lead with the vinegar as you're emulsion phase is oil in garlic/vinegar not the other way around.
It's possible that 1/20 time you immerse the blender into the vinegar first and pull in the oil slowly as opposed to whipping the oil and trying to bring garlic vinegar in. If you're going for the fast method as you've been, pay attention to your initial blender depth and how much oil is trapped under the cap.
Let us know how you make out!
Adding vinegar to finely chopped, salted garlic first and then blending before adding oil slowly seems to work reliably, and emulsification takes place very quickly too. Lemon juice and vinegar appear to be interchangeable, depending on taste.
The following factors will help create an emulsified dressing:
Add an emulsifier. Mustard has natural emulsifiers. Egg yolks contain significant quantities of lecithin, which is a very effective emulsifier (you will have to assess the risk factor of using raw egg yolks, or purchase pasteurized eggs).
Maximize the chances of emulsion via the method:
Start with a small amount of vinegar. While running your immersion blender or mixer, very slowly drizzle oil into the vinegar.
When it starts to get quite thick, you can add some more vinegar, and then continue drizzling in the oil. This alternation maintains the emulsion without exceeding the amount of oil that can be carried by the water phase (which is what vinegar primarily consists of).
Overall, be patient and go slowly. A food processor is often better than an immersion blender, since you don't have to hold it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.806002 | 2013-07-27T20:36:00 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35620",
"authors": [
"Brigitte Kraft",
"Kirill Spitsyn",
"Mark Renshaw",
"Martin Turjak",
"Michael Chua",
"Sam",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19395",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83394",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83395",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83396",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83404",
"quellyyy"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
43132 | What should a good cookie dough look like?
I've been trying to make a good, chewy cookie recipe for the last 4-5 months but nothing good ever shown up. I've tried countless recipes on the internet with no success. One thing that I noticed was that my cookie dough always looks different from the pictures or videos that I have found on the internet. My dough looks like ice cream, is wet, and really sticks to the scoop. Sometime when I scoop it up I can feel that it's very light, not dense. I have tried adding more AP flour in and it made my dough a little more stiff. I can roll it into a ball shape without any of the dough sticking to my hand.
Which one is the good dough?
These are the ingredients I use:
1 cup AP flour
1/2 cup brown sugar
1/2 cup white sugar
1 egg
1/2 tsp baking soda
pinch of salt
1/2 tsp baking powder
1 1/4 cup blended oat
123 grams butter
What is the best ratio between wet and dry goods?
If you want to learn how to design/alter cookie recipes in order to get exactly the quality you want, there are two nice, thorough sources I can suggest. The first one is the cookie chapter in Corriher's book Bakewise, the other one is The food lab's cookie article, http://sweets.seriouseats.com/2013/12/the-food-lab-the-best-chocolate-chip-cookies.html. While I am not sure that you want exactly the kind of cookie he is describing, you can see how he arrives at the kind he wants, and repeat the process in your preferred direction.
And, while this sounds silly, it does matter: what is the ambient room temperature where you bake? If you are one of those folks living with 30 C conditions, you are just going to get softer dough.
My suspicion is either (1) warm room temperatures (as SAJ14SAJ mentioned), (2) issues with how the flour's been measured (if volumetric vs. by weight) and maybe (3) type of flour used (not all AP is the same)
I will direct your attention to The New Best Recipe Book from Cook's Illustrated,pp.777+ In this section of the book they address the balance of ingredients to get great chewy cookies.
thank you to you all. What my goal is that i want to bake the soft cookie that have the texture like Pepperidge soft baked cookie.By the way, when we cream together butter and sugar we're looking for pale and fluffy result,right? However, brown sugar in my recipe make it harder to tell when to stop creaming. Do you have any tip for creaming i think this is the most important step and also my weakest point.
Are you making you blended oats from quick oats?
Those pepperidge farm cookies are filled with so much chemical crap, I've never found a cookie that keeps that odd texture.
Cookie recipes vary. There is no single consistency that all doughs should have. The proof is in the finished cookie.
Some of my favorite recipes produce doughs that are sticky enough that I can't "drop" the cookies onto the sheet without using my finger to scrape the dough out of the spoon. In these cases, it's easier to use an ice cream scoop with a triggered blade that will clear the dough from the scoop. Another trick is to refrigerate the dough for four hours, overnight, or for as many as three days. This will give the flour a chance to absorb more of the liquid ingredients. In addition, chilled dough is easier to work with, and produces a superior texture in the finished cookie. I add this step to nearly every cookie recipe.
I want to address, though, your concern that the dough you make doesn't match what you're seeing in pictures or videos. This could be due to the way you measure flour. There are several ways to measure flour, and each of them can produce a different actual amount for the same called-for measurement. Not only that, they may produce different actual amounts each time you measure. I assume that most modern recipes are tesed with a "scoop and level" method, unless something else is indicated. However, measuring by weight is more accurate. I convert all my cookie recipes to weight measurments. That way, I can ammend or reproduce them with complete accuracy. Lastly, I want to address the integrity of the relationship between written recipes and the pictures or videos that accompany them. Over many years of experience, I have found that relationship to be rather loose.
In my experience, what you do with the ingredients make just as much impact as the ratio of the ingredients.
Chewy cookies will generally need melted butter rather than room temperature butter. Creaming the room temperature butter with the sugars will result in a softer cookie as you have introduced air into the batter. You don't want to do this if you want dense chewy cookies.
In addition, one tip I would offer is to bang the cookie tray on the counter top when you first take it out of the oven. You should visibly see the cookie "deflate" a bit. This will also help with creating a chewier cookie.
Lastly, if your dough looks too soft even though you followed the recipe to the t, you should refrigerate it before you bake it. This will make the dough much easier to work with and prevent your dough from spreading too thin while it's baking.
Maybe you should add 1/4 APF and change the quantity of butter into 1/2. anyway, take note of the type of cookie you really want to achieve bc there's a lot of cookie dough variations. however, if you want a good and amazing cookies, i much prefer books than recipes on net. :) hope this will help you.
Could you give any details on why you think these changes would be better?
Hi @Aaronut :) Determining the ratio between flour and butter provides a huge difference to the final product. However, it really depends on what type of cookie you want your "cookies" would be.
Moreover, books are BETTER than recipes on net. It's much accurate and you dont have any problems doing the entire recipe by your own bc its provides step-by-step process that can be easily understood. Trust me, ive been doing this for almost 4 yrs now :)
Of course I believe you; however, the goal of this site is to help people get better at cooking/baking/food prep, which is why we prefer to see explanations as opposed to instructions (or both). Pure recipes or "do this" type answers tend to be seen as incomplete and not upvoted. Not trying to force you to change your answer, it just sounds to me like you probably do know what you're talking about, and it would help other people who find this question a lot more if you could explain the difference in results between the posted recipe and your adjustments, and why it turns out that way.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.806287 | 2014-03-28T15:29:57 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43132",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Amy Ferguson",
"Bonnie Laney",
"Catija",
"Chris Batty",
"Cos Callis",
"Jeff the Chf",
"Jim Allen",
"Joe",
"John Cleworth",
"Liz H",
"Mary-yet Xuchelle",
"Matt Gomez",
"Merry Brooklyn",
"Ninad",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sukanok Donot",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100904",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100907",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100911",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122824",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153774",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153880",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"marie rogers",
"rumtscho",
"user100904",
"vjh"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
28617 | How can I get my cream pie to set?
I have made a coconut cream pie and after being in the fridge overnight, it did not set up. Is there anything I can do now to get it to firm up? The coconut flakes are already in it, so I don't think I can remove the filling to bring it to a boil again.
I used 1 1/2 cups of coconut milk and 1 1/2 cups half and half, with 1/3 cup corn starch, 2 eggs and sugar. I cooked it in the microwave, stirring every 40 seconds or so for about 6 minutes total, until there were bubbles on the top of the filling.
Any ideas on how to firm up this pie, so it can actually be cut into pieces?
I waited most of today to see if someone else answered, but I think sadly you will have to write this pie off, and try again next time. I would not do a cream pie in the microwave. Suggest the oven, and cooking to a temperature of 180 degrees F, or until the center is barely set but giggles when you shake the pie pan a bit.
There are thickening agents you can use without reheating. They won't give you the texture you expect from a starch-thickened pie, but you will be able to cut it. Gelatine is probably your best bet. Others, like xanthan, will make it gooey, but it will still flow a little after being cut.
By the way, having flakes in it is not a problem for cooking it again. If you mean that you put them on top, you can just stir them in for the reheating. Won't look that good, but will be firm.
When making cream pie filling, always do it on the stove and make sure that you really brought it to a boil. Egg yolks contain an enzyme which liquidifies starch. The enzyme is deactivated at above 90°C. If you don't heat a mixture with eggs and starch (and flour) enough, it will turn into a soup after a day.
my pie would not thicken either. I poured it back into the pan and took butter and more flour that I mashed to form a paste and then stirred it into the warmed filling stirring until It thickened up and I then returned it to the graham cracker crust. The coconut did just fine. I hope this helps anyone else with this problem.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.806924 | 2012-11-23T17:44:38 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28617",
"authors": [
"Karl Schroeder",
"Luvs2Cook",
"Questions",
"Roma Simon",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"craig",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66113",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66217",
"javanoob"
],
"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
} |
32677 | How can I save crumbly cookie dough?
I found a recipe online that required making cookie dough from scratch and then wrapping the cookie dough in wax paper and refrigerating for 2 hours. I made the cookie dough and it was way too crumbly and dry for me to be able to put it in one piece in the wax paper without it falling apart. What should I do?
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! Please consider editing your Question to include a link to the recipe in question. That may help people give you a well-informed answer.
Can you push the dough together that at least some of it stays together? If you can do this, there is no problem.
I'll put this in a comment since it doesn't answer the question with cookies as a result; I would scatter the dough crumbs on a sheet pan and bake a little less than the directions call for to account for smaller size. While not cookies, the resulting crumbles could be further broken into crumbs for a cookie crust or used as a garnish on desserts.
Possible duplicate of How can I fix my dry crumbly cookie dough?
Part of what is going to happen during the resting period is that the moisture is going to more evenly distribute throughout your dough, and begin hydrating the starches, so that they it will become more cohesive.
Assuming there is enough moisture present, you just need to give it time. 2 hours may not be enough time--4 would be better. Overnight would certainly be good.
If there is insufficient water, carefully distributing a few drops (maybe a tablespoon or two, maximum) before refrigerating will help, but you need to be sure this is the case. Try letting it rest for four hours as is, and if it is still crumbly, then add some water.
Lastly, you may find that plastic wrap (sometimes called film wrap) may be easier to use than wax paper. You want to roll your dough tightly, holding it together while it hydrates. Normally, the two shapes that would be used would be a log (for sliced cookies) or a disk (for cookies that will be rolled out).
See also: What does an overnight chill do to cookie dough, that a 4 hour chill doesn't?
Also consider a mistake may exist in the recipe or in the OP's implementation thereof.
That is certainly true, but an unknown mistake in an unknown manner is very hard to address in the abstract :-)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.807134 | 2013-03-14T17:36:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32677",
"authors": [
"Dave Powell",
"Ella Fitzbag",
"Emily Anne",
"Jean Hages",
"Joe",
"Mien",
"Preston",
"Ryan",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sinan Samet",
"Stephen Beaumont",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75500",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75515",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75520",
"user75512"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
32975 | How can I unstick lollies stuck in a jar, welded by heat?
I left some humbugs in a jar in the sun on a kitchen shelf. They melted a bit and are now stuck in the jar. How do I get them out?
It depends on how tightly they are stuck together. They may or may not be salvageable.
If they are not stuck together too badly, you may be able to pry them apart with a butter knife.
The next thing I would try is putting warm water into the jar and letting them soften up, then trying to pry them apart, again with a butter knife. They will be unreasonably sticky, so you will want to dry them on something they won't stick to like a silicone mat or parchment. I would then try to dry them in a warm oven (its lowest setting) although they will probably always remain sticky as sugar is extremely hydrophobic.
If that doesn't work, you can use boiling water to slowly dissolve them until you can get enough out to at least recover your jar. It may take a couple of changes of the water.
Try sprinkling cornstarch over them. Lollipops usually get stuck because of humidity, and the cornstarch would absorbe that humidity.
Cornstarch would also taste nasty and starchy, and if there is humidity, lend a kind of gluey sticky texture. Generally the white powder on hard candies is powdered sugar (I think the UK would call it icing sugar), not a starch of some sort.
so i was trying to do some weird experiment and melt jolly-ranchers. However they stuck to the bowl. I COULD NOT get them off. So what I did was put a little water in the bowl. Then I microwaved it for 30 seconds checking on it every ten. After the thirty seconds I took it out, (Be careful it's hot) and changed the water. I did this till the ranchers were eventually gone. I don't know how it would work for other candy but it worked great for jolly-ranchers.
You could try freezing them, if you want to remove them from the jar cleanly. However, it's possible all humbugs will stick together.
You could also try heating it (microwave shortly, or put it in the sun again), and remove bits while they are still warm. I would put the jar afterwards in the dishwasher to remove residuals.
However, I'm afraid both methods won't be able to have the individual humbugs out.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.807364 | 2013-03-24T23:34:59 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32975",
"authors": [
"CentralSjay",
"Hassaan",
"ResoundingBoom",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sarah Beacom",
"Scott R",
"Sophia Butusova-Lebedeva",
"Stop Being Evil",
"Zangetsu",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76284",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76295",
"ujjwal_bansal"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
24087 | Is “ghee” clarified butter or beurre noisette?
Reading the Wikipedia pages on “Ghee,” “Clarified butter” and “Beurre noisette” has left me somewhat confused as to what ghee is. Some statements on the pages seem to suggest that it's always clarified butter, some that it's always beurre noisette, others that it can be either of the two depending on regional variations, and then it also might just be something in-between. Can someone clear up my confusion? Does it make (much) of a difference for cooking Indian recipes (I presume not, as ghee plays a less prominent role in a curry than beurre noisette does when it's used as a sauce).
Judging from those Wikipedia articles:
Clarified butter is rendered butter, which means that the solids are removed.
Beurre noisette is browned butter, which contains the solids.
Ghee is slightly-browned (it should have a golden color) butter that is rendered. So you melt the butter till it's golden. Then you remove the solids by pouring the top layer into a container. So you have a combination (if you like) of clarified and browned butter.
I was doing some product demonstrations at an Asian market in Portland once, and an Indian vendor treated me to some of his samples brushed with a brownish ghee. I mentioned that I had never seen this kind of ghee before; I was used to a more yellowish, clarified-butter style.
He told me "Yeah, my wife hates it when I make this kind of ghee, but I prefer it because it has more flavor."
So, there's at least some anecdotal evidence that within the Indian ghee can vary in style from a simple clarified butter to a strained brown butter. His was slightly less brown than when I make a brown butter, but I suspect there's a broad continuum.
The primary distinction between ghee and beurre noisette is twofold:
In preparing ghee, every effort is made to ensure that all of the water is evaporated from the butter, so that it is has good long term storage properties. Evaporating the water is a side effect in making beurre noisette, and so it may or may not be fully purged, and room temperature storage is not recommended.
In preparing ghee, the milk solids are left behind (again, so that it has a long shelf life), and the product is essentially pure milkfat.
Any color imparted to ghee during the preparation is flavor and color compounds that have dissolved into the fat phase, as the milk solids are not part of the final product.
In beurre noisette, the browned milk solids and the flavor that they impart are the entire reason for making it, so they are included in the final product. The name reflects the color (as of hazelnuts) of the browned butter, due to the browning of the milk solids.
I imagine you could make a dark ghee from beure noisette, sounds like a nice experiment.
For your question if ghee is clarified butter or not, the answer is yes, it is sort of clarified butter but it is not Beurre noisette. As for your confusion, it is not Beurre noisette as for beurre noisette you need to caramelize the milk solids present in the butter to achieve the nutty flavour profile and a little bit browning of the product.
It does not make much difference if you use either of ghee or beurre noisette to cook Indian recipes because there are many Indian recipes that are changing across the globe according to people's taste preferences.
Both have a nutty flavour but beurre noisette still contains the milk solids. Ghee doesn't (unless the person using the word "ghee" is for is unaware of the differences so not using its technical meaning).
Beurre noisette (also known as brown butter, sometimes 'caramelised butter') is whole butter. It shouldn't have water content but can sometimes still have some water remaining.
Ghee is a toasted form of clarified butter (milk solids removed), and never has any water content. It keeps better than whole butter and has a higher smoke point.
Beurre noisette - butter is heated until the milk solids in it are toasted. All the water content is usually cooked off during the browning process. (In black butter the heating just continues to a darker colour.)
Clarified butter is any butter where the milk solids (protein) have been removed. - because there are no milk solids it burns less easily (at a higher temperature). It keeps better than whole butter and has lower (or no) water content.
For the specific kind of clarified butter called ghee (an word from India where the form originated), the butter is heated, the milk solids sink, then heating continues until the milk solids are toasted. The milk solids are then separated (and used in other recipes or discarded). The process gives ghee, unlike the european forms of clarified butter, a nutty taste and a browned colour (depth of colour to taste). The cooking process required also removes all the water content.
Regular (or classical European) clarified butter is heated to a low simmer so the milk solids float to the surface where they are skimmed off off before they change colour. It has no toasted flavours and, given the shorter process needed, usually has a significant proportion of the water still in it.
It definitely varies regionally, but I have always thought: it is both.
It is generally made by clarifying butter, but taking a longer time to do it so the nutty flavors characteristic to beurre noisette are more prominent.
Ghee is clarified & browned (fait noisette) butter (beurre).
Of course, the degree to which it's browned can vary to taste or custom, as I'm sure it does with beurre noisette too.
Note also that, if you intend to produce ghee, you need to brown before clarifying; it's the milk solids that will brown, and clarifying removes them leaving only (in the case of ghee, infused) butterfat.
The only difference between buerre niosette, brown butter, and clarified butter is the milk solids are cooked longer... with clarified butter you stop the process before the milk solids get toasted (and sometimes remove the solids), brown butter they are toasted and black butter they are basically burnt. that's where the name comes from. Ghee is clarified butter traditionally boiled to clarify making it not brown or black... but technically all of them are ghee.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.807601 | 2012-05-29T22:31:53 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24087",
"authors": [
"Anu Dalal",
"Borgh",
"Chris Strickland",
"LillyPilly",
"Maggie P.",
"Yeoh Keat Siew",
"exterrestris",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54711",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54712",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54738",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54849",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63682",
"rrreee"
],
"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
} |
17911 | How to substitute vodka in home-made vanilla extract?
I came across this recipe for making my own vanilla extract.
However, the vodka in my country isn't very cheap. So, I would like to replace it with a cheaper alternative.
We discussed this in the chat room already and decided that there must be some alcohol in it and vodka works good because it's quite a neutral flavour.
Anyone knows what I can substitute the vodka with?
Wodka ? Do you mean Vodka?
Are you asking whether you can use a substitute for Wodka brand Vodka (i.e. a "well" vodka like Kamachatka), or a substitute for Vodka ? I assume you are asking about the latter.
I meant vodka (but it is written as wodka in my language), I edited the question.
With a "w" is just how most people say it after a drink or too
Think about this question another way:
You are making vanilla infused liquor, you just happen to be cooking with it. And Yes, you can infuse any liquor
If you want to use a substitute for Wodka brand Vodka (i.e. use cheaper, off-brand vodka like Kamachatka), I would say that yes, you can substitute out one vodka for another with the caveat that you will want to consider the purity of the distillation you are using as it may impact the flavor of your extract. Substituting top-shelf vodka for "well" vodka may result in an inferior extraction.
If you are asking whether you can use some other grain alcohol other than vodka, itself, the answer is that yes, you can. You can even use brown liquors and so on; bear in mind they will all extract the oils but will carry the flavors differently (vanilla infused bourbon doesn't sound half bad). In particular, I would recommend going with a neutral grain spirit like Everclear; I have used it in making lemoncello, orangecello, and homemade Kahlua and it is pretty effective in extracting flavor while having none of its own.
Wodka is an acceptable transliteration for водка in many languages, even though vodka makes more sense in English. The question isn't about brand names. (And what is a "well" vodka?)
@rum I clarified above; "well liquor" refers to cheap, off-brand liquors used in the mixing of cheap, standard drinks where the brand of liquor is not specified and a cheap one is intended. The "well" reference is in contrast to "middle-" and "top-shelf" liquor.
@rum I started a query on English.see if you're interested
Bourbon Vanilla Extract is a kind of vanilla extract with the added flavor profile of bourbon - is whiskey available or cheaper than Vodka in Belgium? I am not aware of the trade specifics of the EU but Scottish Whiskey (in general) is quite good and would be very similar to Bourbon, which is an American version of whiskey. Looking at the recipe I think you could just replace the whiskey for vodka 1 to 1.
You could also use half a cup of whiskey and half a cup of diluted ethanol / grain alcohol if you didn't want the whiskey flavor to be as strong.
Bourbon vanilla is not so named because it contains bourbon, but because it was historically cultivated on Île Bourbon, now called Réunion. That said, you certainly can use whiskey (or any alcohol that's 80+ proof), but I'm not sure that bourbon would be a good substitute - I've used rum myself, and brandy seems like it might be good, but I am not sure bourbon or scotch would go well with the vanilla. (maybe smooth Irish whiskey?)
Any neutral white spirit without flavourings should do nicely.
Can you give examples?
I am afraid I do not know what is available in Belgium. In my own country, Sweden, we have a multitude of unflavoured grain spirits but maybe there is no such tradition in Belgium. I guess you do not need it since you have all that wonderful beer. :)
I already thought about young grain jenever, I think that might work :)
Yes, that could work, as long as the juniper flavour is not strong enough to overwhelm the vanilla. I guess it depends on what you are planning to do with the finished extract. If you are going to use it in desserts and cakes, I would not go for jenever. White or golden rum, perhaps?
What about something like this, can you get that in Belgium? http://beowein.eshop.t-online.de/Echter-Nordhaeuser-Doppelkorn-07-l/en
In many countries you can buy pure ethanol that has not been tainted with IPA or BITREX or other non food grade supstances from a good medical supply retailer (pharmacy) or hardware store
You will still be paying alcohol tax etc., but it should work out cheaper
Cut it to 50% dilution with water to make a usable infusion liquid
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.808067 | 2011-09-21T08:41:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17911",
"authors": [
"Henrik Söderlund",
"Mien",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5561",
"mfg",
"rumtscho",
"user5561"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
18121 | What are the different effects that different washes produce in baked goods?
Just before you put something with dough in the oven, often you have to brush it with a liquid.
I've seen recipes that say with egg wash, with egg yolk, with egg white, with milk etc.
Does it make a difference what you use for brushing? If yes, what is best suited for what purpose (shining, browning, I don't know what else)?
The best resource I've seen is here at The Fresh Loaf.
Egg yolk produces a shiny and dark look but remains soft.
Egg white is still soft but less shiny.
Milk and water only darken it slightly and produce what the article calls a 'satin' look.
Butter makes it shiny, smooth, rich, and well, buttery!
I'd post the excellent picture there, but I'm not sure about the copyright issues associated with it.
As the question is very broad, it's hard to give a comprehensive answer.
Whole beaten egg. You put it on the pastry before you put it in the oven for the browning and shining effect.
Beaten egg yolk. Gives a more yellow effect. Look at Gordon Ramsay on Youtube making a Steak Wellington (1:34').
Beaten egg white. After baking the base you can paint it with egg white, put it another minute in the oven to protect the base from a more liquid filling.
Hope that helps.
Does the beating make a difference?
@Mien: I'm not sure how you'd brush something with non-beaten egg. Needs to be a homogeneous, liquid-y mixture before you can brush with it.
Yes, I know. But I meant with the egg white and perhaps the yolk (if it's broken). And I'm not sure if it's a language thing, but by beating, I understand whisking it well with adding a bit of air; not just mixing it.
@Mien: A beaten egg is just that - beaten. Incorporating air would be whipping it.
Oh yes of course. It's just a language thing then. (the Dutch word for 'whipping' is literally 'beating')
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.808416 | 2011-09-30T17:36:10 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18121",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Debbie",
"Mien",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39119",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48441",
"nancy",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
20951 | What's the difference between gazpacho and normal soups?
Gazpacho is (afaik) a tomato-based soup, eaten very cold. I was wondering if there is a difference between gazpacho and other soups, apart from the temperature eaten at.
Could you heat gazpacho and eat it like a normal soup?
Could you chill a normal tomato-based soup and call it gazpacho?
Are there ingredients that are mandatory when making gazpacho? Or things you certainly cannot add?
Gazpacho is not a soup; rather, more like a liquid salad.
Gazpacho is possibly Spain's most famous chilled soup. The main difference aside form the temperature is that it's raw, meaning that the soup is not actually cooked it's just blended and chopped vegetables and occasionally bread. There is nothing inherently wrong with heating up gazpacho but it would lose its fresh texture and flavour which is why it's chilled and according to Wikipedia was popular with labourers who used it to:
"cool off during the summer and to use available ingredients such as fresh vegetables and stale bread"
The main reason you couldn't just chill a normal soup and call it gazpacho is because gazpacho is made up of by no means just tomato. It contains tomatoes, a bit of garlic, cucumber, occasionally bread, some vinegar for tang and a drizzle of olive oil at the end.
If you wanted to make it your own (after all you're the chef!) you could add some Tabasco, bell peppers, spring onions or croutons at the end, basically anything you might find in a salsa dip. Use your common sense for what not to add but even in Spain they have variations that are not at all like what I would think of as gazpacho: in La Mancha they use it like a stew and add game (usually rabbit) and even wild mushrooms!
Hope this helps and gives you some inspiration, if you want a recipe a quick search on Google gives a multitude of results.
See http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15864/why-do-gazpacho-recipes-have-you-put-garlic-and-salt-together-then-mash-with-an for more variations
The big difference is that gazpacho is not just eaten cold, it's never heated in the first place: it's basically just a puree of raw vegetables. Regular tomato soup is cooked.
The other differences are that tomato soup is mostly tomato, with maybe some onions but really no other vegetables. Gazpacho, on the other hand, involves at the very least cucumbers, peppers, onions, and garlic in addition to the tomatoes.
Because the onions and garlic are raw, gazpacho is often pretty hot-as-in-spicy1. (I tend to not like it for this reason.) No proper tomato soup would ever be anything other than tangy and slightly sweet.
Really, other than containing tomatoes and being of a soupy consistency, gazpacho and tomato soup have pretty much nothing in common.
1 Note that the "spiciness" of gazpacho is entirely due to raw onions and garlic, and is thus a different sort of heat than capsaicin. I think this might account for the downvotes this answer has been getting: people who equate "heat" with capsaicin, and only capsaicin, are outraged to hear gazpacho characterized as "hot-as-in-spicy". To be clear, no, a traditional gazpacho doesn't contain hot pepper; but that doesn't mean it can't be called spicy by someone (like me) who doesn't like raw alliums.
Gazpacho isn't hot at all. The Spanish, generally speaking, do not enjoy spicy food.
While the baffledcook's remark that the Spanish don't generally like spicy food is correct, some Spaniards put a lot of garlic in gazpacho, and this can result in a slight sting, particularly when the cook has gone overboard or like it that way.
Actually, according to Janet Mendel, author of numerous Spanish cookbooks, any cold, mostly-vegetarian, mostly-raw soup can be called gazpacho. For example, Traditional Spanish Cooking has a gazpacho made with almonds and grapes.
So while the tomato-garlic-and-onion version is the most common version, it's really the coldness and the rawness which makes gazpacho what it is, not the tomatoes.
Gazpacho is made with ripe tomatoes, green pepper, onion, garlic, cucumber, olive oil and salt. You can even sometimes add bread and red pepper. Everything is crushed while raw, strained and allowed to cool in the fridge.
Almond gazpacho, or white gazpacho, (as mentioned in a previous answer) does not exist. What does exist is another cold soup called Ajoblanco, which consists of crushed raw peeled almonds, garlic, bread, oil, vinegar, water and salt.
Original Text:
El Gazpacho está hecho con tomates maduros, pimiento verde, cebolla, ajo, pepino, aceite de oliva y sal. En algunas ocasiones se le pone pan y pimiento rojo. Se tritura todo en crudo, se cuela y se deja enfriar en la nevera.
El gazpacho de almendras o gazpacho blanco (como dicen en una respuesta anterior) no existe. Lo que existe es otra crema fría llamada Ajoblanco que consiste en triturar almendras peladas crudas, ajo, pan, aceite, vinagre, agua y sal.
I can't edit or I'd correct the translation, but I can comment... The Spanish Wikipedia page on gazpacho talks about gazpacho blanco cordobés, and describes the recipe as "the original recipe plus almonds". It also talks about gazpachos blancos as a class of gazpachos, as does the Anexo:Gazpachos page, which calls ajoblanco "one of the Andaluz almond gazpachos".
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.808708 | 2012-01-31T20:11:21 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20951",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"CesarGon",
"DDM",
"Dan Fox",
"Evaughnmin",
"JDK",
"Janet",
"Patricia Adams",
"Peter Taylor",
"TFD",
"TammieO",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19865",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46133",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"serene",
"user46128"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
20601 | What causes popovers to rise so much?
I recently made popovers and I knew they would 'pop over'.
Yet, I was surprised they came that high.
I'm curious how this is possible, since there is no yeast, baking powder, self-rising flour, beaten egg whites...
I think it's because of the egg, but I'm not sure.
So, can somebody explain this?
There is a lot of water in the milk. The high heat turns the water into steam. The egg and flour contains proteins and gluten that forms a "net". The steam can't escape without pushing the net upwards. This makes the dough rise.
It helps that the container is a narrow cylinder.
Commonly called oven spring, I think... Also positive when making leavened bread. Just for reference.
Ha, possibly, yes. I thought of a soufflé, there the steam works in combination of whipped egg whites. I was thinking of how the air gets inside, but it sounds logical now :) thanks.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.809110 | 2012-01-19T10:00:32 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20601",
"authors": [
"Max",
"Mien",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45246",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"user45246"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
21849 | How much sauce do you need per person?
When I'm cooking, the thing that usually has the most leftovers, is the sauce. Most recipes always assume too much. This isn't a problem if you're cooking for just a handful of people, but it is a bigger issue if you're cooking for 20 people or more.
So, how much sauce does one person normally use? I'd prefer an estimate in milliliters.
To be clear, I'm asking for regular sauce, not pasta sauce. Especially about creamy sauces (mushroom, peppercorn, ...) that you can put on steak, chicken breast etc.
I think you need some more detail about the type of sauce you're talking about to get a good answer.
There are a few factors that could effect this:
1) How the meat is cooked and how lean or fatty it is. If you overcook the meat (although I doubt that you would!) or if it's leaner or fattier. If its a fattier meat add say an extra 2 tbsps or so of sauce and if it's leaner (or overcooked) I would add a tbsp or so less of sauce.
2) The viscosity and composition of the sauce. If it's a white wine sauce (thinner, less rich) you would want to add more, however if it's a hollondaise sauce (thicker, richer) you may want less.
3) Opinion, some people like more sauce, some people like less. It may depend on the type of sauce which you may want more or less of.
Saying this I would say around 4 tbsp of sauce, then account for the additions and your own personal preference. Any more sauce and it may become swamped, any less and you will not have enough sauce to taste or keep the meat moist. It is a very subjective subject so do keep that in mind.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.809225 | 2012-02-29T15:34:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21849",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
23798 | Can you make strawberry extract at home?
I know you can make vanilla extract, using vodka and vanilla pods. But can you replace the vanilla pods by pieces of strawberry? I'm not sure whether the vodka would absorb the strawberry flavour, but if it works, I think I could give some desserts that extra punch.
Some essences and herbs need alcohol to be extracted, but not strawberries.
Extracts from berries can be made in the pressure cooker, to later turn into syrups or jellies. Here's a step-by-step photos and instructions on how to do it.
http://www.hippressurecooking.com/2011/08/blackberry-italian-soda-from-your.html
You could then mix the syrup with vodka, instead of mineral water as in the recipe, to make a strawberry cocktail.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.809367 | 2012-05-17T07:16:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23798",
"authors": [
"B L",
"Christine",
"Cindy Fidler",
"Robert OBrien",
"Veda Erickson Gommeringer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53984",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53986",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53987",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54006",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54009",
"user53987"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
23504 | What's the difference between fajitas, enchiladas and tacos?
I'm not familiar with Mexican cuisine, but I enjoyed the things I've eaten so far. To me, they are all quite similar. Is there a real difference between fajitas, enchiladas and tacos?
The taco is perhaps most distinguishable, because of the hard shell, but I've seen pictures of soft tortillas as well. But fajitas and enchiladas are both rolled up meat + veggies + sauce in tortillas, no?
I've checked some websites and pictures, but I can't find a good criterion.
Is there a real difference? If so, what is it?
Fajitas, enchiladas, tacos
Yes, I've seen that. But there's also in the text that you can substitute a lot of things.
Apparently real tacos have soft shells. Taco Bell's hard shell tacos are not real tacos.
Enchiladas are normally shredded meat and/or cheese rolled in corn tortillas, covered in red (or green) enchilada sauce and cheese, and then baked.
Fajitas are normally strips of meat either grilled or sauteed (often with onions and peppers). They can be used in tacos, burritos, or served on their own or with tortillas on the side (corn or flour depending on preference).
Tacos can be either hard or soft shelled and are usually meat (shredded, ground, grilled etc) with some sort of cold veggies (like lettuce, raw onions, pico de gallo, etc) and perhaps cheese etc.
Fajitas may tend to have larger tortillas than soft-shelled tacos (though there's of course overlap), probably because the meat is in strips rather than smaller pieces or ground/shredded.
basically all are tacos: fajitas filled with griddled strip-steak; now anything arriving on a griddle is called 'fajita'; enchilada is sauced before and often after filling (but so can a wet burrito), doesn't have to be baked.
"Enchilada" essentially means "infused with chili" and means the tortilla is, well, infused with chili sauce, prior to the preparation. "Enfrijoladas" are also common in Mexico, which means, as you might expect (if you speak any Spanish at all), "infused with beans (frijoles)", and are made essentially the same way, but the tortillas are soaked in a bean sauce rather than a chili sauce.
note: I am a native English speaker, but some Spanish helps here. a Native speaker will probably correct me on at least part of this:
Enciliada - " in Chile"-- A tortilla soaked/covered in some sort of chile based sauce. Almost always with some sort of filling
Fajita - "little strip" or "Little Girdle or belt" - I'm not sure which is the more significant part of the meaning. these are small strips of meat, traditionally from the skirt steak (which is why I am thinking girdle). Fajitas are the strips of meat, but you usually serve them with tortillas/sauces/sides.
Taco - "A Stopper or plug" - so something to stop up your stomach. Basically, nearly anything folded/wrapped in a tortilla. similar to how anything between two slices of bread is a sandwich.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.809471 | 2012-05-01T18:09:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23504",
"authors": [
"BlackThorn",
"Cascabel",
"Flimzy",
"Mama Digger",
"Mien",
"Milney",
"Pat Sommer",
"RozzA",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"pacoverflow"
],
"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
} |
24069 | How can I get my bacon flatter?
When frying bacon, it tends to curl up. I don't like it because my bacon doesn't cook equally and it's hard to get it crisp that way.
Is there a technique or a tip so I can have flat bacon?
Hah, I found this question wonder why my bacon was always flat...I don't use a bacon press either!
This is how I cook bacon, and also produce almost perfectly flat bacon. No special tools required (Well, I'm assuming most people have the following in their kitchen).
Tools
Sheet Tray
Cooling Rack (slightly smaller than the sheet tray)
parchment paper (Optional, but makes for easier cleanup).
BACON (I like the extra-thick cut).
Steps
Take the sheet tray and line with parchment paper.
Lay bacon down on parchment paper. You can fill the tray up, but I make sure the bacon stays in a single layer with no overlapping.
Place the cooling rack upside down onto the bacon. This should keep it from curling.
Place into oven and turn oven to 400 F. I don't find I need to pre-heat it, as, well, bacon isn't very complicated to cook.
In about 15 minutes or so, you'll have cooked, flat bacon. (Adjust cooking time depending on your preference of crispiness.
Take out of oven and remove from tray. (The tray and fat are hot, the bacon will keep cooking if you don't)
The cooling rack should keep it from curling while the fat slowly renders out. As a bonus, I don't need to clean my stove after.
Alternatively, the mention of the George Forman grill reminds me of an idea I saw somewhere (might have been Good Eats), use a waffle Iron! Use it just like the grill in Ward's answer.
It was an episode of Good eats that talked about the waffle iron, but specifically not the one about Bacon. Bacon was ancillary to the actual recipe involved. I can't recall which though.
The episode in question, if I remember correctly, was the Man Food breakfast - it also features making diner-style hashbrowns, fried eggs ( over easy? sunny side? I forget which ) and French press coffee brewing.
This is specifically the reason for the invention of Bacon Presses
You don't need a special bacon press, any kind of press will work; for instance, I use a normal grill press when I don't want curly bacon. The only difference is that bacon presses have built in ridges so you get some curl, whereas if you use a normal flat press you'll get something more like crunchy bacon spears.
A George Foreman -type grill does a good job keeping bacon flat, and also lets the fat drain away as it cooks:
This is the way I cook bacon and it almost always gives me flat bacon:
Put the bacon in a cold pan. Put the pan on the stove and turn it to medium heat. Let the fat slowly render out and fry the bacon on its own. Cook to your desired crispness
The gradual heating helps the bacon maintain its shape and is the best way to cook bacon, IMO.
This is very old practical way to get flat bacon - take your cold water bottle from the fridge, pour into a dish or pan, and let the strips of bacon lay in the coolness. In just a few minutes, the cool water will work its magic. Then cook. It will come out flat every single time. This is an old trick from my great grandmother.
Don't dirty up a bunch of pans, or buy weights. Just use cold, cold water!
If you only need a small amount of bacon, microwaved bacon tends to be very, very flat. Of course, it doesn't scale well to quantities for more than one or two people, in which case the oven method already mentioned is extremely effective.
I've found that baking the bacon on a cooling rack (so the fat drips away) also results in flatter bacon.
I made my own bacon press hack and it worked absolutely perfectly. First you need really decent bacon as there are some brands that have killer qualities, but most brands are lackluster, especially supermarket brands. One of these brands is Farmers applewood smoked that I get at Costco. It's a bargain but what is most important is that it tastes as good or better than most restaurants. I also freeze it in six slice sections because it freezes very well with no difference in taste from fresh because of it's high fat content.
That said, this bacon tends to curl. One thing I realized in my decades of bacon experience is that the bacon, and most food for that matter, tastes much much better when cooked under medium to high heat and in regards to bacon, it lends a beautiful crispy outside and a gentle chewy inside. Perfect texture!
Bacon press hack: I found a 5 quart pot that had a footprint that fit perfectly into my nonstick frying pan. Filled it with a few inches of water so it had some weight, and of course cleaned off the bottom really well, and tried this as a bacon press hack for the first time yesterday. All I can say is the result was perfect, even, bacon HEAVEN . In lieu of a dedicated bacon press, this hack works perfectly.
I just make incisions on the fatty rind before frying. I do however use a press to smooth the creases out of my morning newspaper...
Agreed - on back bacon in particular, the curves of the rind and fat make it pull together and curl up. If you make snips through the rind/fat first, that doesn't happen so much and it stays flatter.
If you are specifically frying them in a pan, I would turn the heat way down, and use a bit more oil. This cooks like it slowly, so the bacon doesn't curl. It does however take like, a good 30 mins to cook a strip of bacon. But you get nice orange color bacon that is ultra crispy.
Cutting the strip in half makes it curl less too.
My mother-in-law told me to cover the bacon when you cook it; we use the oven method. I'm covering the top of the bacon with a piece of foil and will see how that works.
If I am pan frying, I cover the bacon with cold water, and cook on medium til the water evaporates. Then cook until finished. The bacon cooks evenly and stays flat. Since I like my bacon extra crisp I will put foil on the bottom of a small pot and press down on the bacon and let it sit for 1 minute or so depending on the cut of bacon.
Two ways:
Heat the oven to 400 degrees. Line a baking sheet with sides with parchment paper. Add the bacon, add a second pan to weigh it down. No need to turn
Second method: Place bacon in a cold skillet. Add another heavy frying pan over the top. Fry on low heat, turn after 5 to 8 minutes, turn with tongs, replace the other skillet, and fry until desired doneness: Chewy or crispy. No need for a press if using another skillet nested into the frying pan.
Best to use a bacon press made of wood, no iron smell, no rust, won't burn your hand, handle won't come off. Make sure it's food grade wood.
Hello, While I won't debate the validity of the product, it's unfortuantely considered bad form to sell or advertise products here. As this does appear to be your etsy page, at a very minimum you should be disclosing your affiliation. Check here for more info: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/help/promotion
I'm not going to delete this; it answers the question, and even says something none of the other answers have. (I don't really know if it's true that wood's better, but it could well be.) We don't want actual spam, but it's totally acceptable to mention a product that solves the OP's problem.
Just for full disclosure for everyone, I did edit out the self-promotional part. I think it's okay in it's current state.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.809768 | 2012-05-29T19:37:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24069",
"authors": [
"Adrian S",
"Ann Horricks",
"Audrey B",
"Cascabel",
"Dana Nielsen",
"Grama Pei",
"Hassan Ibrahim",
"Ilze DuPlooy",
"Kogitsune",
"Matt Wellman",
"Rieni",
"Ryan",
"Seub",
"Tacroy",
"Teck B",
"Tina Thao",
"Tremmors",
"Vince Bowdren",
"Zelda",
"annette Sereno",
"gitguddoge",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109548",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128182",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54667",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54668",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54687",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54689",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78617",
"lll",
"lzy zane",
"nicgambalva",
"shadygoneinsane",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
22497 | Why and when do you need to dock dough?
When making a pie, you almost always have to make holes in the dough with a fork. This is called docking.
What is the exact reason for doing this? Are there kinds of pastry (puff, short crust, flaky) where this isn't necessary? Do you only need to do it when blind-baking? When you're using baking weights, does it still make a difference?
My first thought when I saw this question was "Are you supposed to ask this since pastry week is over?"
Pastry week is over, but the "Pie, cookies and cake weeks" aren't! See http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1398/special-weekly-topic-contest-march-13-april-3-2012-pies-cakes-cookies for more information.
Doughs are docked to keep them from blowing up with steam while they bake.
Thus- you only do it in applications that you don't want blown up- like blind pie crusts. Puff pastry applications, for example, you usually do want to blow up so you will get a lot of light layers.
If you are baking a pastry with a filling then the filling will keep this from happening. If you are baking blind, even with pie weights, you should dock because the weights might not weight evenly and you might still get a bubble.
You also do it for certains kinds of pizzas and crackers.
I can offer an example from work experience. When making flatbread, I shared this with a co-worker. We were docking the rounds to keep them from puffing up like little pillows, for this we want flat breads that are flat. Docking correctly allows for small "pillows" of air, yet the overall product does not rise much. I baked one without docking to demonstrate how that flatbread would turn into a pita. The entire thing puffs up, separating the top and bottom layer, creating a void. Once cooled, a nice pocket is there for sandwiches. I know this is not a pie answer, but I hope that the visual example helps explain why we dock.
Docking is used in order to get the air bubble pockets out of the crust. Depending on when the dough was made, to the temperature of the dough itself, you can use anything to dock a pizza including your fingertips as if you are clawing at it. It is the same as edge stretching except you are putting holes in the dough to release air and gases.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.810425 | 2012-03-22T18:46:58 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22497",
"authors": [
"HazPat",
"Mien",
"Sobachatina",
"Sonny Song",
"TAMIM ADDARI",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50612",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50614",
"rfusca",
"user975989"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
9025 | How to tell if it is real sourdough?
I have a very simple question, but difficult for me..
How to tell if a sourdough is a real / traditional Sourdough? A lot of times I wonder if the sourdough I have in cafes or those ones I buy from shops are real sourdough. I know sourdough takes a long time to make and have heard that some bakeries take shortcuts to make sourdough.
If you can't tell the difference does it really matter?
The point is the enhanced flavor. If they are able to achieve a flavor that pleases you does it matter if they used a "traditional" technique?
If you want to know for sure, you can always make it yourself.
RE:Sobachatina - The reason I wanna find out the difference is because I bought sourdough sometimes and their texture is nothing like sourdough to me. I wonder if some bakers cheated!
@Sobachatina I believe sourdough is healthier as it decreases the amount of phytic acid (an antinutrient) in bread.
There isn't One True Sourdough to Rule Them All. There are many different starter cultures, many different processes, different recipes. All can be "real sourdough" but may be nothing like each other.
There isn't really a "test", per se, to tell if a bread is a "real sourdough" or not. Without getting overly technical, the tangy "sour" is created by a lactobacillus (bacteria) culture feeding on the byproducts of the yeast used to make the dough rise. The byproducts of the bacteria produce the lactic acids which give the resulting bread its sour taste.
The taste of sourdough can be simulated by adding other acidic components to the bread dough. Practically speaking, the only way to tell the difference is if you have the experience of a refined palate that you recognize the taste difference.
Ah, but here's the tricky part. Once a baker has a stable culture of yeast and bacteria (starter), they'll save a bit of the fermented dough to add to the next batch, and so on for batch after batch. It is not unusual for bakers to continue their culture for years or even decades. So the problem of recognizing the authenticity of sourdough is that each bakers' sourdough will have it's own distinctive taste. Yikes. So much for the standard taste test.
There is one test I can think of; although, I don't know how practical this is: A very "healthy" sour dough culture is the result of having reached a really stable and balanced, symbiotic relationship between the yeast and bacteria. This is desirable because it prevents other undesirable bacteria from setting up shop. Because of this inherent stability, real sourdough breads are very resistant to mold and other reactions that cause them to go bad. So, if your sourdough bread seems to last longer then you would expect from fresh bread, that might be a good indication of real sourdough. Of course, this can also be the result of preservatives added to the bread; so… no help there.
After baking (190°F+), I'm pretty sure there is no sourdough culture left, healthy or otherwise.
I used to work in a bakery for a grocery store and to make the 'sourdough' we added a sourdough flavoring mix to otherwise regular white flour. the difference in real sourdough is that real sourdough uses a starter that you feed, replenish, and re-use. the bakery "sourdough" was light gold-yellow in color and had white inside. real sourdough is generally cooked darker and has a cream-beige inside, as well as a chewier texture and larger open crumb. its generally very heavy bread while the bakery 'sourdough' was quite light.
I'm sure it's possible to cheat, but if the bread is coming from a professional bakery there's no need. Once you have a starter going it's the easiest thing in the world to keep one around and going to innoculate new dough. Perhaps on a truly industrial level you might find some chemical added to approximate the flavor without actual lacto infection, but I doubt it's worth it for a local baker, even a large one.
If you're suspicious of the texture, that's a place where corners CAN be cut. Proper sourdough doesn't need a ton of starter, but you do need long slow rising times to "infect" the whole dough. That's also something that helps build that awesome texture. And that's something a corner-cutting bakery might be tempted to slack on. They might just dump in a lot more starter and short on the rising time--you still get the taste mostly, but not the texture.
The longer rise time is definitely a reason a bakery might want to cheat. It means they need more space to store rising bread, for the same throughput.
The ingredients on the back of the package must say "culture(s)"to be real sourdough bread. "Fermented wheat flour" on Trader Joe's pkg. may be the same but I'm not sure.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.810910 | 2010-11-11T10:08:28 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9025",
"authors": [
"AnnanFay",
"Foodrules ",
"HaveF",
"Sobachatina",
"SourDoh",
"derobert",
"frrlod",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18473",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2951",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5210",
"justkt",
"lwm",
"mbeasley",
"slim"
],
"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
} |
22460 | Is it safe to eat a non-refrigerated store-bought pizza base?
We bought some pizza bases the other day and I just realized the package says to store below 4°C (39°F). We didn't store them in the fridge. Will these be safe to eat?
They contain wheat flour and yeast.
Did you store them at room temperature or did the store do that?
we did - not sure where they were in the shop, no matter - gone now
The default answer is NO. You don't know how long the pizza bases have been left outside, but most likely more than 4 hours.
Before you open the package, see if it's vacuum packed or in a protective environment. If it's vacuum packed but bulging, throw it out, it can have dangerous levels of botulism toxins that are mortal. If it's not vacuum packed and bulging, you don't know...
You should open the package and smell. Yeast doesn't smell pleasant, but it has a distinctive smell. So, if it smells like yeast, and if you don't see any dark spots (of mold) on the base, and if you are a healthy adult, you could risk it (at your own risk). If you do see mold, just throw it out.
Do not give risky food to children or the elderly, ever.
At any rate, for the price of a pizza base, just throw it out. Make your own pizza base! Even cheaper than store bought and more fun.
Botulinus growing in pizza dough?
Why not? I'm not an expert :-( This wikipedia article doesn't say there's any reason not to have botulism in a pizza dough.
Not sure either, but Clostridium botulinus is an obligate anaerobe and pizza dough sounds like a fairly aerobic substrate to me...
Not at all. The yeast transforms oxygen in carbon dioxide. In a closed environment...
Actually yeasts transforms sugar in CO2.
Yep, one giant type-o :-) Somewhere oxygen is involved though...
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.811440 | 2012-03-21T07:53:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22460",
"authors": [
"Adam Butler",
"BaffledCook",
"C R",
"Etienne Dechamps",
"Mien",
"Shirley Singleton",
"SmokinGrunts",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2240",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50497",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50500",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"mintyfreshpenguin",
"nico"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
24227 | Is it worth tearing lettuce for salad?
I have read that cut lettuce is more likely to brown on the edges than torn lettuce. The stated reasoning is that the lettuce leaves will tear between cell boundaries whereas if they are cut the cells are ruptured.
When preparing a largish salad tearing the leaves can take a lot more time than slicing.
How much of a difference does tearing actually make? Is it worth taking the time?
Are there some types of salads or dressings that will exacerbate the browning of cut leaves and the leaves should be torn instead?
Another reason to tear is that the hard, thick grain/stalk part in the middle of each leaf is often bitter, so you tear around that and discard it.
I'm not sure I buy that cell-boundary thing. I would rather say that tearing only uses light force that is evenly spread out, and the leaf only pulls apart where it is weakest. By contrast, cutting involves more pressure on the leaf around the prospective cut, so that the area touching the cut gets damaged more (observe a cut). And at some point the blade moves through the leaf rapidly, causing more damage. Moreover, if you are cutting several leaves at once, the knife will crash with some speed upon the underlying leaves once it cuts through the upper leave, causing more damage on impact.
@cerberus the cell boundary thing is true (at least for other things, but I don't doubt that it works for lettuce too). Also, if your knife is sharp, the force you have to use for cutting is less than for tearing.
@rumtscho: All right, I haven't read anything definitive about the cell boundaries. As to the force applied, it is really the force per unit of distance/area that matters, and the force applied when tearing is spread out all over the leaf, so that it only breaks where the force per area is highest, at the beginning of the tear. And a tear is a unique physical process in itself, where first nothing happens, then the entire tear suddenly appears as the threshold is passed and the plastic change happens where the structure is weakest. Pulling is just very different from pressing or friction.
Sounds like it's time for a experiment and a SA blog post :-)
I like the idea of an experiment, and (depending on what all happens tomorrow) may perform one.
@BobMcGee if you do, take pictures and write a bit about it - we can use more blog posts
I am not big on gimmiky kitchen gadgets, but my wife got a plastic lettuce knife (like this: http://www.amazon.com/Zyliss-Fresh-Salad-Knife-Green/dp/B0018RYBW2) and it is great. You can cut the lettuce as small as you like but without the browning. Like a more accurate way to tear it.
Well, I did the experiment... after 2 hours, there's no distinguishable difference between cut and torn lettuce. Posting pictures and more detail in the next day or two.
I'm not going to accept McGee as authoritative. Generally he's pretty good, but food authors are notorious for following tradition and established practice. There's all sorts of errors in well respected texts. (i.e. Always rinse pasta in Joy of Cooking).
I'm also not going to accept "Common sense". It tells us that a heavier object will fall faster than a lighter object. There is really only one way to solve this: by experiment.
Buy two romaine lettuce. Rip one, cut one. Spread them out on a towel, and take photos every 15 minutes for the first hour, and then every half hour thereafter.
Not user BobMcGee. I meant author McGee
Because with almost 8k Rep, BobMcGee is authoritative.
@Chris Cudmore: Thanks, I think? Can anyone contribute on if I need to run the experiment longer than 2 hours, or with different conditions?
If you're going to eat your salad within an hour, chopping with a knife is okay - if you're going to eat it later than that, tear - nutrient loss with knife chopping is much greater, which doesn't seem to be anything anyone's mentioned. Knife chopped lettuce kept for some hours is about as nutritionally valuable as the bag it's kept in.
@bamboo how do you figure? Are you saying cut lettuce will lose more liquid and that liquid will contain important nutrients?
@PrestonFitzgerald - in essence, yes. As soon as you pull or crop a vegetable from where its growing, it starts to lose nutrients, but slowly - if you cut that vegetable up, especially leafy greens, nutrient loss is extreme, but less if torn. Best to buy them as whole as possible in the first place.
Tearing is NOT worth the extra effort, tested experimentally.
Others have explored the theoretical reasons behind this, so I decided to test it in real life. I did this like so:
Green leaf lettuce from the local CSA
Cut one leaf with a sharp knife (stainless), and tore the second leaf carefully by hand (fast, clean tears)
Pieces were both wrapped in moist paper towels and left out at room temperature
Photographs were taken at 30 minute intervals
After 2 hours, the 2 leaves still look identical (picture below).
Cut (on the left), Torn (on the right):
Provisos: knife was sharp and leaves were fresh and kept moist. A dull knife or more abusive handling of the leaves may yield bruising and faster browning. I am currently repeating this on a longer time scale, and may attempt with a dressing.
Practical take-away from the experiment:
I have found that in real life, it doesn't matter how you divide your leaves, as long as you don't apply dressing before storing for a prolonged period. The acidic dressing will wilt leaves and cause discoloration, and leading to a limp, soggy salad. The experiment supports that neither method leads to unacceptable browning within a short timeframe. In practice, I've only seen browning when lettuce is left overnight or longer, or when it is stored with dressing.
Cook's Illustrated confirms this with their experiment to see if plastic lettuce knives are worth it. They found that:
Though all lettuce began showing some browning on the ribs after 10 days, none showed any signs of browning on the cut or torn surfaces. After 12 days, the heads cut with metal knives showed faint signs of browning on these surfaces, and the lettuce cut with the plastic knife followed a day later. The torn lettuce was last to brown on its ruptured edges, starting to turn at 2 weeks.
Given that lettuce is browning on the ribs before it does on cut edges, the difference between cut and torn is no longer important. You're only adding 20% to the time before browning appears on cut surfaces. Most people will agree that after 2 weeks lettuce no longer has its full flavor. I have found that to get the freshest, best taste it should be eaten no more than 4 days after harvest.
So, if there difference between cut and torn is insignificant, why cut rather than tear?
It's faster and more consistent, especially if you have good knife skills and a sharp knife. You can cut a head of romaine in under a minute by knife, versus several times this by hand. You also don't have to worry about bruising leaves or making irregularly shaped pieces by accident, and you can choose to do large pieces or fine, fluffy shredded mixture. In my time in professional kitchens, I came to rely on the knife as an extension of my body, and you should too.
There is a fifth grade science experiment that you van find online, that references McGee, and allows for pics at 6, 12, 24, and 48 hours. I do not doubt that after hours of sitting out, bruised lettuce will brown, and as tearing may cause more of this, it seems a valid experiment to show knives cause less trauma to some quantifiable extent. However, when I make a salad, I don't let it sit out for hours on end to oxidize. I toss with dressing and plate. How is this a practical proof?
@mfg: I am unclear what you are saying needs to be done to add more rigor. Are you saying (a) I need to test for a longer interval (b)Need to test with dressing on -- which is unusual b/c I always store dressing separately to get better flavor/texture, or (c)That I should seal the lettuce in an airtight container?
Not many people cut lettuce more than a few hours before requiring it, even in the busiest places
@TFD: Yeah, I've never seen a cook use cut greens for more than a shift or so, and they generally only prep a small batch at a time, so it'll be fresh. I also don't generally see green salads dressed more than 20 minutes before plating.
@bob you're take away I think is spot on; though I am more concerned with texture than the control if the cut, that is totally a subjective concern. As for rigor, I was just hoping to hear in a practical environment how/if the McGee citation mattered. From what I saw ok browning in the Cook's Illustrated article, there's no practical implication and correspondingly the citation is based on preference.
@BobMcGee before I award a canonical bounty on this, could you clarify why it is specifically NOT worth the effort? Sorry to drag this out, but your claim indicates that the results are basically a wash, that it "doesn't matter how you divide"; but thats not how it reads. Could you tie the bow and add to the conclusion the factors (i.e. is there more effort in tearing than cutting, is there a mitigating factor in taste/texture, etc) that compel you to make a negative claim rather than an equivalence (you have proven experimentally that it doesn't matter, rather than that one shouldn't tear)?
@mfg: I have edited the post to make more explicit why I prefer knife to hand tearing. I think you'll be happier with the result now?
Harold McGee discusses this in On Food And Cooking.
From the Preparing Salads section on page 318:
If the leaves need to be be divided into smaller pieces, this should be done with the least possible physical pressure, which can crush cells and initiate the development of off-flavours and darkened patches. Cutting with a sharp knife is generally the most effective method; tearing by hand requires squeezing, which may damage tender leaves.
While I appreciate an appeal to authority, this doesn't answer the question.
@mfg: why do you think it does not?
Soba is asking a comparative question. You cite an authoritative but non-quantified claim as if it is definitive. What your citation doesn't answer is whether the "off-flavors and dark patches" sufficiently problematic as to make textual and presentation issues secondary. Also, are the off-flavors so overwhelming that dressing and other flavors do not compensate? Is this answer for a salad large or small made at home, or a best practice for a commercial kitchen?
There are three questions from the OP: 1. 'How much of a difference does tearing actually make?' The answer from McGee to that is that it is deleterious. 2. 'Is it worth taking the time?' The answer to that question is that it follows if the practice is deleterious then it is not worth the effort. 3. 'Are there some types of salads or dressings that will exacerbate the browning of cut leaves and the leaves should be torn instead?' This one is not answered although I would say given the huge amount dressings you can put on a salad it would involve a lot of experimentation to get a good answer.
It is not deleterious of tearing; (1) preference for the knife is only "generally the most effective method", (2) the extent to which tearing isn't the most effective method is mediated by the extent to which squeezing occurs, and even so McGee makes no counterclaim against it, just states a preference otherwise, (3) this does not address the vast majority of any given salad preparation which will involve either vinegar, lemon juice, or some other acidulated liquid that would stem browning (& off-flavors?). The citation is not quantified; as presented, it's a blanket statement of preference.
The browning of Lettuce leaves are due to the reaction of polyphenol(a chemical in any fruit or vegetable) and enzymes. This is due to two main causes:
Aging
Cell damage (i.e. from cutting, tearing)
Every cell has separate chambers for these two, if they somehow leak, and get mixed up, this would cause browning. Cutting and tearing cause damage to the cells, as is the same with apples, potatoes etc.
In any case, if the lettuce is eaten soon after it is prepared, as far as potential browning goes, it doesn’t matter if it was cut or ripped. Another thing is the dressing should always go on at the last moment because oil soaks into the leaves readily and makes them soggy.
Using brisk cutting motions, cut lettuce only if you plan to use it right away; cutting tends to split lettuce in the middle of cell. Tear lettuce for meals that you want to keep for later; tearing lettuce tends to break it along the natural cell walls.
Tearing lettuce is worth the effort
It takes a reasonably similar amount of time as cutting, and a different but comparable amount of work. If you are planning on eating the salad soon, all the above comments apply as to the browning effect. However, browning isn't the only consideration when deciding between cutting and tearing.
Texture is as essential to the quality of a salad as any flavor, and twice as important to presentation as the edges browning. Tearing the salad's greens results in a more diverse texture that, outside the aesthetic of a shredded iceberg lettuce salad, is preferable to a uniform cut salad that lays limp as shredded paper on your plate.
Use cases
As your use preferences may vary based on the situation (e.g. if you want the leaves to glop up as much ranch dressing and cheese as possible), here are the use cases;
If you wish for your salad to present like it came out of a factory that makes garden salads, cutting is desirable; each bite will be the same and the greens will fade into the background to showcase the dressing.
Uniform cuts will also ensure your leaves glop up all the dressing. and form nice wads of gloop.
Uniform cuts will make the leaves into shapes their cellular structure doesn't support; that is, they will uniformly divide along knife cuts irrespective of cellular boundaries
If you wish your salad to serve plated or from a bowl and look like it was prepared leaf by leaf, ingredient by ingredient, tearing is desirable; each bite will uniquely showcase your greens and everything they are carrying.
Diverse and unique tears will coat nicely with dressing but allow excess to escape.
Diverse tears will shape pieces along their cellular structure boundaries as tearing will follow interstitial space rather than through cell walls (which are stronger in vegetable tissues than animal)
Approaches to tearing:
If you wish to reduce over-manipulation of the greens because the "off-flavors" are so overwhelming, or you notice your salads turning so brown, gently hold part of them against a flat surface and tear with the grain. It should tear along stalks and fibrous columns.
In terms of time, once the lettuce or greens are all in a colander and rinsed out, don't be gentle with them; grab them like a fistful of dollars and rip into them, dropping the tear-away into a bowl. For small greens, I find it effective to wad them up and twist through them; with larger leaves of green pressing them together and working my way down the stalk a half-inch at a time gets the job done in maybe an extra five seconds per bunch.
Discussion of claims:
Both cutting and tearing will rupture cell walls. My experience is that both work and neither too offensively. While I make no counterclaim against McGee, I just submit that the, as referenced,the citation does not exposit more than the following; (1) McGee's preference for the knife is pursuant to it being "generally the most effective method", (2) the extent to which tearing isn't the most effective method is mediated by the extent to which squeezing occurs, and even so McGee makes no counterclaim against tearing, just states a preference otherwise, and (3) McGee does not address the situational nature of this any given salad preparation; which will involve either vinegar, lemon juice, or some other acidulated liquid that would stem browning (& possibly off-flavors?). The citation is not quantified; as presented, it's a blanket generalization by McGee being masqueraded as science to justify a cooking myth.
With respect to the degree of browning I offer no quantifiable, practical, empirical evidence to (a) support that tearing does less browning, or (b) creates less "off-flavors" (per the McGee citation), as these are a non-specified traits; nor (c) an effective, empirical comparison between the degree to which (1) "off-flavors" practically impact a salad once other ingredients and dressing are added versus (2) "off-flavors" significantly impact a salad's quality relative to textural concerns.
Practically speaking, when preparing a salad for consumption (as opposed to cutting lettuce to oxidize), it has been my direct experience at home and in the commercial kitchen that neither knives nor hands cause more discoloration of leaf or flavor.
One paper discussing fresh-cut practices (for commercial pre-packagers) has yielded no direct answer to the original question (except that sharp knives are better than dull, p. 5), nor a practical response to home prepared, fresh cut foods. It may be able to quantify "off-flavors," however.
Cook's Illustrated indicates the following results:
Our verdict? The plastic lettuce knife might stave off browning slightly longer than metal knives, but it's not worth the money or the extra drawer space. To prolong the life of lettuce by a day or two, stick to tearing by hand. Tearing allows leaves to break along their natural fault lines, rupturing fewer cells and reducing premature browning.
The following are problems related to post-harvest damage, i.e. kitchen prep:
Injuries cutting through or scraping away the outer skin of produce
will:
provide entry points for moulds and bacteria causing decay
increase water loss from the damaged area
cause an increase in respiration rate and thus heat production.
Bruising injuries, which leave the skin intact and may not be visible externally cause:
increased respiration rate and heat production
internal discoloration because of damaged tissues
off-flavours because of abnormal physiological reactions in damaged parts
(*Applicable to non-leafy fruits and vegetables generally)
Further issues:
Does the presence/occurrence of browning indicate or coincide with McGee's off-flavors?
How does a plastic knife's lack of carbon relative to its dullness compare to a non-synthetic knife that is razor sharp?
What impact does a slicing motion (lacerating) have compared to a chopping motion (crushing)? Does friction cause more rupturing than pressure?
Caveats:
The majority of my experience does not rely on iceberg or other watery greens; in particular my advice is particularly suited to salads made with heartier greens ranging from spinach and romaine, to chard and kale.
Further, when preparing greens for a salad I do not do so too terribly far in advance; i.e. this advice may not suit use cases designed to preserve pre-cut greens indefinitely,
For salads being prepared promptly, tossing in lemon juice, vinegar, the vast majority of dressings, or any other acidulated liquid stems browning and oxidation prior to consumption; rendering the entire problem of browning moot
"Uniform cuts will make the leaves into shapes their cellular structure doesn't support" <-- can you substantiate this claim somehow (as well as its corollary in the second list)?
@aaronut tissues tear in accordance with their weak points. These weak points, between cells, is called interstitial space. Far be it for me to claim any scientific authority (no sarcasm, honest disclaimer), but the McGee citation flies in the face of biological common sense. Why would tearing do more than incidental rupturing of cell walls; McGee seems to claim that you're ripping through only cells.
There's no such thing as "common sense" in science - that's why we have science. I don't have the book on hand, but I assume that McGee has citations and/or experimental data. In any case, the OP seems to be asking for some practical data as opposed to theoretical speculation. Even if we take the somewhat dubious claim about cellular structure at face value, that doesn't tell us much about the practical impact.
@aar We do have common sense in science, andit is given to simplest explanations (though occasionally undone by more complex ones); We prefer simpler theories to more complex ones "because their empirical content is greater; and because they are better testable" (Popper).
I do not mean to insinuate that McGee didn't research this, I just mean it flies in the face of my (admitted) rudimentary understanding of biological structure. Given to the taste for massaged greens, I find dubious the claim that bruising greens has such a substantial impact with "off-flavors" that it would entail some most-efficient-means of inducing the-least-possible-force.
The Cook's Illustrated article you linked claims browning occurs at the 12-14 day mark, with 12 days for normally cut lettuce, 13 for cut with plastic, and 14 for torn leaves. Given that lettuce is browning on the ribs before this, the difference between cut and torn is no longer important.
@bob correct; I linked this as to illustrate the lack of practical implication of tearing versus cutting. I find tearing to be of no greater effort (easier in my experience for robust greens; chopping kale minus stem is a pain), though I think your reasoning is sound
In my experience lettuce will brown faster if cut instead of torn. However as most people are consuming the lettuce within the day, cutting won't make much of a difference if you plan on serving within the hour. It will generally show up the next morning.
Iceberg and Romaine are the two lettuce types that come to mind as being nasty for browning.
Also it was a lot worse in the days of carbon steel knives. Stainless steel knives don't cause the same extreme browning as the old school knives did. As DHayes suggested, using a lettuce knife will help even more.
To the extent that tearing lettuce leaves more cells intact, if a salad is going to be served immediately, cutting is much better. The flavor of lettuce is in the juice, and cutting exposes the juices to the palate. There is nothing better that the sweet crunch of a rib of cut romaine lettuce. Torn lettuce tastes like paper by comparison.
I think the biggest issue, what they're warning you against when they say not to cut, has to do with removing leaves if you're using less than a whole lettuce. If you slice up the lettuce head as though it was an eggplant, you will leave behind a flat plane of cut lettuce walls which will be nasty and brown the next time you make a salad. If you pull off leaves by hand, the rest of the lettuce will stay nicer.
I suspect for a salad you will eat within minutes, whether you now chop or tear the leaves you've pulled off won't matter much. If you're pulling one leaf, tearing it up, pulling another, tearing it up, deciding if you need more, then doing it al by hand is probably easier than switching back and forth to the knife. If you pull off half a lettuce, it's probably quicker to switch to a knife at this point and the experiments being reported seem to suggested there will be no harm in doing that.
Lettuce is about one thing, nutrition. Many people have suggested that tearing lettuce significantly increases the amount of antioxidants. This benefit should trump any concerns about browning. https://www.veggie-quest.com/2013/07/rip-up-your-lettuce-quadruple-your/
Link-only answers are liable to be deleted, so please add relevant quotes from the article.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.811663 | 2012-06-05T19:33:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24227",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Anne Sharp",
"Asha Kanta Sharma",
"BobMcGee",
"Bookkeepingcentral spam",
"Brian Chappell",
"Carolynn Garcia",
"Cerberus",
"Chris Cudmore",
"Colleen",
"Desiree Zerebnick",
"Don McFall",
"Fred Woods",
"Neal Nicholls",
"Patrick Bonner",
"Pete",
"Preston",
"RonJohn",
"Seekee",
"Sheleen Addison",
"Stefano",
"Swathi",
"TFD",
"VTMusicLover",
"andy ",
"bamboo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135718",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3335",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55132",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55133",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55139",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55308",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55316",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55697",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55702",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7552",
"mfg",
"neeta verma",
"nico",
"rumtscho",
"vilas",
"wip",
"zk."
],
"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
} |
23165 | Can you overmix a gluten-free cake?
If you're making a regular cake, you add all the first ingredients (eggs, butter, sugar, ...) and mix everything well. When you add the last ingredient, the flour, you mix until it's just incorporated, since over-mixing can make the gluten form and you'll end up with a tough cake.
If you work with gluten-free flour, can you mix as long as you want?
If there's leavening in the cake (baking soda or baking powder) that gets activated once incorporated with the rest of the ingredients, and you substantially overmix, you may lose some of its power as you help the gas escape from your batter. Unless you're whipping it vigorously, you're not going to be bringing enough air into the batter to make up for it. This is pretty much like letting the batter sit out on the counter for a while before baking, except faster.
I run a gluten free bakery and yes, over mixing is a concern for many cake batters, cookie doughs, pie crusts, etc. I find, what makes overmixing an issue is the gums used in the recipes. This being either xanthan or guar. An over-mixed cake batter will become very stringy and goopy, and will not pour smoothly when run off of a spoon, for example. Cookie dough, when over-mixed, will become very tough and elastic-like. Cookie dough should break apart easily when you separate it, but an overmixed cookie dough will stretch when pulled apart... Kind of like play dough or fondant.
Just like when baking with wheat flour, GF recipes that use gums (so pretty much all of them) yield a tougher, somewhat unpleasant texture.
Matthew, welcome to the site! We are looking forward to more contributions from you, expert knowledge is very valuable. Until then, I suggest you take the [tour] and visit our [help] to familiarize yourself with the main mechanisms and rules of the site. Again: Welcome!
It depends on what is in the flour.
Xanthan gum's binding power is certainly dependent on the amount of mixing. More mixing produces a tougher colloid. As many gluten-free recipes use xanthan gum as a binder, this will indeed be a problem with overmixing.
If you are using a pre-made gluten free flour, you have to read the ingredients. If these are pure starches only, you can't overmix. If they have thickening agents, it is possible that overmixing is bad or not, depends on the thickener used in the specific brand.
In New Zealand, We have 2 main g/f flours to bake with. Both are a combination of rice flour and tapioca among other ingredients. using these flours it is easy to over-mix baking recipes using these flours and the baking becomes tough and chewy. The more tender and delicate you want your cake, the less you mix it in my case.
As long as I don't use rice flour in my custom blended g/f flour mixes, I can mix the batter "until the cows come home".
In terms of 'toughness', yes you can mix it a long time. However, while you are mixing, you are incorporating air into the mixture, so you must take care to not go crazy.
That being said, the main reason to mix a cake until 'just incorporated' is because of gluten development. I guess what I am saying is, that within reason, you can mix a gluten free cake for quite a while with no adverse affect.
I use premixed GF flour available from most UK stores. I start off building a thicker batter to start with by withholding the egg white until the end. You can thin the mix out to make it easier to work in the earlier stages (I mix by hand). Once the yolk and dried ingredients are combined sufficiently I then fold the whisked whites until almost fully incorporated.
The air trapped in the white also helps with the rise.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.813389 | 2012-04-18T11:54:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23165",
"authors": [
"Alexander Eykher",
"Angeline Lastimosa Yurong",
"Flo",
"Kostas Kryptos",
"M King",
"Rachel Temple",
"Stephie",
"crispy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52404",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70869",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70883",
"user52390",
"user52392"
],
"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
} |
21121 | Does the type of sugar make a difference when making chocolate?
I was checking some sites on how to make chocolate myself.
I should start with mixing cocoa butter, cocoa powder and sugar (and milk powder if I would make milk chocolate). Most sites mention "sugar". I'm assuming those are talking about granulated sugar. I've also found a few sites that call for powdered sugar.
Since granulated sugar has larger particles, I guess it takes longer to be completely melted. But I believe it would happen (so the chocolate would not turn out grainy).
Powdered sugar has smaller particles, so it should be absorbed rather quickly. However, there is also some starch added. Would this have an effect on the chocolate? Or is the amount too small for that?
(After the mixing it together, I should melt and temper it, with adding some existing chocolate.)
So, does the type of sugar make a difference in the taste or structure of my self-made chocolate?
You want to make chocolate from raw cacao? Is that what you're asking?
Yes, starting from cocoa butter, cocoa powder and sugar.
Chocolate bars can be made that way, but won't be as good as high-quality chocolate made from chocolate liquor (that's the mass made from pressing cocoa beans)
Are you wanting to make solid chocolate (for example, bars or small formed candies [Valentines hearts]) from cocoa butter, cocoa powder and sugar?
@KatieK yes. Should I edit my question and put more info in it?
@Mien - Yes, I think so. I'm confused about what you intend to start with.
Speaking from making fudge, I have gotten the most consistent results using superfine / castor sugar.
I haven't noticed starch related issues from powdered sugar, but your mileage may vary; the problem I have had with it is due to clumping in spite of the starch (particularly in a frosting recently).
I have used granulated sugar to make fudge and it is grainy. I melted most of it, but got sick of stirring it as it got crazy thick. I suppose it's possible to get it to the point of a completely dissolved syrup, but that would take longer than it is worth since you are likely going to run the risk of scorching.
Relative to the taste and structure, you won't get anything special from the caster sugar. However, you will get a more predictable product, and less hassle waiting for it to dissolve. You will also avoid texture problems and reduce the risks brought on by extended time in the pot (i.e. too much heat, likelier to accumulate moisture randomly).
If you wait long enough, and stir the sugar long enough it will melt and liquify, so it doesn't really matter what kind of sugar you start with so long as you wait till all the sugar is melted to a liquid, and completely mixed with the chocolate. You can't add more sugar than the chocolate/butter mixture will absorb. If you do that sugar will cyrstalize no matter what kind of sugar you started with.
You mentioned in a comment you're trying to make solid chocolate, like chocolate bars?
Sugar simply doesn't dissolve in fats like cocoa butter, and you have no water or other liquid... and if you did you'd get a softer chocolate confection, more like fudge, rather than hard chocolate like bars. To make solid chocolate at home, the smooth kind, you will need some kind of conching or grinding equipment - something to grind the chocolate and sugar together to make it smooth and so that it stays well mixed together.
I believe that sugar will also settle, so just mixing powdered sugar into a liquid cocoa-powder-and-butter mixture isn't found in homemade chocolate recipes - it won't stay suspended and evenly spread through your chocolate mixture. Larger sugar crystals might actually stay suspended better, not settle as much, that is why mexican-style chocolate (with crunchy sugar crystals) is a thing. I've seen some recipes that use honey or syrup but the resulting chocolate will tend to be softer. One recipe used sugar at one-string consistency (a candymaking syrup), that might be your best bet for something like chocolate bars, if you want to go that far.
You can much more easily make chocolate confections like fudge, that have added water for the sugar to dissolve into, that is what most people end up doing and they can be very good. That's what mfg was doing, from their answer. And some of them might end up fairly close to solid chocolate, if that is what you're looking for, if you're using minimum sweetners and going for a very dark, bittersweet chocolate candy.
If you're interested in making chocolate properly with conching, there are dedicated grinders and also some Indian-style wet grinders can work, if you check the settings. It sounds like a lot of fun, if also a lot of work.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.813836 | 2012-02-07T17:42:56 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21121",
"authors": [
"KatieK",
"LeVidotti",
"Mien",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58969",
"rfusca",
"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
} |
22464 | Can you re-use parchment paper when baking batches of cookies?
I just finished making cookies. The dough was enough to make multiple batches. I only have one baking sheet. Every time a batch was ready, I used new parchment paper on the baking sheet. Is this necessary or could I just re-use the same piece of paper till all my cookies are baked?
@Linda Silicone baking mats are indeed great, though as Joe said, they do also insulate the bottom of the cookies and reduce browning and even sometimes change baking time.
You can reuse parchment paper several times for your cookies (it also works for other dry dishes), depending on cooking time and temperature, with no problem. Change the paper when it gets dirty, dark and/or brittle as it may crumble beyond this point. I always do so with no difference in the results, saving both on money and waste.
Additionally- you can use two sheets of parchment with one pan. Scoop dough onto one while the other is baking and then switch.
When I bake multiple batches (I just got out of my 100-cookies-at-a-crack phase) I keep the same sheet of parchment paper on the sheet, remove the cooled cookies from it, throw more dough on the sheet and pop the tray back in the oven. I haven't noticed any issues with that system.
@Sobachatina Cookie recipes often depend on the cookie sheet being cold when you put the cookies on. So you need to let the pan cool.
@derobert Very true, but I've made many a batch of choc. chip oatmeal cookies with hot pans, and usually decreasing cooking time 1-2 minutes is sufficient.
Please do reuse the baking paper. It is non-biodegradable and non-recyclable because of the silicone so if you MUST use it, make it go several rounds for the sake of the environment. We always used to use butter paper (before it came in plastic containers) or plain unwaxed paper lunch wrap, greased if necessary. But for cookies, a greased tray works as well as baking paper, and buttering and flouring a tin does well for cakes. My mother lined her Christmas cake tin with several layers of greaseproof paper on the bottom and up the sides. And don’t forget that waxed lunch wrap is great for cheese, sandwiches and the top of jam jars. Jenny
.
Re:...”greased tray works as well as baking paper... maybe as a method for reducing attachment of cookies, but cookies with butter in the dough will spread more on a greased sheet pan. Less so with paper which provides more friction.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.814213 | 2012-03-21T10:09:07 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22464",
"authors": [
"416E64726577",
"Bad",
"Cascabel",
"JYelton",
"Paul",
"Sendix",
"Sobachatina",
"SqlACID",
"StevieP",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50506",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50508",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8827",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91"
],
"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
} |
33764 | How to prepare smaller amount of coffee than nominal in Moka pot
I have a 6 cup Moka pot (about 250-300 ml) but I want to prepare a single cup of coffee just for myself. How should I reduce its load - reduce amount of coffee beans and amount of water or reduce only coffee amount? Will this reduction affect taste of prepared coffee?
The optimal way is probably to switch to a smaller moka pot
The Moka pots like Bialetti are very similar to the esspresso process except that the water goes through the coffee from the bottom in Moka's case.
They are designed to match the pressure of the water with the resistance from the coffee grind/puck (IIRC 1-3 Bar of back pressure). If you use significantly less coffee, the water can just run through the coffee compartment without extracting much flavor or worse, it can fill the compartment (replacing the missing coffee) and soak for too long.
My guess is that you'd need to reduce the volume of the compartment to allow proper pressure build up on the coffee. Perhaps roll a coffee filter into a ring shape and place inside the coffee compartment to take up the missing 5 cups worth of coffee grind and fill the inside of the ring with the now less coffee grind.
Again you may not be able to reduce the water all the way since it needs to be above the opening of the spout/pipe that descends into water reservoir. The solution here is to take the Moka off the heat when you're near your one cup so you don't dilute your Moka Espresso too much.
I use to use a 6 cups' Moka to make my morning coffee. I only load around 10 grams of coffee into the coffee compartment; fill the regular water quantity until the safety valve but when the coffee starts to come out I stop the fire once the outcoming coffee starts to become more lightcolored.
I serve and drink the result in a mug.
The result is not as good as with the regular way, but is quite ok. you can regulate the concentration by turning of the fire earlier or later.
I didn't try filling less water in the compartment, since I believe that it will cause the temperature of the brewing water to be bigger and the pressure to be smaller at extraction point - after all, the non-boiling water is used to be pressed by the water vapor that expands on the top layer of the water container... Writting this here makes me wonder if it would be a good idea to even try with a bigger amount of water than prescribed to increase pressure and decrease temperature, though i fear that that might be unsafe.
Edit:
After I wrote this answer I decided to further experiment: I concluded that using one or two sheets of paper coffee filter in-between the rubber rim and the top filter allows a smaller portion to be extracted at an higher pressure, thus getting a result that is more similar to brewing with a full coffee portion. Still, I stopped the fire once the coffee started to come out more light colored.
You should reduce both the amount of water and coffee beans. The exact amounts depend on your preference, but if you know how much you use for a full pot, divide both the water and the coffee beans by the same number. The ratio should stay the same.
Maybe filling up the filter cup with steel balls will help.
I'm not sure how this would help. However, with a little more explanation I'm sure your answer would be better and more informative. Otherwise, welcome to Seasoned Advice.
Filling up the filter cup with steel balls will reduce the volume of coffee needed to fill up the filter cup.
I've, done the steel balls concept in the coffee holder. The small balls from my bottle washer kit are to small and to messy when clearing up afterwards, they definitely reduced the temperature by to much, hence under extraction, took out 50% a step in the right direction. Now I'm testing with two or three larger ball bearings slightly smaller than a malteaser, pushed down all the way with modest success. It's a work in progress.
Would this help? https://www.amazon.com/Inch-Stainless-Steel-Bearing-Precision/dp/B07R72SWMG/ref=mp_s_a_1_3?keywords=steel+balls&qid=1584454150&sr=8-3
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.814471 | 2013-04-26T11:07:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33764",
"authors": [
"Batman",
"Devesh Singh",
"J Crosby",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78843",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80952",
"user80952"
],
"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
} |
3893 | "Best by date" true for bay leaves?
Today I bought a 2 oz (56.7 grams) bottle of Bay Leaves. The "best use by" date is 01/2015. I've read that spices and herbs go "off" after a year or so, depending. Can I believe the 2015 date on these bay leaves?
The use-by dates on all spices are mainly hokum. Most spices last for six months in whole form, herbs can be dried and last about three, after that time the taste is going to weaken and change as essential oils leave the spice. If you keep your spices in an airtight dark container you can eek out a little more time, but I would highly recommend that if you want fresh spices you grind yourself and keep fresh herbs on hand (it's very little work to grow your own).
That said, bay leaves last me quite a while, and even after I know they should be retired I tend to just throw more of them in the pot to achieve the same effect.
A note on growing your own, obviously it depends on your climate and soil conditions. But I find Bay trees are very easy to grow, and do they grow... I have a nice 10ft high and probably a good 6ft in breadth tree in my garden, which is more than enough for any amount of cooking a family good do.
Bay leaves lose potency if stored at room temperature. They will last much longer if stored in the freezer. This is based on a Cook's Illustrated magazine article. They did a taste test a few years ago, and were amazed at the flavor difference after 6 months (between frozen and non-frozen bay leaves).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.814814 | 2010-07-31T23:28:24 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3893",
"authors": [
"André Nicolas",
"Ben",
"Orbling",
"corsiKa",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7239",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7240",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7245",
"maxaposteriori",
"orangejewelweed"
],
"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
} |
67524 | What plant-based (non-dairy) milk do not separate when making caffe latte?
This is a little subjective, but what plant-based milk is best used to make a latte?
By "best" I mean one that doesn't separate (like plain soy often does) and has a creamy consistency that best resembles dairy.
Preferably this milk should also steam well.
Note that answers on making custom plant-milk recipes are welcome as I know that making your own nut milks can produce a wide variety of consistencies and textures.
You might consider rephrasing to ask for a non-dairy option that doesn't separate rather than writing the question in terms of "best".
A good plant-based milk I've had success with is hemp milk. I'd say try coconut and almond milk, but these two are thinner in my experience, and tend to be less creamy. Hemp milk foams well, and is quite tasty. Like most things, don't get it too hot, or it'll break and be less desirable. That said, I never have problems in this regard with soy milk, but using non-soy is probably better for many other reasons.
Product availability differs wildly from country to country, but in Sweden we have an oat milk specifically made for latte. It's called "iKaffe", which translates to "inCoffee", and is produced by Oatly.
Presumably in response to this product, multinational plant milk giant Alpro launched a foamable soy milk earlier this year. It, too, works very well.
The most obvious thing that stands out with these compared to the "normal" milks of their respective brand is that they contain a lot more fat.
I've had great success with almond milk, both for latte and cappuccino. Just make sure it doesn't boil same as in any other milk.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.814970 | 2016-03-18T00:35:38 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67524",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Garry Spangler",
"Jessica Poppa",
"Jon Curti",
"Konrad Chiara",
"Luke O'Donoughue",
"Mark Converse",
"Maureen Dellisola",
"Scott Palmer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162102",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162300",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162394",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
42523 | Can you get sick from milk that's been heated at a high temperature?
If you have pasteurized milk that is steamed for lattes, could that end up making you sick?
The steaming seems to occur at a high temperature.
Why would the high temperature of steaming make you sick if the milk was already pasteurized (also at high temperature)? Is it pasteurized milk that is old and you're steaming it to fix it, or are you asking if the steaming itself makes the milk bad?
I'm agreed with sourd'oh on this one. I think we could use some additional details. Are you asking if the steaming itself could make you sick? Or are you asking if otherwise bad milk can be made "safe" via steaming?
I think this is about overheating the milk to a point where it is partially carbonized :)
No, there is nothing about raising otherwise-safe milk rapidly to a high temperature that is going to make you sick. Unless you are already lactose intolerant or otherwise allergic to milk. Raising milk rapidly to a temperature above the danger zone (140 F / 60 C) is going to make it safer, not less safe.
As a general rule, and assuming that there is no underlying medical condition, merely drinking heated milk will not make you sick. However, I have heard this assertion around the coffee shop from the Ethiopian ex-pats who frequent it.
Apparently; their tradition dictates that they eat something with their lattes, lest the milk make their stomachs blow up. When asked, one of them told me that the same did not apply to milk that had not been heated.
No.
You can certainly heat almost anything, including milk, to the point where it tastes terrible. And you can heat some things to the point where they will make you sick, but milk isn't one of them.
ABSOLUTELY !
I had two latte today on a fairly empty stomach at the coffee shop - now I usually have black coffee, but today I thought I'd have latte.
Afterwards and during, my belly swelled up, I could not STOP FARTING ! ...it was very very uncomfortable, I also got terrible stomach cramps.
Then around an hour later I feel very shaky and sick.
Can heated milk in latte make you ill, ABSOLUTELY !
...I have heard a rumour that you should eat something with a latte - but to be honest, my experience today with coffee and heated milk has put me off latte for LIFE !
We like science. There are many things that could have made you sick the day you had 2 lattes. The other answers assert that there is nothing in warm milk that would make you any sicker than cold milk would. Your anecdote does not disprove that assertion.
Sounds more like lactose intolerance (which happens regardless of the dairy temperature) exacerbated by an empty stomach and irritation of caffeine. Food poisoning has very different symptoms.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.815149 | 2014-03-05T03:36:26 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42523",
"authors": [
"Cecilia",
"Erica",
"Guangdong Lesoo Technology Co",
"Jones Four",
"Preston",
"Sobachatina",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"Squaretoes",
"Travis Bear",
"Ultan Hill",
"another victim of the mouse",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99331",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99335",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99344",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99348",
"leslie M.",
"microhaus",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
36076 | Lowering oven temps
Can you start a cake at 350 F (180 C), then lower the oven to 325 F (160 C)? What happens to cake? Recipe calls for 350 but the recipe is old. Other recipes I have checked online say to bake at a lower temp of 325.
You can, but I cannot think of a single good reason why you would.
325 F and 350 F are not that far apart; they may even be within the accuracy of most ovens, especially older ones.
When you bake the cake, the two main modalities of heat transfer (radiation and conduction from the air in contact with the surface of the cake) begin to heat up the surface of the cake at the cake/air or cake/pan interface.
Within the body of the batter, conduction begins to transfer heat into the center of the cake.
At the same time, on the top surface especially, water can evaporate, faster than it is replenished from water diffusing from the interior of the batter. This allows crust formation to begin, with drying of the surface, and heating of it to levels above 250 F or so which allow caramelization and Maillard reactions to begin in the crust.
The interior of the cake can never exceed the boiling point of water, and so browning does not happen.
Thus, the higher the temperature, the greater the difference between the surface temperature of the cake as baking proceeds, and the interior of the cake. This has several consequences:
Thicker cakes should be baked at a lower temperature to permit them to cook through before the surface is over-baked; similarly, thinner cakes can be cooked at a higher temperature
The higher the temperature, the more rapidly crust formation proceeds, and the more slowly the center of the cake bakes
However, 25 F is not enough of a difference to worry about in most cases.
Starting at only a slightly higher temperature, when the water from the surface is not yet evaporated, will have only a minimal effect on any of this. There is little, if any point to doing so.
Due to the processes you described, some recipes for things like poundcakes will call for the temp to be lowered part way through baking to force the cake to dome. 25 degrees might cause this to happen, though it would be right on the edge of the effective range.
@sourd'oh Interesting; intentionally causing doming is something I never thought about. Usually, that comes up in the context of minimizing it for layer cakes :-)
Yep, it's usually only done for things like loaf cakes and banana breads where a dome is desirable (or just expected, as the case may be).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.815412 | 2013-08-17T17:07:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36076",
"authors": [
"Daniel Hoesing",
"Evie",
"Marcello Miorelli",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SourDoh",
"Tammy Schram",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84622",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84634",
"jefolicr",
"user84624"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
38245 | Do these smoked ham hocks which contain dextrose, contain gluten?
I love using smoked ham hock in soups, beans and stews. Dextrose is a listed item on this package I bought - does dextrose contain gluten?
There's really no way to answer this. Dextrose can come from many sources. It'd be best to contact the producer.
Dextrose is another name for the sugar glucose. In the US most powdered dextrose and/or glucose syrups are produced from corn starch, in the UK and other European countries they may be made from wheat or other starchy plant sources. According to a 2008 study from Finland, even though wheat based glucose syrup was found to contain low amounts of residual gluten, it was tolerated without harmful effect by people with celiac disease.
Though the ham is not likely advertised as "gluten free", even if there was gluten in the dextrose, the final concentration of gluten in the ham would likely be well below the 20ppm concentration to qualify as such according to the FDA rules.
Dextrose is sugar. Gluten is a protein from wheat. So yes, I'm relatively certain your ham hocks are gluten free.
FYI: Dextrose can be made from grains, including wheat. So the question is not as simple as it might seem.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.815653 | 2013-11-07T19:19:39 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/38245",
"authors": [
"Alyssa Que",
"Greatgrandmagail",
"Kishor Kumar",
"Mien",
"PBNY",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90078",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90090",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90091",
"seeker_after_truth",
"simonhaven"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
35944 | How can I make my dish less sour?
I use peri peri sauce for grilling chicken, but it's coming out to be too sour. How can I neutralize the sauce?
Use a recipe with less acid (typically lemon juice in the peri peri recipes I just googled), or reduce the acid in your current recipe.
There is really no way to reduce the acidity in a marinade or sauce without creating undesirable flavor compounds. Adding a base would neutralize the acid but would also produce salts which don't taste so good.
If you are making a marinade then simply add less acid to it, however if you are using bottled sauce then you have a few options to deal with the excess acidity:
Add some water: thin the mix out, and you will reduce the acidity. You will reduce the overall level of flavor but at least it won't make the chicken too vinegary
Marinade using less sauce: Less sauce = less acidity
Marinade for less time: this will mean less acidity, but less penetration of the flavors into the chicken
Add some sweetener: this will not reduce the acidity but will balance it out
If it were me I'd combine some of the above, I'd add some sugar and maybe a bit of water until it's a bit weaker.
"Adding a base would neutralize the acid but would also produce salts which don't taste so good." ... in a sauce with strong other flavors, you might just get away with it - try with a small side batch :)
Try marinading longer (e.g. overnight in fridge). The acid will be neutralized by the amino acids from the chicken and will also help tenderize the meat.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.815890 | 2013-08-11T19:54:29 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35944",
"authors": [
"Fabio M.",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Saket Mehta",
"Vladimir Despotovic",
"andrybak",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84292",
"hyl3rid",
"medley56",
"nmu",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
35142 | Can I substitute chocolate chips for cocoa powder in my frosting?
I just ran out of cocoa while making a cookie sheet cake. Had enough for the cake, but not for the frosting. Can I substitute chocolate chips?
You cannot substitute chocolate chips for cocoa alone, as they contain sugar and cocoa butter (fat), as well as cocoa solids—assuming you have quality chocolate chips that are true chocolate. The ratio of these ingredients will depend on the exact chips you have.
A reasonable approximation for the general case per What's Cooking America assuming you have semi-sweet chocolate chips is:
3 tablespoons unsweetened cocoa powder, 3 tablespoons sugar and 1
tablespoon butter, margarine or shortening for every 1 ounces of
semi-sweet baking chocolate.
However, frosting is a specific application, and your recipe almost certainly has its technique based on powder, not melted chocolate. You would be better off looking for a recipe that starts with melted chocolate.
The easiest (and one of the best in my opinion) if you have cream on hand, and again assuming the chocolate chips are real chocolate, is to make a ganache; see Ina Gartner's recipe for reference.
See also:
The reverse question: Can I substitute cocoa for semisweet chocolate?
you can use the chips, just understand the frosting/topping will be different (sweeter and harder to blend)
melt the chips, add 2/3 to 3/4 of the ingredients from the original recipie, and add the rest to taste and consistancy (if it is too liquidy add sugar, if too thick add a liquid, if too sweet add fat etc) also note that the topping will thicken as is cools.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.816051 | 2013-07-07T19:16:24 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35142",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
36097 | Cast iron pan has black residue on it
I have a small cast iron pan which I am working with, trying to make sure I understand seasoning/cleaning before moving on to a larger one. I seasoned with flaxseed oil (4 light coats, hour in the oven), and have cooked a few things - I made some Ghee, fried some onions, stuff like that. After each I washed with hot water (no soap), heated until dry on the stove and coated with a thin layer of canola oil.
Now, when I take a dry paper towel and rub it on the pan, a black residue shows up on the paper towel. I can't feel anything with my fingers and I haven't noticed anything cooking with it. I'm fairly confident this occurred after the initial seasoning - although I'm not sure I did this exact test with the paper towel.
Is this a) normal, or b) what is wrong and c) how can I fix it?
There are quite a few questions (and good answers!) regarding cast iron cookware on this site but I haven't been able to find one that deals with this specific issue.
You may notice the black residue if you fry eggs in the pan as well.
Most likely, the black residue is charred (greasy) food sticking to the seasoned oil. Since Flaxseed oil has low heat tolerance, it could be that disintegrating, too. Otherwise it could be related to the iron in the cast iron which isn't bad for you (some say even good).
a) Is it normal: Yes if you keep with the same regiment (recommend you don't).
b) What is Wrong: Water won't perfectly wash non-polar chemicals such as burnt solids in grease (milk solids while making ghee), so the hot water no-soap routine leaves the stuff in pan.
c) How can I fix it: Try the following going forward:
After you finished cooking and while the pan is somewhat hot, put a heap of salt in the middle and with a paper-towel spread and lightly scrub the pan. The salt will pick up the would-be black stuff, largely disinfect the pan, and the abrasive properties of the salt helps with the cleaning.
Wipe off the now brown salt from the pan and rub-in the coat of oil as you normally do. The new coat will stick better to through the salt's abrasive effect.
This routine won't eliminate residue altogether. But it seems to work great long term.
Note on oils:
Flaxseed oil is best consumed cold and within three weeks. I haven't heard of a credible source promoting seasoning the pan with flaxseed oil as it has one of the lowest smoke points in the oils. Use a more heat tolerant oil like light (not extra-virgin) olive oil or canola.
I don't make any claims as to the credibility of this source. However it is one source that suggests using flaxseed oil: http://sherylcanter.com/wordpress/2010/01/a-science-based-technique-for-seasoning-cast-iron/
And that's the source which I used to decide which oil to use.
@levitopher I get her idea on the drying oil that artists used. From what I know flaxseed oil is not temperature tolerant and can form cyclic hydrocarbons or long chains that are carcinogenic at higher temperatures. She doesn't seem to address that part, just says flaxseed oil is the only edible drying oil, therefore ...
grapeseed oil is a good neutral high-heat oil.
@MandoMando is the smoking point strictly relevant to seasoning though? You're pushing the oil way past smoking no matter what type you use are you not? Are you worried that the fumes while seasoning or the carbon layer left behind?
@MandoMando actually she does address it. You don't cook at the temps you season with. Smoking oil while cooking is bad, but smoking oil while seasoning is good. It makes a much harder polymer coating that does not introduce the carcinogenic properties that smoking oil does, because when you are done seasoning with the flax seed oil, it's not smoking any more, it's become stable at a HIGHER temp than what you cook with.
So as I was surfing the net, I came across this post, and figured I would give my 2 cents. In my experience I have several cast iron pots and pans, also a flat cast iron griddle, dutch ovens, so I am very familiar with these.
I do wash my cast iron in hot soapy water!!!!! But after I wash it I immediately dry it and immediately put on the stove and oil it. Then I tend to put them away.
If I fix dinner in one of my pans, do not wash it immediately, and leave it overnight, I have to wash it the next day. Do not immerse it and let it sit. If you need to get burned stuff off you can also put the stove on and put the pan on it will probably start to burn your already burned on food. Then pour a cup of water in it, be careful it will steam and pop. It will then boil your stuck on food off and come off nicely. You can do this If you do not want to wash in hot soapy water. But I have been washing with hot soapy water for years. My pans do not stick, and are still awesome. It does not ruin them.
If you get your pan washed and seasoned with oil and notice black on your paper towel, keep using paper towels to wipe oil up around sides. Yes you may get paper towel in there initially, but after it's not black anymore you can wipe it out with a damp towel if you wish, then oil once more. Then you are good to go. You will just have to keep oiling and wiping until the black comes out almost clear on the paper towels.
Yes it's time consuming, so be prepared to kill some time and put on your music and wipe oil, wipe oil.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice and thank you for your first answer. I edited it a bit to hopefully make it easier to read. I wanted to do that because you offer some really good information and I hoped breaking it up a little bit would encourage people to read it. I was happy to give you your first upvote! Check out our tour and help center to get to know us better.
So I am a bit surprised by this, since it's counter to a lot of the advice that I've seen. I have two questions - first, what brand is your cast iron? For instance, I think you could pretty do anything to my Griswold Iron pan and it would work well forever, but submerging my Lodge pans in Soapy water? It would strip them completely. My second question is just that - do your pans actually retain seasoning, or are they just straight silver Iron?
@levitopher It is counter to what a lot of us have always been taught; It meshes with something that Serious Eats is putting out. I've been using dish soap on my cast iron for a few months and it's been going great. Seasoning is black as ever (50+ years old).
@Jolenealaska yep, agreed. The no soap on cast iron is a myth. I would never let them soak in soapy water for more than a few minutes, but using soap and rinsing is great for your seasoning. I have forgotten pots in soapy water, it makes a mess. It doesn't ruin the seasoning, but anywhere the seasoning has scratches, rust makes its way through which means heavy scrubbing and a partial re-seasoning session.
My pans are lodge. The Lodge seasoning does not strip in soapy water. My issues with seasoning are purely of my own making - forgetting to turn off the burner, burning eggs through inattention, etc.
You are speaking exactly my experience. I have tried everything from "no washing just paper towel" (which smelled to me) to "seasoning with flaxseed oil in oven after every use". I scrub the pan with iron wool, then wash with soap water, dry with paper towel (no black residue on the paper towel) and set two minutes on high on induction to dry it completely. In my experience this makes the cast iron least "sticky" to the food next time I use it (pancakes can be turned in the air). And it's the fastest method of cleaning. The cast iron is more gray then before (compared to seasoning dark/black).
Although I can't lay claim to what exactly is "normal," I can say that on the occasions that I wipe the cast-iron pan which I use for basically everything on a near-daily basis with a paper towel, it never comes back free of some kind of residue (usually more of a dark brown for me), even after I've cleaned it in the way you describe.
I've been using my pan for years and the presence of this residue hasn't negatively affected pan's effectiveness or the taste of the food that comes out of it, so, I haven't really worried about.
Cast iron when freshly seasoned will not leave a residue on a paper towel.
If you season your pans with flax seed oil, and bake them as instructed, the oil will be bone dry and nothing will come
Off on a paper towel.
What you are experiencing is a layer of oil left behind from cooking that has been "partially" dried, and is like that sticky oily goop you get in toaster ovens that is a pain to clean off, but not really a hard substance.
One myth that needs to be debunked is that cast iron and soap should never come in contact. That is simply not true. Another is that you don't use a scrubbing pad on cast iron. That is also not true.
My cleaning regimen, includes using a sponge with a scotch brute pad that has been soaped. I give the entire cooking surface a light scrubbing. Meaning I am not pushing down hard, I am just making sure all the food stuff and un-seasoned oil is removed. I then follow up by putting the pan bake on the stove to dry, wipe the water out, and put a fresh thin coat of oil on the cooking surfaces (up to and including the upper edge). I let it sit on that heat until the oil begins to speckle the bottom of the pan. I wipe those speckles down with a dry paper towel and remove the pan from the heat and hang it or put it on a trivet to cool.
No residue ever comes from this treatment and my cooking surfaces remain baby bottom smooth, even the forge brand skillets.
The scotch brite when used gently knocks down the hills that may develop, without scouring into the valleys. The soap makes sure that all residue and unhardened oil is lifted away from the surface. Laying a new season layer, refills any valleys that may have developed, and wiping the pan out before the speckles can dry assures you are left with a perfectly baby smooth, and residue free surface.
I just recently got a cast iron small cooking pot, and I seasoned it a bit, and rubbed lard to coat inside, and left it. I used it to broil a small roast, and put vegetables in it, and before this, I washed the lard out, and cooked the roast . Half hour later, I put the vegetables all in, and cooking time is over an hour in total. When I cleaned the pot after cooking, a bit of detergent, and rinsed it good with hot water, then as I wiped it with paper towel, there was black residue, then I rinsed it again and wiped it clean with paper towel, and most of the black residue was gone, and making sure it was dry, I warmed it on the stove, for few minutes, and I felt satisfied it was ready for next time. This is what I do with cast iron frying pans also.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.816207 | 2013-08-18T17:13:10 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36097",
"authors": [
"Abena Kwabena",
"Andre",
"Dorothy",
"Escoce",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kenia Quintinita",
"M Bass",
"MandoMando",
"Millie Krause",
"Neuron",
"PEP",
"RicardoAudino980 spam",
"event_jr",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159956",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159957",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67113",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84676",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84677",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84806",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96529",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96531",
"johnny",
"levitopher",
"maireww",
"margaret Henderson",
"pojo-guy",
"smcg",
"user84675"
],
"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
} |
24629 | Does using a sponge in a brioche make a difference?
I want to make brioche and have seen several recipes. Some use a sponge and some don't. Is there a difference in the end product (flavour, texture, look...)?
In general, preferments of any kind are used for several reasons:
They activate questionable yeast to make later rises more effective
This is less of a concern these days with freeze-dried yeast and freezers that keep them viable forever.
They promote a more open texture
With the extra time to rise and distribute themselves, the yeast blow the dough up into large pockets instead of a bunch of small pockets. This will happen less with a very wet preferment like a sponge but it will still make a noticeable difference in the texture.
They enhance the flavor
The longer the yeast are able to work the better the bread will taste. If you put your sponge in the fridge overnight the yeast will slow down but keep working and in the morning you will have maximized your flavor.
With all of these reasons the choice is totally yours. You will see a definite improvement using a preferment, especially with something like brioche that should be rich and flavorful. If you are in a hurry though- a fast brioche would be better than none at all.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.817023 | 2012-06-22T11:09:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24629",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
61749 | Do cooled-down/chilled toasted black sesame seeds taste nearly raw again?
The consensus seems to be that toasted (black) sesame seeds taste better than their raw counterpart.
But what happens to the improved flavour when those toasted sesame seeds cool down or get refrigerated and consumed without being reheated/re-toasted? Is that improved flavour retained? And would microwaving cooled-down toasted sesame seeds make any improvements to flavour?
Toasting a grain causes the color to change due to Maillard reactions. These are chemical reactions between sugars and amino acids that occur in high heat. When the grain cools down, those newly formed chemicals are still present so the flavor will still be different. However, when something is warm, aroma molecules are more volatile, and it is easier to smell them. This is why cold toast still tastes "toasty" but not as good as warm toast.
Thank you for the clarification, and for the toast analogy!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.817465 | 2015-09-15T10:00:09 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/61749",
"authors": [
"Debbie Cress",
"Jeff Wilson",
"Keren Smith",
"Nixu",
"Ray and Therese Dart",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146578",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146583",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146585",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37340",
"michael sanderson"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
62538 | How do you make sauce for a Thai dish such as Chicken Pad Khing?
I've eaten Chicken Pad Khing (Ginger Chicken Stir Fry) many times in Thai restaurants. Really love the dish. I'm a very amateur cook and recently attempted this at home. It came out ok with the exception that every recipe out there doesn't include much sauce. In the restaurant, there's normally a good amount of sauce with the chicken and vegetables. In the recipes, it advises a couple of table spoons of fish sauce, couple of table spoons of oyster sauce and some sugar. This produces a very small amount of sauce that once cooked, doesn't leave any visible sauce left. I'm sure it's added to the flavour but the dish is still quite dry.
The obvious conclusion could be just to make more of the same sauce. My concern is that that before cooking, this sauce has an overwhelming fishy, and not very nice smell. When you get the sauce in the restaurant, there's certainly no fish taste to it. My feeling is that multiplying the ingredients by 4 or 5 would make a largely fish tasting sauce. I'm therefore wondering if anyone knows what normally goes in to the dark sauce that is served up in a Thai restaurant?
Don't know for sure, so I'll leave answers to people more qualified, but my guess would be the addition of chicken stock (a cup, half a cup, something like that), and thicken until satisfied, using flour if necessary (which is not A Bad Thing(tm) to do, as some people would have you believe).
Like @Willem van Rumpt, I'm not sure of restaurant methods for this. I'd add 1T soy sauce to his suggestion of the broth and thickener to darken it without adding fishiness. Add near the end of the stir frying. You may need to reduce other salt in the dish if the broth is salty and to account for salt in soy sauce.
Do you have any reason to suspect, if the fishy flavor is reduced by cooking the sauce, that increasing the amount of sauce would change that effect? Have you tried simply increasing the volume of sauce ingredients in equal proportion and cooking as before?
I just joined the other day after much lurking. Figured, I could help with this question. When I worked in a Thai restaurant, I had a couple of staple stir-fry sauces on hand. The basic one I had come up with had the folllowing:
1 part thin (white) soy
2 parts dark (black) soy
1 part Golden Mountain brand soy (as this imparts a little bit of a different taste than the other thin soys imo, but really, it's just a thin soy, ultimately)
1 part fish sauce
5 parts oyster sauce
1 part cornstarch
The sauce will last forever, covered in the pantry or fridge. You'd just need to stir it up before using and, aside from being so versatile (with the exception of coconut soups, I may have put some of this in every Thai dish we served), the great thing is your dishes will be consistent. I'd just make it up in 5 gallon buckets and fill my little jug that I kept wok-side from the walk-in bucket. From this basic sauce, I would add sugar, vinegar, and hots to it to make a drunken noodle stir-fry sauce, or thickeners to it to make the sauces for other noodle dishes. My aunt likes to add Maggi to her stir fry base, but I don't like the way Maggi sauce smells. One of my employees would throw in a handful of fried garlic and vegetable oil to her sauce, and that was a great addition that saved a couple steps in the cooking process. You can totally make this sauce your own.
The basic stir fry sauce (a few tablespoons) is added to vegetable stock (a good bit, at least 1/2 cup) in stir fry recipes and if I wanted a dish to have more sauce, like I always do in Gai Pad Khing, I'd add more stock and more stir fry base, tasting as I go along and usually having to add a few more teaspoons of sugar for my tastes, letting it reduce a little bit in the pan, then finishing it off with a ton of white pepper, again, my tastes. And I'd usually not use a thickener in this dish, because my dad didn't use thickener when he made it for me growing up.
And, the fish sauce smell doesn't really go away when it's cooked. I'd avoid adding more than a single tablespoon to any one dish.
Hope that helps!
Source: I'm Thai, have been cooking Thai food for 20plus years.
Doesn't oyster sauce require refrigeration?
Huh, I guess that best practice would indicate that oyster sauce should be kept in the refrigerator, but my family never did. Perhaps it's because we went through it so quickly. I'd definitely say that oyster sauce by itself should be refrigerated, but when it's mixed up in the stir fry base, do you think that the salt in the soy sauces and the fish sauce would keep it from going bad? It's probably best @Jefromi, to refrigerate the stir fry sauce, especially if it's not something you're planning on using up quickly.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.817597 | 2015-10-15T10:16:37 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62538",
"authors": [
"Ben n Michelle Sandoval",
"Cascabel",
"George Cornejo",
"Laura Schubert",
"Lyn Burnett",
"NadjaCS",
"Siah Wilson",
"Tammie Goodner the way home",
"Toss Newsense",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148676",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148677",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148678",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40005",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
42633 | Will lowfat cream cheese keep filling from setting?
I made a cream pie filling out of 1 can sweetened condensed milk, 1 block cream cheese and 1 large cool whip. While it tasted fantastic, it did not set. I did use lowfat cream cheese and wonder if that is the culprit?
Yes, using lowfat cream cheese could be the reason.
Most of the fat content in cream cheese is saturated. Using the right amount of saturated fat in fillings or baking helps them to set or solidify better. If you use Lowfat cream cheese which has about half the fat of regular cream cheese, you are lessening from the solidifying agent of the formula.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.817995 | 2014-03-10T13:01:58 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42633",
"authors": [
"Betty McDonald-Brown",
"David Michael",
"Spammer",
"Vijay Iyer",
"guru_meditator",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99628",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99685"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
41335 | How can I add a savory note to (or otherwise improve) a sweet, cream based salad dressing?
I recently purchased a cream based salad dressing and it is VERY sweet with an aftertaste, what can I add to make make it more savory and just make it taste better?
I love salad and my veggies are so sad with this dressing...
Cream based? As in dairy cream? How about a list of ingredients. Vinegar or lemon juice could usually help a too sweet dressing, but if it's really cream, it could cause it to curdle. Worcestershire sauce or anchovies would add savoriness.
If the dressing contains emulsifiers (as is frequently the case with mass produced dressings), then adding acid shouldn't curdle it. Look at the ingredients list for xanthan, lecithine or anything ending in "gum" and if it has it, try mixing a small portion with acid or lemon juice.
Frequently the savory notes in a cream based salad dressing would be from a pungent cheese of some sort, like bleu or Parmesan. You could also try cutting some of the cream with buttermilk to reduce sweetness. Beyond that, it will really depend on what the rest of your ingredients are. Adding garlic powder or onion powder could also help depending on what flavor you're going for.
A mild vinegar such as white wine or cider vinegar will reduce the sweetness. To increase the savoury element you'll need to add something rich in umami - I suggest parmesan or a similar hard cheese. As Jolenealaska mentioned, you could also add anchovies - do both and you're on your way to a Caesar dressing.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.818088 | 2014-01-21T22:16:38 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41335",
"authors": [
"Hawkings",
"Jolenealaska",
"Randy Cragun",
"Spammer",
"emteka",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96331",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96333",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96395",
"rumtscho",
"u6387892",
"user18263"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
20882 | Eggs Benedict using Goats milk butter
Hi I'm a new user to the group, having just used the Hairy biker recipe for hollandaise sauce as a treat for Sunday brunch eggs Benedict.
This are the ingredients:
225g/8oz butter, cut into pieces
4 tbsp white wine vinegar
1 small shallot or ½ banana shallot, peeled and very finely chopped
10 black peppercorns
1 bay leaf
3 free-range egg yolks
a pinch of sea salt flakes
a pinch of caster sugar
And this is the preparation method:
For the hollandaise sauce, melt the butter slowly in a medium pan over
a low heat, stirring occasionally. Remove from the heat and pour the
butter into a jug. Add enough water into a medium saucepan to come a
third of the way up the sides. Bring to the boil, then reduce the heat
to a simmer. Put the vinegar, shallot, peppercorns and bay leaf in a
small saucepan over a high heat and bring to the boil. Cook for 1-2
minutes, or until reduced to two tablespoons of liquid. Remove from
the heat. Put the egg yolks in a heatproof bowl and place over the pan
of simmering water. Whisk the egg yolks with the salt and sugar until
pale. Pour the vinegar mixture through a fine sieve onto the yolks and
continue whisking until well combined. Slowly add the butter in a
steady stream whisking constantly until the sauce is smooth, thick and
shiny.
It split terribly and would not be rescued by adding it to a new egg yolk whisked in a clean bowl over a pan of simmering water.
I had to use goats milk butter as I have a cows milk allergy. Would this make a difference? 225g of butter seems an awful lot? The taste was fine.
Did you follow the preparation method or did you pour in the butter all at once? If following the method, did you whisk until a bit of the butter was fully incorporated or just kept pouring?
It's hard to know exactly why your sauce failed, but I can think of two main reasons-- first, your heat was too high; and second, you added the butter too fast. The use of goat's milk butter should not be a problem, and the amount was fine. Next time, here are a few things to try, if you haven't already:
When adding the butter, drizzle it in with the smallest stream you can, while whisking as vigorously as you can. The rate of addition is critical; going too fast will overwhelm the process of creating an emulsion. It is easier to do with two people, until you are comfortable with the technique.
Keep the heat down. You need the water to give off enough heat so that the butter stays melted, but not much more. For that, the water can be just short of a simmer (60-80C/140-176F). If your water is boiling, you may never be able to keep an emulsion.
In fixing a broken sauce, technique matters. Be sure the extra yolk is well beaten before adding the broken sauce. Next, drizzle in a little buttter to start the emulsion. Then, as before, drizzle the broken sauce into the yolk very slowly.
Try adding a little water, say, 1-2 tbsp. Too high a proportion of fat to water will overwhelm the emulsion. I don't think your recipe is clearly out of proportion, but the amount of water is low enough to suggest it might be tricky to keep the emulsion stable.
Note that a yolk doesn't have enough liquid to start a good emulsion on its own. So, for point 3, try adding a teaspoon of liquid (stock, white wine, whatever) before you drizzle the first butter in, then proceed as Bruce suggests with slowly adding split sauce to the started emulsion.
Right, this post is old now. But for anyone that might come here looking for answers, here are a few tips.
First of all, I should say I have made Hollandaise many many times as a chef, and sometimes it just doesn't want to come together no matter how precisely you follow the steps and use the right amounts. And there is nothing to do but start over. Now to the question asked.
Yes you can use goat's milk butter, absolutely nothing wrong with that. But as with cow's milk, a Hollandaise is always easier to make if you clarify your butter first.
In terms of why it split, there could be a number of reasons. The most common ones have been mentioned here already. The heat might have been too high or the butter was poured in too fast. Or it simply didn't want to come together. A tip here: use a food processor, if you have one, to make your sauce; it's much easier. Add egg yolk, vinegar, and salt to it and blend, once blended slowly stream in your butter. The food processor can "whisk" much faster than you, and you don't have to do two things at once. Just be careful with overheating if using the food processor; don't let it run with the ingredients in while doing something else. Pour the butter and get it done and then turn it off. Also, all emulsion sauces can be made this way: mayonnaise, aioli, bearnaise, etc.
In saving a split sauce, there is only one thing to do: whisk one egg yolk with a tbs of water in a clean bowl and then slowly add in the split sauce. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. If it didn't work start over, that's really the only thing to do.
And last but not least, I haven't tried this recipe, but it does seem like an awful lot of butter. I always go with 165-175gr of butter for 3 egg yolks. It depends on the eggs. Large eggs = 175gr, medium eggs = 165gr.
Hope this helps anyone that comes here to find answers.
First of all, I don't think that it split because of the goat's milk butter as for the purposes of a hollondaise (an oil emulsion) it is the same as cows butter.
There are 2 reasons I think why it could go wrong then:
1. Your heat may be too high as otherwise adding an egg yolk would have sorted it out but if the heat was too high then it will have just split again. Next time if you think it's getting too hot add an icecube.
2.The proportion of butter is too high, I always use the proportion of 120g of butter (1 stick) to 3 egg yolks.
I once heard that you could save a split hollondaise if all else fails by putting it in a food processor and blending it with a few tbs's of hot water but I don't actually know if that will help.
Anyway, I hope this info helps for next time.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.818348 | 2012-01-29T13:24:09 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20882",
"authors": [
"Michał Perłakowski",
"Mien",
"Whoever",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45961",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46015",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho",
"troy",
"user45961",
"vojta"
],
"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
} |
41895 | How to prevent fish disintegrating in frying pan
Twice now I've tried pan frying fillets of white fish (Swai and Flouder) in olive oil and butter. Both times the fish has disintegrated into unsightly mush. Is there some technique I'm missing? How can I pan fry without the fish falling apart?
There could be lots of reasons - oil not hot enough, oil too hot, wrong pan, too much handling... You may need to tell us how you are doing it. And naked white fish is generally quite hard to get right, if you are not experienced with frying, you may want to start learning with breaded fish first and only continue with naked when you are better at frying.
When we pan fry white fish, we use a non-stick but do not marinade nor bread it.
We stick a little bit of oil in the non-stick; just enough to cover
the bottom.
Heat the pan up until the oil is shimmering and you can smell the oil (for example you will smell corn for vegetable oil). How high of heat really
depends on your burner. We have a gas stove top and use the large
burner at 5 1/2 and our non stick is an all-clad stainless steel (no copper).
Put your fish in the pan and do not move it for a few minutes. You
should hear sizzling but not crackling. If the fish in the oil is
crackling, turn the heat down a little.
At the end of a few minutes, shake the pan and see if the fish slides
around. If it does not, the fish may need a little more time on that
side. To help it along my husband likes to shake the pan every 10-20
seconds to get air pockets under the fish and allow the oil to coat
the bottom of the fish some more.
Once the fish slides, flip it and remember how long you cooked the
first side for just to have an idea. You will cook the other side for less time.
Watch the sides of the fish to see how the cooking progression is
going.
If you want fully cooked fish wait for the sides of the fish to
almost become fully opaque. Think of when you are watching even
thickness chicken cooking from pink to white. Resting time under foil
will cook the fish the rest of the way.
Tips
If the filets are not even thickness, move the thinner ends to the
cooler sides of the pan. You can also fold over the thinner side (more common with salmon filets) to match the thicker part and stick a tooth pick in it, that way the filet is the same thickness all the way around.
If you have a sauce to pour over the fish, make the sauce while the
fish is resting. This way you are able to cook the fish on both sides
to get a nice crust without worrying about the sauce steaming the
fish.
If marinading the fish, take the fish out of the marinade and let
drip for a few seconds to get enough of the liquid off then follow
the above tip to make a pouring sauce.
For skin on fish, we usually put the fish in skin side up first then flip it
I definitely like what @moscafj said "flip once".
I am going to stick to your statement of "pan frying". - which is indeed different from deep frying, shallow frying, sauteing, stir frying. Looking at your description you seem to be mixing pan frying and stir frying...
So let's stick to pan frying which uses minimum quantity of oil.
Get the cleaned fish fillet and marinate it with any herbs you want, adding a bit of oil and lemon juice.
Get a shallow pan that is not as deep as deep frying pan. Heat it up with a good fire. When it's heated only pour the oil (if you require)
Lay the fillet on the pan while it gives you that sizzling sound of meat touching the hot pan - what a delight
Don't poke your fish now - let it be for few minutes
Now flip it - just once. And leave it for another few minutes
As the oil comes out of the fish and pan is drying out, fish changes the colour...
Tip 1: Try not to get a fillet as thick as 1 feet (I am exaggerating). But really a standard 1cm-2cm kind of a fillet would be easier to handle & cook if you are novice.. (salmon can be particularly thicker)
Tip 2: When fish is marinated with a base of oil and lemon - it helps a lot by making the outer layer rougher, tastier since herbs are absorbed into fish and you may not even need extra oil to fry the fish.
Tip 3: Don't over-crowd your pan by adding a population of fillets into the pan at once. Add two fillets with a relatively good space between them - based on the pan size and fillet size you use. So the heat distributes evenly among them.
Tip 4: This is probably the cheapest non-stick pan I have ever used - lighter and durable even I want to throw it away. And it's like one of those old Beetle cars - no matter what you do - it just lasts... You can start with a pan like this and go up as you mature with the frying experience.
Tip 5: The most important out of all, get your fish-monger to give you fresh fish. If you are not aware how to choose a fresh fish, then you gotta do some research and get familiar with that. Personally I never ever use or recommend those frozen fillets (like "forgotten" dory fish) in hypermarket freezers. You get a good fish, you will enjoy a good meal.
Tip 6: Don't forget to use a Fish Slice kitchen tool that's made for pan frying - if you aren't using one yet.
Reference link for you to get an understanding of frying techniques:
Frying techniques vary in the amount of fat required, the cooking time, the type of cooking vessel required, and the manipulation of the food. Sautéing, stir frying, pan frying, shallow frying, and deep frying are all standard frying techniques.
Sautéing and stir-frying involve cooking foods in a thin layer of fat on a hot surface, such as a frying pan, griddle, wok, or sauteuse. Stir frying involves frying quickly at very high temperatures, requiring that the food be stirred continuously to prevent it from adhering to the cooking surface and burning.
Shallow frying is a type of pan frying using only enough fat to immerse approximately one-third to one-half of each piece of food; fat used in this technique is typically only used once. Deep-frying, on the other hand, involves totally immersing the food in hot oil, which is normally topped up and used several times before being disposed. Deep-frying is typically a much more involved process, and may require specialized oils for optimal results. Wikipedia
When working with flounder or sole fish, they are so delicate that are almost guaranteed to break on you. However, if you do this simple steps, your chances of mushing or breaking comes down.
1) Do not bring the fish to room temperature and keep it cold until ready for sautéing.
2) Do not marinate or bread them, however dip them in white flour to coat and shake the excess. Make sure the oil in the pan is hot, then place the fish. This provides a little protection.
3) These fishes really need 2 minutes per side when sautéed. Leaving them any longer to get a darker color is not worth it and will break or mush the fish. However if you use butter as your oil option, the fish will have a better fried color even in that short cooking time.
4) Use a metal fish turner utensil to help you flip them as neatly as possible.
Good luck
non stick pan...be gentle...only flip once?
These are good points, but the answer would be better if you fleshed it out some more.
I have experienced this with so called sole from the Pacific. It seems there is a virus that affects the fish meat and doesn't harm humans! When you cook it, however, it is gelatinous slop. Has happened several times with fish purchased from Whole Foods. Flounder or Sole should remain firm when you cook it I don't think overcooking is a problem unless you want tough but not sloppy fish. It is something else. There is also this
"Slime Sole, Slippery Sole; Microstomus pacificus".
The best remedy that worked out in my case for not sticking fish on the frying pan while frying is....just put curry leaves stem by stem in the oil when the oil is hot enough.don't remove leaves from stem so that it acts as a comfortable bed for the fish.put fish on this leaf bed and gently turn both sides...make sure when turning, the leaves get stuck on body of the fish so put some new leaves for the other side to fry well without sticking...
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.818834 | 2014-02-09T22:34:53 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41895",
"authors": [
"Aaron Longdon",
"Adam Carlson",
"Antonio Leyba",
"Arohi Gupta spam",
"Corben Rice",
"Ian Dalton",
"SourDoh",
"Spam Kabob",
"Spammer",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"datahk toto spam",
"domenukk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100732",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97758",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97760",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97762",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97833",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97878",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97981",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97982",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98156",
"infor7",
"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
} |
23826 | Is there a preferred tequila age for Strawberries Por Mi Amante?
I'd like to soak strawberries in tequila for a Por Mi Amante. I'm not concerned about the brand, but I'm curious if there is a flavor difference as a result of soaking in blanco vs reposado vs añejo.
The Cocktailians recommend Reposado: "use the 100% agave stuff, and definitely go for the reposado -- you want something with a little age and character". Paul Clarke quotes cocktail luminary Charles H Baker's recipe from 1939, which is non-specific, but Paul also uses Reposado.
Blanco is likely to be a little too light and easily dominated by the strawberries, a good Añejo is probably overkill, so a decent Reposado fits the bill.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.819498 | 2012-05-18T07:43:33 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23826",
"authors": [
"Aleksandar Solunov",
"Colinm39",
"GardenerJ",
"JBC",
"Nancy B",
"SolarJimmy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54254",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54255"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
24417 | Does liquid glucose contain as much fructose as high fructose corn syrup?
Does liquid glucose contain fructose in the same ratio as high fructose corn syrup?
I removed the health aspect of your question, since that's off-topic here (see the [faq]). And.. am I missing something? Isn't liquid glucose just glucose?
Glucose and fructose are different substances. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glucose http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose
All right, I'll say it as an answer: fructose is one sugar, glucose is another. High fructose corn syrup contains plenty of fructose (but not just that) - it's made by taking corn syrup and converting some glucose to fructose to make it taste sweeter.
The exact sugar makeup of glucose syrup varies (see also this previous question), but it certainly hasn't had glucose deliberately converted to fructose, and the primary sugar should be glucose. If the difference between fructose and glucose is a concern for you, hopefully you're buying a type of glucose syrup with known glucose content. (If you're talking about pure liquid glucose, then it's all glucose - which means no fructose.)
Finally, this is most definitely not a medical advice site, so if this is related to diabetic concerns, please talk to professionals who can help you with your diet.
As mentioned above, glucose and fructose are very different kinds of sugar. Glucose is the six-carbon simple sugar molecule that is the most basic form of energy our bodies use for aerobic metabolism (glucose + oxygen --> CO + H2O +energy). Fructose is a different sugar, that has to be metabolized mostly in the liver, and is not the "clean" burning fuel for our bodies that glucose is.
Fructose, however, is what gives table sugar (sucrose molecule = 1 glucose + 1 fructose, chemically joined) more of the "sweet" flavor. Unless the glucose syrup has a little bit of fructose added for flavor, it would have almost no fructose in it.
Industrial glucose syrups (used for fermentation) are about 90% glucose. Commercial glucose syrups for cooking have anywhere from 10% to just under half glucose, the rest of the sugars being maltose and polysaccharides.
So, definitely, nowhere near the fructose content of high-fructose corn syrup.
Glucose is a simple basic sugar, the one your body uses for fuel. Fructose is a complex sugar that will break down into simpler components, including glucose. Therefore, glucose has no fructose in it, but fructose has glucose in it.
Not correct. Fructose is also a simple sugar (aka monosaccharide). Glucose is a six-carbon sugar, fructose is the five-carbon simple sugar. I think you are thinking of table sugar, sucrose (a disaccharide), which is a glucose and a fructose, combined.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.819601 | 2012-06-13T14:50:47 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24417",
"authors": [
"Ananya Paul",
"Anthony",
"Cascabel",
"Mischa Arefiev",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Tammy",
"Tara",
"ctbaker",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55586",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55587",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55588",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55589",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55606",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8486",
"roel",
"tlunter",
"user55586"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
21848 | What rice should I use when a recipe asks for "short grain rice"?
If a recipe says "short grain rice", which would be the correct rice to use?
Basically:
"Long grain" is just a generic classification for rice whose milled grains are at least three times as long as they are wide. (Don't worry; you don't have to be good at math to love rice.) Common varieties are usually simply labeled "long grain," but you might know them as basmati, Carolina, jasmine or Texmati.
With "medium grain" rice, the grains are less than three times as long as they are wide. Look for bomba, carnaroli, arborio, vialone, Valencia or Thai sticky rice, to name a few.
This is the last one that involves math, we promise. "Short grain" rice indicates grains that are less than twice as long as they are wide. To confuse things a bit, though, medium grain and short grain rice are often combined into this one category, which includes sushi and CalRose rice.
Source: http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/recipes/guides/rice.php
Short grain rice isn't a specific rice. It is a group of rice that shared similar short grained characteristics. Generally speaking, short grain rice is short and stubby. When cooked, it will be chewier and stickier than its longer grained counterparts. You can tell they are short grain by what they look like.
Use this picture as a reference for what they should look like. And many rice packages even write the words "long grain" and "short grain" on the front.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.819816 | 2012-02-29T15:30:00 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21848",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
66783 | Why is the butter gradually melting and only the top of my butter cake done?
I didn't use melted butter like liquid. I only used softened butter and mixed it with sugar in my blender. It became like cream. I also used 1 cup and a quarter of flour and other ingredients.
I baked the cake with grill mode in my convention oven, but the cake wasn't baking. Only the butter was melting and melting. When I switched to combination mode because grill mode is too long, only the top is finished and the other part is unfinished. What should I do?
Please give me suggestions.
Your problem is baking on grill mode. Or at least one of your problems. Grill mode is designed to brown the top while not cooking the rest too much. As well as burning the top this may have the side effect of spoiling the rise of the rest of the cake, but still getting it hot enough to melt the butter.
In general for baking it's important to use a mode that delivers even heat. This is typically described as "convection"/"fan-forced convection", simply "oven" or some similar term. Modes like "grill" or "top heat" cook some things acceptably, and are often used for finishing foods that are cooked through but need a little browning on top. Baking is one time when preheating the oven is particularly important even on modern ovens -- set the desired temperature and a light will come on. It will go off when the oven is up to temperature. You may wish to wait a little longer at this point.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.819942 | 2016-02-24T04:33:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66783",
"authors": [
"Claressa Jones",
"Corinne Jefferies",
"Laurie Portillo",
"Linda sh",
"Linette Dreyer",
"Nicola Every",
"Ramona Carr",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160075",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160079",
"sherry councell"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
67130 | Is there any harm to eat cooked renal pelvis in lamb kidney?
I googled many forums listed in google and found people just say that cooked renal pelvis in lamb kidneys are stringy and chewy. That sounds to me like people already consider its edible, but it's somewhere where urine goes through, at least before it's getting into the urinal for the lamb. I am a bit concerned if this is cook-able and edible directly without any cleaning procedure.
I wonder if eating renal pelvis has any harm at all? If it's edible, is there any cleaning we should always do before cook it?
People eat intestines, and that has much more objectionable stuff going through it. (and more difficult to clean it out)
For anyone else wondering what on earth a "renal pelvis" is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renal_pelvis
Do you know where sausage casing often come from?
I suppose you could, but is there a reason why you would want to?
@AndrewMattson just maybe.... that it ... (maybe) taste good? lol
@Ezeewei - I find that using a lot of the organs and digestive parts came more from a tradition of not wasting anything, in societies or families where there was not an abundance, as opposed to deliciousness. Then, when kids say "Yuck!" it's a required parental reaction to tell them "that's actually the best part," so the kids will eat it and the parents won't have to. :D
Nothing unhealthy if you eat it. Just a aesthetic preference since it is a different texture than the body of the kidney. If you don't get it all cut out when dressing the kidneys, it's kind of like eating rubber bands. I prefer to cut it out with all of the bits of kidney fat.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.820109 | 2016-03-06T01:46:44 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67130",
"authors": [
"Dimitri Yioulos",
"Ezeewei",
"FightKnight",
"J P",
"Joe",
"Larry",
"Matt McNeilly",
"Pauline Taylor",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Robert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161054",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161055",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161057",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43989",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"lambshaanxy",
"miriam pereyra"
],
"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.