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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
67475 | Giant parsnip from Korean shop
I bought a vegetable from a Korean food store which all I can describe as is a parsnip with the same dimensions but about two feet long.
Is there a name for this?
Do you have it still? Can you include an image?
@Catija not with me, but I will tomorrow.
Sounds like Daikon Radish to me. It is commonly found in Korean supermarkets and looks slightly like parsnip. Some can grow longer than 2 feet.
Another possibility is Parsley Root. These look very similar to Parsnips but are generally not as bulbous near the top, longer and more slender.
That's my guess, too...
I was thinking immediately of daikon as well :) The parsley roots I've seen are smaller than parsnips.
What is the flavor of parsley root like? It certainly LOOKS like a parsnip!
@Erica, unsurprisingly parsley root taste a lot like parsley leaves. It is a clean, "fresh" flavor very unlike parsnips which has a slightly pungent but nutty sweet flavor.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.820298 | 2016-03-16T19:11:25 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67475",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Cheryl Brady",
"Erica",
"Glenn Gillard",
"Hayward Gapare",
"Jay",
"Jessica Makris",
"Mariah Stamm",
"Mien",
"PStag",
"STUART GUNN",
"andrew kinsey",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161957",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161958",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161961",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161964",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162008",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43795",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"lyn bailey"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
35929 | Why do I need to put sablé dough in the fridge?
I made a sablé base for a cake last night. It was the first time I made this, so I used a basic recipe containing butter, flour, sugar, salt, baking powder and egg yolks. After everything is mixed the recipe says to put the dough in the fridge for two hours so it can rest.
I wondered why this is necessary? There is no yeast in the dough that would let it rise.
My only idea would be too cool down the butter so it can be rolled out more easily, but then I think two hours would be pretty long for the amount of dough I got out of the recipe.
Therre are actually two things that happen during the refrigerated rest period:
Obviously, the dough is cooled, which firms up the butter, making it easier to roll out without having it fall apart.
The starch granules absorb water, making the dough more cohesive, improving its texture, and making it easier to work
See: What does an overnight chill do to cookie dough, that a 4 hour chill doesn't?
Refrigerating will reduce the temperature of the butter in the dough, making it less likely to melt when it's being worked into shape. There are other tricks: marble worktops; my grandmother had a hollow glass rolling-pin, which you could fill with ice-cubes and water.
If I'm making a wet bread dough I'll put it into the fridge after combining, before serious kneading. This seems to make it less sticky, but I'm not sure why.
Refrigeration makes it less sticky because the butter is cold (think of hard refrigerated butter versus a stick that's been out all day) and because it's resting, so the flour gets to absorb moisture.
Autolysis, apparently. Must be that, because many bread doughs don't call for butter.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.820533 | 2013-08-11T10:33:06 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35929",
"authors": [
"Barry McNamara",
"Cascabel",
"Hana",
"Miranda",
"Sedumjoy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84253",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84277",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9109",
"lillie",
"mdaniel",
"silves89",
"ved"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
32487 | Is there a different fruit very similar to oranges?
I recently purchased a fruit, which is very similar to an orange but slightly different in taste, size and color. The fruit I purchased is about 3 inches in diameter, and has a reddish orange peel and a rich sweet citrus taste. Its internal structure is exactly like that of an orange. Is there is any such variety of oranges? Or it is an entirely different fruit? One of my friend also told me that it wasn't an orange, but wasn't able to recall the fruit's name.
I went to market again but could not find it. I don't know its name. What it is called? I wasn't able to find it on fruits stores on the Internet. If anybody knows what it is then please let me know. Its rich taste is unforgettable. I would love to know what fruit it is. It's neither grapefruit nor blood oranges.
If my question is not according to the FAQ of seasoned advice then let me know where I can ask about it.
Grapefruit? Blood orange?
If possible, having a picture of the fruit (possibly with the inside showing) would probably help a lot.
I don't have image :-(
@PeterTaylor no its not grapefruit.
What about the skin - was it thick and fleshy, or thin? Was it easy or difficult to peel? Was the skin color uniform or patchy? You said the outside was reddish-orange... was the inside reddish at all? It could be a blood orange, and not all blood oranges are dark red inside either.
Sure sounds like a blood orange to me. How exactly is it different from a blood orange?
@matikin9 skin was not thick as blood orange, quite easy to peel. Skin color was uniform but wasn't reddish inside as blood oranges do.
@Aaronut its entirely different from blood orange.
I know which fruit you are talking about, I don't know its name tho, I'll find out. Maybe it is this one : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pomelo
The main small orange hybrids are Satsuma, Mandarin, Tangerine and Clementine. The full list is here, you might have more luck translating if you start with the scientific name: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citrus#Hybrids_and_cultivars
Without seeing a photo, it's hard to know which of several orange-like fruits you could have encountered. But my first thought was a tangelo, which is a fruit that's frequently mistaken for an orange. Although the picture on Wikipedia shows a tangelo with a small nub at one end, many tangelos don't have the nub. They look very much like an orange, but slightly redder in colour. They're also slightly sweeter and juicier than an orange.
Finally I came to know its called "kinu" in India.
Google translate says tangerine is कीनू in Hindi and that this is pronounced kinu.
There are hundreds of varieties of citrus fruits, in a great variety of colors, sizes (and very occasionally, even different shapes). There is really no fundamental difference between the various citrus fruits--they all cross breed and hybridize extremely readily.
It is possible if you post a photo that someone might recognize the cultivar, but other than that all that can really be said is that you have a citrus fruit.
A small, sweet citrus like a Clementine, but with seeds?
Tangerine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tangerine
Of course... as others have said, we could do this all day. We are talking marketing right now rather than botany.
Did it have a bump at the stem end? It could be a tangelo.
Or, if the flesh inside was slightly pink, it could be a Cara Cara orange.
As per my comment under the question, not all tangelos have that nub. Here are some that don't.
Perhaps you're talking about clementines?
the link you provided is having images likewise to the fruit, but couldn't found what it is called in India.
hey the link you have given is a seedless citrus fruit, but what i had was having seeds but lesser and not necessarily in every segments.
While most clementines are seedless, I've had a few that aren't. Like SAJ14SAJ said, all of these citrus fruits can reproduce with each other, so drawing boundaries between them is difficult.
Given the size, there's a fairly good chance it's some variety of mandarin orange. This includes the clementines and tangerines already mentioned, as well as the zillions of kinds of satsumas and many others. It's quite likely that if you can find good, ripe oranges of any of these varieties, you'll like them, even if they're not the exact same cultivar as what you had. Just look around for small oranges, or I suppose see if Google translate gets a Hindi name right.
It's called Malta as far as I can understand from the description you gave.
Don't think so. Malta appears to be a blood orange (the flesh itself is red).
i agree with @Jefromi
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.820725 | 2013-03-07T15:10:49 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32487",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Cascabel",
"Dawood ibn Kareem",
"Kareen",
"Peter Taylor",
"Reno",
"Sunishtha Singh",
"Yolanda Casas",
"chaosentity",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15736",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93142",
"matikin9",
"vwiggins"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
34436 | How to adapt brownie recipe to cook well in a mini-muffin tin?
I've got a great brownie recipe that works awesome in a 9x11 pan. The top comes out crunchy, the bottom cake like and the middle nice and fudgy. I figured I would try to make them in a mini-muffin tin, thinking it would be easier for the kids to eat. Ended up with a mini disaster.
Things I had not counted on: they rose seemingly more than in the 9x11 pan. Too much cake like vs not enough fudge center.
Should there be things I need to be aware of? I cut a good 7 or 8 minutes off my cooking time of 25 minutes int eh 9x11 pan, and even still, they were over cooked. But more importantly, I realized that with all edges being cooked (as opposed to square in the 9x11), there is a lot of "cake surface" vs soft and fudgy centre.
Is there something i should consider doing specifically to the recipe? Is there a way to make good fudgy brownies in a mini-muffin tin, or am I just looking for trouble?
Recipe is butter-free (just uses vegetable oil) and only 1 tsp of baking soda as a leavening agent.
What are you actually trying to do? What is the end result you want?
@GdD Im trying to get an end result of small round brownies. I've seen them sold like that in bags, and figure it would be much easier and more presentable to distribute at parties/etc. I like the form factor and think it would work out well for my needs, if I can get things working right.
Brownies are bar cookies. Note that the brownies are at the edge of the pan are more cooked, and raised higher: they set before they settle back down.
Baking the brownies in a mini-muffin tin will essentially make each mini-brownie all edge. They will rise and set very rapidly, and then easily over bake.
I would suggest that brownies are not ideal in a mini-muffin tin. Instead, cutting them smaller would be a better solution.
If you do want to try it again, I would suggest:
Don't overfill the tins. You don't want the batter more than about 1/2 inch deep; you want about the same depth it would be in the pan for which they are designed.
Let the batter sit for about 5-10 minutes after portioning into the muffin tins. This will give some additional time for the sugars to dissolve, and the flour to hydrate since they won't have as much time in the oven. This should help texture and crust development (the shiny crackly top).
Reduce or eliminate the chemical leavening. I would experiment with cutting the baking powder by 50% to start.
There are ways to incorporate air into brownie batter mechanically, by (for example) beating air into the egg-butter-chocolate mixture, but the exact way to approach it would depend on your particular brownie recipe. If you go that route, you can probably completely eliminate the baking powder.
Reduce the oven temperature by about 25 F (maybe even 50 F in a second trial, if they still over bake and are too crusty too rapidly) or so, to allow the baking process to slow, and give more time for the mini-brownies to rise and settle.
Check them much sooner. Mini-brownies are going to go from not-done to overdone very, very quickly. I would start checking as early as 15 minutes, until you have an expectation. When you can smell the chocolaty aroma is a good time to start checking.
Bake only one mini-muffin tray at a time, so that they are even. You don't want shadow effects and changes in oven convection to throw off the baking by having more than one tray in the oven at the same time, although that is more an issue of consistency than it is of the complete character of the outcome.
Possibly 15 minutes is already too late. If I was the OP, I would not leave them out of sight after 10 minutes.
Yeah, I was thinking about cookie baking times, which are on the order of 12 minutes. But in any case, it will be much less than the full brownie pan time.
In my 9x11 pan, I cook them for about 25mins on 325F convection. I cut that down to 18mins for the mini-muffin tin, but it was already too much. So I know I already need to cut down on cooking time. But was also wondering about the rising agent. I had planned to cut that down as well for my next attempt, but I didn't know if the fact that they were being cooked in a small tin would affect how much it rises.
These suggestions look great. I would add that to keep the centers fudgy you might try chilling the batter before baking it, ie, scoop it into the tins, put it into the fridge for an hour, then bake. This should let the outside bake completely, but keep the center a bit underdone (fudgy).
Yes, me too, I bought mini muffin shaped brownies in a bag and loved the idea so much I wanted to try it myself, so I bought a mini muffin tin especially for that purpose. I read all the answers above to get some guidance. Then I decided to use my favorite brownie recipe from 'Handle the Heat' http://www.handletheheat.com/ultimate-brownies/, with no alterations except for heat: 325 instead of 350 and baking time : 12 minutes only.
I filled the cups 1/2 full but will do 3/4 next time as the batter has no leavening agent. I baked them one batch at a time, and because the batter had no BP or BS, it waited with no problems. Then I dipped the top in chocolate ganache ( Ina Garten's recipe: http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/ina-garten/chocolate-ganache-recipe.html)
The outcome was superior, way better than the ones I bought. Brownie cups had a crusty top and soft chewy inside, shape was very neat and taste was the best.
I'll have to try this. Thanks for the feedback!
I'm in the process of making brownie bites. Using the King Arthur Flour Ultimate Chewy Brownie recipe. (Not a sales pitch; I have several to choose from but like this best.) Using a 2 doz tin and a #40 baking scoop, spritz with a touch of oil then bake for 16 mins in a 350°F oven. They come out just right for me. Not fudgey, mind you, but soft and moist.
I used giradeli double chocolate mix and mixed according to instructions, sprayed mini muffin pans with baking spray, filled each cup about halfway or a little over with the batter and baked for 12 minutes at 325 degrees. I let Cool for 3 min after baking, then removed, loosening edges with a butter knife. Placed on baking rack to fully cool. I'm a picky brownie eater and these were amazing. The perfect texture and not dry at all.
Thanks to all the reviews on here I was able to make an informed guess on trying this out.
Served at a work function next day to rave reviews, everyone thought they were some gourmet brownies I bought, but 36 of them cost me only $3!
I make brownies and muffins in the shaped mini cake pans... you need to have the temp. way down and the time... pretty much put them in, and then turn around and take them out... the secret here is not just the temp and time, but the ingredients
you need to add water, no matter what else it calls for, and the more water, the better it will take the shape, just make sure you spray the pan well, and make sure you don't let let cool too much or you won't be able to pop them out well
In addition to the previous suggestions, you might consider cooling the prepared batter in the refrigerator (similar to cookie dough), and using an ice bath to halt the cooking.
I first saw the ice bath technique in an Alice Medrich cookbook, and she is cited here:
http://www.scharffenberger.com/chocolate/recipes/cookies-brownies/new-classic-brownies/
Great idea. Will keep that in mind as well.
When I make brownies I make the Ghirardelli brand, usually caramel turtle.
Today I baked 1 box Ghirardelli ultimate fudge box that came with a chocolate pouch. I added about 1/2 cup of mini chocolate chips in the mix and baked in the mini cupcake pan. I sprayed across the whole pan then wiped down the top so it wouldn't bake on, and since it can get messy I poured the batter into a gallon ziploc bag that I then tied to close. I piped the brownie mix into each cavity and baked @ 325F for 13 minutes.
I checked at 10 minutes but I put too much batter so they did expand a bit like cupcakes so at 13 minutes they were ready. I let them sit in pan for 3 mins before bumping them out. After cooling them for a few more minutes I tore one open to make sure the inside wasn't undercooked and they came out perfect! I would include a photo if I could.
I made a second batch with caramel turtle. I put less batter in each cavity then a drop of caramel before covering with more chocolate and then drizzling caramel on top. I baked for same amount of time (13 minutes at 325) and they didn't expand over the pan and are still soft. After cooling a few minutes out of the pan I tore one open and there is a gooey caramel center (looks like Reese's peanut butter cup) they are super moist.
These are some great tips! I used a boxed recipe so couldn't make many changes there. But I let batter sit in muffin tins for a while, in the fridge actually,lowered the oven temp. and kept a close eye on them. They didn't all bake evenly. I did take out the done ones on the ends and put the rest back in the oven for a few more minutes. I was very pleased with the result.
I bake with the great value brand brownie mix, it's the cheapest, and has the most amount in the box! And I was also wondering the same question. But I tried my own thing and it worked really good. I put salted butter in all of the non stick muffin cups, than mixed the ingredients how the box says, then I add some other stuff and some white chocolate chips, and baked for 26-28 minutes on 350. They turned out really good! They basically fall out of the cup after you let them cool down :)
I just made a brownie box mix according to directions. I baked them at 325 degrees in a dark non stick mini muffin pan with each section given a spritz of PAM. Baked for 15 minutes, no extra fuss. Upon removal from oven I let them sit about 1-2 minutes, turned the pan upside down and they slipped out easily. Brownies were moist - PERFECT!
I think this is marginally an answer - it suggests that reduced baking time and temperature might work. (If they do on the mix, maybe they will on the homemade version too.)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.821123 | 2013-06-01T01:32:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34436",
"authors": [
"Adrian",
"Cascabel",
"Charles",
"Eric B.",
"Florence Ijeoma",
"Freddy Ellis",
"GdD",
"Jackie",
"Janice Seargent",
"Ketamine Assisted",
"Kristian Bonitz",
"Mien",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"StarCrashr",
"Thomas",
"Vagabond Epicurean",
"Zeick",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104394",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10518",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128052",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128097",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140736",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140749",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140754",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80222",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80223",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80224",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80240",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80722",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87060",
"karan kapoor",
"linda hockley"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
23946 | Can I freeze Parmesan?
I am thinking about buying a larger amount of Parmesan and freeze it for later use. Is this possible? How long can I keep it for? How is the taste/texture affected?
Hi Sven, I edited your question so all the unrelated content is out. I also added some more questions, to have more question. If it's not alright with you, just say so or come to the chat room.
Related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4984/can-you-freeze-cheese-and-still-keep-the-flavor-when-you-defrost-it
Yes, you can freeze parmesan cheese. Even without freezing, Parmesan is very durable since the low water and high salt content prevents mould from growing. The younger varieties may be more prone to mould growth (having a higher water content), but I've kept ripe Parmesan (30-36 months) for at least a year in the fridge without problems (and it would probably have stayed good much longer). Just remember to keep it wrapped in paper, not in a sealed plastic container to prevent a buildup of condensation.
Personally I wrap in a paper towel and then in a plastic bag, occasionally changing out the paper towel to prevent moisture buildup. I do this because when it's sealed in a plastic bag, I can toss it in the fridge wherever I like instead of carefully wrapping in paper and placing it on a nice flat surface.
Tough stuff, Parmesan. You could probably build a n interior room, out of it. As long as it stays dry, and unoxidized, it should be fine. It doesn't oxidize easily.
I'm not going to add much as Tor-Einar Jarnbjo's answer was very thorough but just to note that you can also freeze parmesan rinds to add to soups and stews for an easy umami boost.
There is absolutely no need to freeze it. Keep it dry and cool and everything will be just fine.
I make artisan cheeses...cool and dry is how it is aged and is all it requires.
How cool and how dry? And how to keep it that cool and that dry? Is a regular refrigerator cool and dry enough?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.821917 | 2012-05-23T15:09:39 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23946",
"authors": [
"CAM",
"Henry Swan",
"Jonathan",
"Josh",
"Kenny Evitt",
"Mien",
"Morry",
"Nathan Lynch",
"SQRCAT",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"darren",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54331",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54338",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54344",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8682"
],
"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
} |
42186 | How can I cool chocolate in a couple of minutes?
I wonder how to cool chocolate in a couple of minutes, without losing its quality. I'm looking for a portable chocolate cooling machine. I think of using it in my kiosk. Meanwhile,
it's acceptable to lose some of its quality.
Can you provide more detail on what you are trying to achieve? Are you cooling dipped candies? Bulk tempered chocolate? In what kind of quantities?
Only tempered chocolate that includes some nuts, will be cooled. I will dump my tempered chocolates into the chocolate mould. then in this process I want to cool those mould. This cool machine may have more than 10 moulds.
The short answer is: you can't.
The long answer: chocolate has very complicated thermodynamics. There is an optimal speed of the cooling process, and it is slow. Chocolate should be tempered to 33 Celsius (there is some variance depending on the cocoa content) and cooled in an environment between 27 and 20 Celsius. Then it looks and tastes good.
Chocolate which has been cooled in a cold environment will not have any shine, and the colder you get, the larger your problems will be. You can even get uneven distribution of the cocoa fat, with it pooling along the nuts on the inside and letting the outer layers unpleasantly dry. Besides, you will get condensation, which is ugly and makes the chocolate sticky to handle and watered down in the mouthfeel. In extreme cases, you may even end up with distempered chocolate, especially if you don't have seed crystals.
No matter what you are doing - truffles, chocolate dipped fruit, pure pieces of chocolate in a mould - you can't rush it and get good quality.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.822116 | 2014-02-20T13:12:33 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42186",
"authors": [
"CANADA VISA Online Application",
"Estelle",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23344",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98484",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98491",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98492",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98493",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98509",
"iart",
"sojourner",
"user3332789"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
39617 | What elements in green leafy vegetables provide carbohydrates?
If you boil some greens and drink the liquid only, will that give you a lot of carbohydrate energy or none to little i.e. do you actually need to eat the solid or how much energy can you get from the liquid alone?
If it comes from the solid, is most of the carbohydrate it in the stalk or leaf?
Thanks
According to Nutrition Data, using spinach as a sample green leafy vegetable, a 30 gram serving of spinach contains only about 1 gram of carbohydrates, and that is dietary fiber.
So the simple answer is that there isn't much energy there at all, in the leaf or stem, or to be leached into the cooking liquid.
Most plant carbohydrates come from sugars, which are water soluble. Intuition tells me that if you boil the plant long enough, some of the sugars will leech into the water and you'll be able to drink it. As @SAJ14SAJ mentioned, green leafy things are usually pretty devoid of carbs, so you won't get much.
Also, as always, you'll get much more of the nutrients from a food by eating it, than juicing it or drinking the leftover liquids
The onion is one of the more "carby" vegetables that I know of, and according to this website:
http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/vegetables-and-vegetable-products/2501/2
about half of the carbs are from sugar
All carbohydrates "come from sugars"; they are assembled from chains of sugar molecules. That doesn't mean that plants retain or store them in sugar form in significant quantities. Green leafy vegetables do not contain much free sugar; those carbohydrates they do contain are primarily in the form of dietary fiber.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.822288 | 2013-11-21T16:30:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39617",
"authors": [
"Alex C",
"Ann",
"Aren Cambre",
"Debbie Henz",
"Jeff",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91977",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91998",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/92035",
"nouveaulara",
"slaiyer"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
21792 | When is slow cooking important to salt absorbtion, before or after boil?
Does the speed at which you reach the highest temperature affect salt absorption? Does slow cooking matter before or after reaching the highest temperature or both?
http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/66377/what-is-the-xy-problem - I am still entirely unconvinced that the thing you are actually trying to do is get salt into chicken. I know you believe it, but based on the information you've given in previous questions, I think your actual goal is something else - perhaps chicken that is "tender and juicy" because it hasn't been overcooked, nothing to do with "salt absorption".
Also if you want to do a quick experiment to demonstrate how far dissolved things diffuse into whole pieces of chicken while cooking, just add some food coloring to the pot.
Cooking time is the main thing that affects how anything liquid/dissolved works its way into a food. If you're actually slow cooking, the vast majority of the time is after you've reached a stable temperature, so your question doesn't really matter much. Further, if you slow cook long enough, you can just shred it (tear it apart) and the liquid will quickly have soaked all the way through it.
If you're cooking for a short enough time that the full temperature period is comparable to the heating up period, then yes, things may happen slightly faster at full temperature. When things are still cold, it's like you're trying to marinate the food. But there are no big magical effects; nothing weird will happen if you bring something slowly or quickly up to temperature.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.822455 | 2012-02-27T19:08:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21792",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Irene Hirschman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48448",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48449",
"iamgr007"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
31982 | Substituting vegetable oil for canola oil
Can you use vegetable oil instead of canola in a party mix recipe using saltine crackers?
Canola oil is a kind of vegetable oil.
Short answer is yes, you can almost always substitute vegetable oil and canola oil for each other.
Vegetable oil is made predominantly from soybean oil but it usually is a blend of oils from vegetables such as corn, olive, pumpkin seed, grape seed or even canola oil itself.
Canola oil is made from pressing a plant that is a hybrid of the rapeseed plant. It has the lowest levels of saturated fats out of all the vegetable oils.
Yes you can. You can actually use any oil at all, just be aware that each oil has its own taste and thus the final product will have a slightly different flavor.
"Petrol heads" make their crackers with WD40 ? :-)
But vegetable oil and canola oil are neutral flavored; I doubt anyone is going to notice a difference between the two.
@Jefromi except that veggie oils are much more likely to carry a flavor than canola is. If she was subbing the other way around, I definitely wouldn't worry about it.
@sarge_smith No, not really. Anything sold as "vegetable oil" is going to be neutral (and it'll probably be soybean, or might even be canola anyway). "Vegetable oil" in recipes basically means "neutral oil, we just want the fat".
@Jefromi I don't know what country you live in, so I'm not going to categorically state that you are wrong, but all vegetable oil means is that you are certifying that the oil was obtained from a plant source. All lipids are capable of carrying fat soluble flavors. Soybeans contain more of those compounds than rapeseed does. Therefore, soybean oil has a more pronounced flavor than rapeseed oil does. In an application where you are tasting the oil directly (not indirectly as in a fried food), that taste difference is important.
@sarge_smith Okay, I should say: everything commonly sold in stores in the US as vegetable oil is essentially neutral, because the expectation is that it's going to be used as a general purpose oil, from sauteeing to baked goods. I doubt most people could tell the difference between the flavor of soybean and canola oil (it's really tiny), and vegetable oils are generally used in things where whatever subtle flavor the oil has is undetectable. This is almost certainly the case in the OP's party mix.
Vegetable oil is a category of oils, not a specific type. It could be palm, avocado, or many others. What is typically sold as vegetable oil in stores is soybean oil.
My guess is that soybean oil will work as a substitute for what you're doing, but that canola oil may be somewhat healthier.
any reason why your saying canola is healthier than soy?
I'm not really a fan of either in terms of health, but canola has a touch more omega-3. The argument that canola comes from a genetic cross is moot unless you can find soy oil that came from non GMO soybeans.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.822607 | 2013-02-16T19:44:20 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/31982",
"authors": [
"Brendan",
"Cascabel",
"Dylan",
"Glenda K Graham",
"Honebami",
"Joshua Kast",
"Lori",
"Mien",
"Scraun",
"TFD",
"Timmmm",
"assyncronimous",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73523",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73529",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73530",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73719",
"sarge_smith",
"user3015072"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
34162 | How can I make a chocolate syrup that can be frozen?
I am looking to make a chocolate syrup without eggs, that freezes well.
Hi Dhara and welcome to the site! As far as I know, there are no eggs in most regular chocolate syrups. Have you already tried freezing one? If so, what went wrong or what didn't you like about it?
A bit more detail about what you are trying to do would be useful. Why do you want to freeze chocolate syrup?
Take any recipe for chocolate sorbet and freeze it without churning.
I have not tried anything but i am searching on google but dint find any thing
Why is freezing an issue? Chocolate syrup has a fairly long shelf life in the refrigerator to start with, due to the osmotic pressure the high levels of sugar create, and due to some of the natural components of the cocoa such as theobromine which are anti-bacterial in nature. If you are looking to make a a confection or dessert, as others have said, please describe your goals. See also this thread (mostly the comments) about freezing a syrup ripple in ice cream: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32016/how-do-i-make-a-turkish-delight-syrup
@SAJ14SAJ I want to create a solid layer like on the chocobar icecreams
Do you mean a chocolate coating, like on, for example, Dove bars? These are generally not syrup based. See, for example, http://www.chow.com/recipes/29580-chocolate-shell-ice-cream-topping
@SAJ14SAJ no something like this http://www.google.co.in/imgres?imgurl=http://toi.amul.com/icecream/is-chocobar.jpg&imgrefurl=http://toi.amul.com/icecream/atreats.html&h=339&w=438&sz=43&tbnid=6jUZVX5SCnWGRM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=116&zoom=1&usg=__116xO98JKu4ELm7Hi4aoK9sjbCM=&docid=nL0kTwJc4gVZqM&sa=X&ei=ZqGUUaX1J8n3rQfAl4CYAQ&ved=0CDUQ9QEwAQ&dur=296
Dove bars are basically the same thing :-)
@Dhara this is not chocolate syrup, this is chocolate glaze. They are very different from a cooking point of view.
related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16282/no-melt-chocolate-coating-on-ice-cream-bars/16283#16283
The most common methods to create chocolate coated ice cream bars, with or without a stick are to:
Use truly tempered chocolate, which may be more trouble than it is worth
Use a mixture of chocolate thinned with vegetable oil.
See for example, this recipe from Serious Eats.
But i want a homemade recipie to made the outer cover only
So just use that part of the recipe.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.822964 | 2013-05-16T05:46:30 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34162",
"authors": [
"Antya",
"Carol Hill",
"Dhara",
"GdD",
"Mien",
"Paul-Jan",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Serg",
"ggb667",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79484",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80012",
"rumtscho",
"spassvogel"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
28623 | How can two pies made and baked identically have differing flavor qualities?
Two pies were baked at the same time, in the same oven, on the same cookie sheet. They seemed to be equally close to the center of the oven. There was a third pie on the rack beneath them. That pie was pretty much in the center of the oven, also on a cookie sheet.
After baking the same amount of time several people who sampled both pies all noted that the tastes were different. How could this be? The filling came from the same mixing bowl. The filling was ladled in, not poured, and when filling the two crusts I ladled in alternately so I do not think there was a difference in the composition of the filling going into the pies before baking.
The filling was a melange and it was meant for the flavors to blend but still be recognizable individually or notable as undertones. Everyone had the same comments; one pie had flavors which seemed "crisper", more "distinct", and more "alive". The flavor combination in the other pie seemed more "muddy" and "muddled".
The only difference I am aware of is the pie crusts. Each crust was a crumb crust made from Sweetzel's Spice Wafers crushed with a rolling pin (If you're not from Philly the closest thing to compare to is a ginger snap) and combined with melted margarine, orange and pineapple juice, and vanilla and baked at 325 for 10 minutes.
For Pie A (the "crisper", more "alive" flavor) the crust slumped on the sides and puffed a bit while baking. So when I made the crust for Pie B I added more crumbs to the mixture and after pressing the mixture into place in the pie tin I placed another pie tin filled with water inside it to try to keep the crust from slumping/puffing while it baked. I left that inner pie tin in place after baking and during cooling while I prepared the filling.
The filling is largely from the pumpkin pie recipe on the canned pumpkin label (Libby's I think). The changes are no sugar is added but rather orange-pineapple juice is substituted at 1/2 the volume. Also added are mashed bananas, mashed canned sweet potatoes, raisins, and minute tapioca.
When it came time to ladle the filling mixture in the baked crusts I observed that crust B was definitely moister than A, I presume because the inner pie tin prevented it from drying as much during baking and cooling. Crust A obviously had a longer cooling time and didn't extend as far up the sides of the pie tin (though I certainly think B's cooling time was adequate).
Other than the above I can think of no differences in the two pies and I am not at all clear how even those differences could account for differences in the quality of the flavor that were consistently noted by multiple tasters. What is the explanation? This is my first post so please tell me if I've presented this case properly or if more or less is needed.
Because I had more filling left over I ladled the remainder into a store-bought shortbread crust and that could be called Pie C and it baked concurrently on the rack below Pies A and B. Being slightly less full it was removed a few minutes earlier than the other two. Pie C has not been sampled yet but I could provide updates when it is if that will help confirm or refute hypothesis testing.
I appreciate the thoughts and help from the community on this.
After reading your full accounting, the pies were after all, not really identical. My best guess is that the moister pie crust leeched softened crumbs into your pie filling, giving the pie an overall muddier quality. I've had similar experiences with apple pies going muddy from either the thickener not gelling or the crust not holding up to the liquid filling. (Your filling sounds very interesting though! Yum!)
Between your reply and LAMoore's I've hybridized an answer and I'll expound below. Thank you for the input and the compliment. Yes, I have always gotten rave reviews with this and I call it Sweetie Pie. I keep the quantity of raisins somewhat scant so when you discover one it is a bit like a found treasure. Similarly you can mash the bananas into a puree to give banana flavor as an undernote or leave it a bit lumpier and your eater will occasionally encounter a chunk and experience it in a burst. The idea is that each bite is a somewhat different experience. You can also vary the juices used.
I think between LAMoore and Kristina we have it. The citric acid and other components of the juices persisted in crust B (or were modified in some manner, note that the filling contained the same juices as used to moisten the crumbs). Crust B clearly did not dry as much when baked. Then when the filling was added and the entire pie baked these components migrated upwards into the filling and altered the flavor interactions. Perhaps some component from the spice wafer crumbs was carried along too. I was struggling with the idea that the crust having already been baked could have in any way affected the flavor of the filling. Doubly so since my idea of gravity is that it works downwards and if anything I'd have guessed the filling could alter the crust, not so much vice versa. However I think LAMoore would tell us that through osmosis, Brownian motion, and/or simple diffusion along a gradient chemical components could migrate upwards.
When Pie C gets sampled I could give an update.
Thanks for this site. While researching I have now learned about egg washes for a crust and pre-baking even the store-bought crusts. It would not have occurred to me to pre-bake those, I thought they would be ready to go.
My first thoughts shot back to my junior high school Home Ec teacher who began her first cooking lesson (Basic Biscuits) with an explanation that "baking is science" and the temperatures, mass and volume, state of matter (solid, liquid, gas) of the ingredients, and how you mix, bake, and cool them, as well as the timing of each step, all impact the chemical reactions that determine quality and composition of the baked goods (experimental results.) It's not like a minestrone soup or a casserole. They are forgiving. Throw the ingredients into a pot and it'll be wonderful.
Similarly, I have noted that flavors often change when foods are cooked, baked, allowed to breathe, aged, etc., so why wouldn't pie crust? Even broccoli and cauliflower taste very different when eaten raw vs. steamed vs. well boiled. Their nutritional components change when cooked. They are both very nutritious, with vital nutrients in both the raw and steamed forms, however all of the nutrients are not available for us to metabolize in both states.
What does this imply re. pie crusts?
I suggest that: (1) the exchange of gases in the oven was hampered by the pie "tin" filled with water in Pie B. Off-gases were trapped in Crust B, but released from Crust A into the oven. (2) The liner pie plate limited the volume of oxygen and other gases available for the flavors to bake in. Therefore, Crust B may may not have had access to enough gases in the oven air for the flavors in pie A from coming "alive." Baking didn't just dry out crust A, it catalyzed the chemical reactions to create the flavors. It is a different crust, recipe, and so of course, has a different flavor.
Secondly, the acids in the orange and pineapple juices have strong chemical indications. Citric acid is a folk / natural cleaning product, as are vinegar, salt, baking soda, orange oil, tooth paste, lemons and more. Some work well on copper, brass, silver, aluminum, stainless and tin. Some don't. Some need each other to clean these metals well. Some work well alone. Who knows how they will react chemically when heated and exposed to the cookie ingredients with varying amounts of air? What are the cookie ingredients? What is the composition of each pie pan (...pans A, B, C and the one inside B that was filled with water)?
Pyrex or tempered glass pie "tins" bake hotter, so they need a cooler oven and won't react chemically with the crust/pie.
Food fried and stewed in "tin," aluminum, Teflon-lining, rusty vs cleanly-scoured wrought-iron frying, saute and baking pans will frequently create nutritional (or poisonous,) flavor and food-quality (taste and texture, etc.) variations. Was one of the pans aluminum? It reacts in baking. Might metal or plastic have had an impact?
Does this help?
Welcome LAMoore! Can you explain "off gases"? Cited sources and links are encouraged too, to help our community members. I've learned A LOT from this site. :-)
Good stuff in this reply and it helped break up my train of thinking a bit thanks. I've combined your thoughts with Kristina's below.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.823179 | 2012-11-24T04:12:02 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28623",
"authors": [
"Bracus M Kanweay Jr",
"Dr George Waxter",
"Fred Horgan",
"John Whiting",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Liran H",
"MinecraftBuilderForce",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66135",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66136",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66137",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66153",
"user66137",
"woss"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
33381 | Is there a tradition where eating something sweet before something savory is the norm?
I have a preference for eating sweets before a main savoury. Are there any cooking traditions where this is the norm? Secondly, why has the tradition of having a main savoury followed by sweets arisen? Why not the other way around?
This is more an anthropology question than a culinary one. I don't know of an SE site for this purpose.
One of the suggested related questions is a more general version of your second question: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6260/from-which-culture-did-our-north-american-meal-progression-soup-salad-appetizer?rq=1
I would tend to say that food history is a reasonable question as much as food science - they're essentially both a type of "why do we do what we do".
In South India, before a traditional full meal(generally only on festivals and the like), people eat a tiny mouthful of some dessert first before the actual savory meal and then end with the same dessert in a larger portion. I think the reasons are twofold. One, to begin with something sweet as an auspicious thing, where life will also have some sweetness yada yada and the other, I think more important reason to follow the savory before the sweet is so that you don't eat too much dessert and make yourself sick :)
Meta on this type of question: http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1701/anthropology-versus-culinary-questions
How do you define a tradition? Is one person who eats this way a "tradition"? If you are talking about a group of people, how many members of the group are supposed to follow it, and how frequently are they supposed to do it this way instead of the other way round, or eating whole meals consisting of only sweet or only savory food? Also, does eating a mixed sweet-and-savory dish count as eating a sweet one or as eating a savory one in your context? Your question looks somewhat ill defined to me, given the definitions needed to answer it.
@rumtscho I think it's safe to assume we're talking about cultural culinary traditions here, something that some reasonable fraction of a culture think is a normal way to do things, something that you'd commonly see in restaurants, and so on. For example, the clear tradition in the US (and I assume most western cuisine) is for dessert last - everyone would be surprised if a host or restaurant served dessert first.
Life's uncertain. Eat dessert first.
Its pretty common in indian culture to eat sweets before eating savory stuff,
Note (jefromi) I've edited this to fix the English as best I can, guessing at the meaning of some parts. A few bits I couldn't really tell what was meant, and just left intact - those are marked with a ⁺.
Sweets were (a long time ago) very expensive, as sugar was. People never finished their meals with sweets, unless they were very rich or it was a an important holiday to celebrate with a special and expensive food.
Normal people ate sweets (if they were lucky) on Sunday. Otherwise, at Christmas, Easter and a few other anniversaries. On other "normal" days "normal people" ate soups seasoned, if it at all, with lard and a few other herbal ingredients. "Normal people" ate meat once a week, mostly chicken, and found the protein, mostly in legumes and cereals.
So I do not think the practice of eating sweets (not even across the entire western world) could have become a tradition. I think if anything, that an average life of a poor person has led to favoring poor food, and other hearty foods rich but unhealthy⁺. As if to say: "First we fill the belly, then later there will be little room for the sweets."
Finally, in India they cannot eat meat (at least the common people). That refer back with sweets is completely understandable.⁺
If we start with poor food, then when time for sweets comes, we are not so hungry, and have little room space for an expensive food.
If they may not, such as in India, eat meat, then maybe they prefer start from any few they have.⁺
I don't know other examples, and don't see any examples besides India, that have historical reasons.⁺
Historical reasons become tradition.
We had honey from before roman times.
"Only after the Crusades did it begin to rival honey as a sweetener in Europe.... The Spanish began cultivating sugarcane in the West Indies in 1506 (and in Cuba in 1523). The Portuguese first cultivated sugarcane in Brazil in 1532. ...Regardless of which century table sugar production was discovered, it was a luxury in much of the world until the 18th century. ... In the 18th century, the demand for table sugar boomed in Europe, and by the 19th century it had become a human necessity... Beginning in the late 18th century, the production of sugar became increasingly mechanized....During the same century, Europeans began experimenting with sugar production from other crops... However, the beet-sugar industry really took off during the Napoleonic Wars".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sucrose
This is quite far from the question. The question was about eating sweet first instead of last, not about whether all people eat sweet food.
Are you trying to say that people ate sweet desserts last because they were special and expensive? We all understand that desserts used to be hard to come by, but I think we're all struggling to see what you're saying that has to do with the question.
I edited this essentially sentence-by-sentence, trying not to change meaning, but I think it could probably be written much more concisely. If I've understood right, you're simply saing "Sugar used to be expensive, so desserts were expensive, and eaten only by the rich or on special occasions, so we eat them at the end of meals so we're already full and won't eat as much." I'm not really sure what you're trying to say about India, though.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.824122 | 2013-04-11T10:35:18 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33381",
"authors": [
"Ash Saf",
"Cascabel",
"Dharini Chandrasekaran",
"Joe ",
"Marti",
"Nik Corthaut",
"Renee Appell-McGowan",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Vinay V Nandurdikar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77402",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77404",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9262",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
33403 | Why won't my boiled egg whites harden?
I'm having problems with boiling eggs. The egg whites are not hardening and stay soft, but the yolks did set. The eggs I'm using are freshly laid.
What can cause this? How can I make sure my egg whites set too?
Please share some more detail about how you are cooking these eggs.
In a stainless steel pot . Bring water to the boil then gently place eggs into the water for 3to4minutes
Could it be the chickens are lacking something
Lacking what? Spirit of cooperation?
@Greenie the egg white proteins set at lower temperatures than yolk proteins. So it's possible the chickens are low in protein in their feed. This time of the year (winter/early spring) is usually harder regarding feed (per Michael Pollan, Omnivore's Dilemma)
Thanks mandomando I will try adjusting their feed and see what happens
@Greenie I think you should make your response an answer. It sounds like the most reasonable explanation offered so far
This is not a real answer, but rather some info to hopefully, help:
Egg whites are 90% water, when they harden, the protein unravels and creates a grid network that does not allow the molecules to slip past each other. If the protein level drops, it might make it harder to set and stay runny.
Egg white proteins go through a phase change (become hard) at a lower temperature than the Yolk by a few degrees, that's how you can have soft-boiled eggs.
If you crack a fresh egg and it sprawls on the dish (as opposed to hold tall), you're looking at an egg from a chicken that didn't eat many insects/larvae. ;) This may be expected as at this time of the year (northern hemisphere) insects aren't very active.
There is a good section in Michael Pollan's Omnivore's Dilemma that gets into more detail. And perhaps better information regarding the off-season feed.
What intrigues me is what happens in the cooking of an egg already open?
Have you tried doing an egg "poached"? You should be able to see directly the cooking, since it lacks the shell. "In fashion", the egg is cooked by pouring it, without shell, in boiling water, with a flick but delicate. The white should be fully cooked, but the yolk remain raw.
Theoretically, you should see the white cooking, while the yolk not.
Please try it and tell us the result.
I wouldn't make that assumption about egg whites and yolks just based on their relative protein content. The biological processes involved in making the egg may not prioritize the yolk and white the same.
I never had a cooked yolk and raw whites. Try what I usually do --> put the eggs in water together and wait for 5-10 mins. below is the guideline for boiling eggs. don't wait till the water boils before you put the eggs.
Egg Size Degree of Doneness Time Required
Medium Soft-cooked yolk 3 minutes
Medium-cooked yolk 5 minutes
Hard-cooked yolk 12 minutes
Large Soft-cooked yolk 4 to 5 minutes
Medium-cooked yolk 6 minutes
Hard-cooked yolk 17 minutes
Extra Large Soft-cooked yolk 5 minutes
Medium-cooked yolk 7 to 8 minutes
Hard-cooked yolk 19 minutes
Given that the yolks are cooking and the whites aren't, the problem is definitely not cooking times. If the cooking time were too short, the yolk wouldn't set either.
http://www.thekitchn.com/5-mistakes-to-avoid-when-making-hard-boiled-eggs-cooking-mistakes-to-avoid-216999
Eggs could be too fresh. I just made this mistake and searched for why my eggs were mushy...
Welcome Johanna - Link only answers are discouraged: Always quote the most relevant part of an important link, in case the target site is unreachable or goes permanently offline. You can edit your post to include this information, by clicking the edit link at the bottom of your post.
i have been boiling and poaching eggs for many years and this is the first time I have not been able to cook the White of an egg, so I don't think it's the cooking process but to do with the chicken's productive system
I just had the same thing happen to me this week with an organic egg from a local farmer. It was strange because the yolk was fully firm, yet the white was not runny but soft in the shell
This got flagged - I think it's marginally an answer (something to do with the chicken, not the cooking) but it's not a really good answer (what's that something?).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.824610 | 2013-04-12T00:47:43 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33403",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Debbie M.",
"Dr. belisarius",
"Eric Hu",
"Errin M",
"GAfromCA",
"Greenie",
"MandoMando",
"Ray Mitchell",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sydney Wynters",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17795",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79480"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
39567 | When carefully separating eggs, what to do with the chalazae?
I separate eggs with my hands, I'm pretty good at whites going one place and yolks going another. What's got me stumped is the chord. It seems to want to stay with the yolk, but it tends to hold on to quite a bit of the white. Should I let it stick to the yolk, pull it away, or what? Does it contain any fat? If I keep it with the whites, will it keep the whites from whipping as fully as possible?
I've always left it with the yolks, and never had a problem. (maybe I'm just too lazy to separate it from the yolk). If it's for a custard or something smooth, you can always strain it out later on.
@JaneyinYorkshire Chalazae is plural. Just FYI. The singular is chalaza. :) Ya learn something new every day! And every chicken egg actually has TWO! But only one is really noticeable in all but the freshest eggs.
@Joe Huh...I've always plucked them off to keep with the whites! I've broken a few yolks that way though! :(
@Jolenealaska : I just pour the cracked egg through my fingers, and wiggle the yolk around a bit to get the white to release ... but that's it ... odds are, if I cracked the yolk, it was from cracking the egg in the first place, not the separating.
@Joe Yeah, I do the separating the same way, I've just broken a few yolks plucking off the chalazae. No big deal, by that point I'm working over the "yolk bowl" anyway.
The function of the chord, that is attached to the yolk, is to hold the yolk into place. To have the most uniform baking possible, you remove the chord. However, I never do. I keep it in with the rest of the whites and I've never had any problems with the finished products.
So you can:
toss it
keep it with the yolk (a little bit of whites with the yolk is not bad, the other way around is)
keep it with the whites since it does not contain fat, it will not stop the whites from being whipped
It's up to you.
Thanks, I've always kept it with the whites too, but I've also always wondered.
There is no reason to try to remove the chalazae by hand in practice, or to worry about whether it goes with the whites (it will not interfere with foaming) or the yolks.
The only application where they might be perceptible is a custard or curd. Simmered custards should be strained after cooking to catch any curdled bits; baked custards should be strained before baking to catch any undissolved bits (like sugar clumps or bits of zest). Either way, they will be caught in the straining.
They are essentially imperceptible in any other application. No one has ever sent a sunny side up egg or scrambled egg order back because of the chalazae.
There is a reason that, at least in the few hundred books I have personally read or episodes I have watched, no cookbook author or television cook has ever mentioned removing the chalazae by hand.
Sometimes you should remove the chalazae even if you're not separating the eggs. Case in point, I made lemon curd tonight to top a cheesecake. The curd contained two eggs and one yolk. The recipe said that it might be necessary to strain the curd before chilling. It was. After straining, it was clear that it was the chalazae (in minute pieces) still sitting in the sieve. So, after this learning experience, I would recommend plucking out the chalazae any time you are going for a smooth, translucent final result (think curd or pecan pie filling).
It is silly to pick it out; that is just fussy extra work. You are going to want to strain a custard anyway in case there are normal curdled bits, bits of other flavorings (like zest), or whatever, and it will catch them then. In most other applications, you will never notice them.
They were noticeable in my curd! Fussy? Probably, that doesn't make it wrong.
You need to strain the curd anyway, so they would get caught then.
IF you necessarily have to strain, then yes, plucking is silly. If straining isn't called for or it's "strain if necessary" a quick pluck is less of a pain than straining.
Another couple applications in which I've been able to occasionally detect the egg's chalazae in the finished product: ice cream and fresh mayonnaise. Straining the custard before freezing it takes care of the problem in ice cream. In mayonnaise, I almost never bother removing it because separating the chalazae while keeping the yolk intact is hard to do. Also, from what I've seen, the fresher the egg is, the stronger the chalazae is and the more you might want to think about removing it. But like others have said, it's pretty much impossible to notice most of the time unless your finished product is something that's meant to be super-smooth in texture.
I must like fussy extra work....because I consistently remove the chalazae. I use a grapefruit spoon and it is quick and solves any problems related to if it goes in with the whites or yolks.
One experienced with chopstick can pick just the chalazae out from the other elements.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.825013 | 2013-11-19T10:35:26 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39567",
"authors": [
"Bakasur",
"Deirdre Rounsaville",
"Ezra Hann",
"Fahim Ahmed",
"Jason Ng",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kyle Gregory",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"Yellow Sky",
"coderina",
"damith219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123774",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91851",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91854",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91858",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91884"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
35368 | Can ghee be used instead of butter in dessert recipes?
Butter is an inevitable ingredient in most of dessert recipes. By definition, ghee is just clarified butter, but to me, the taste is completely different. The taste of butter is more close to heavy cream, while that of ghee is more close to cooking oil (at least to my tongue).
Is it good to use ghee instead of butter in dessert and pastry recipes`? Doesn't it ruin the taste to be far from the original standard?
If the exact fat content of the butter is important for the result, using different brands of butter may also ruin the result. Some countries have regulated a minimum milk fat content in butter (USA: 80%, EU: 82%), but butter may have a higher fat content that what's required to call it butter.
Butter has a certain amount of emulsifying power, which is lost when clarifying it.
Clarifying butter is used so that the butter can be used as an oil. Regular butter smokes when you heat but ghee has a much higher temperature at which it smokes which makes it suitable for an Indian tandoor.
moved here from a comment:
Ghee does have a different aroma and consistency, so, depending on the use of it in the recipe (wether it is used for frying or in the frosting for example), it will quite likely change the final result.
So in some cases substituting butter with some neutral flavored oil or margarine might be better than ghee. Which, I know, might not help if ghee is all you've got.
Also wanted to include what @rumtscho adds in the comment above:
in recipes where the fat ratio is important, ghee (which is 100% fat)
can ruin the ratio because butter is 83% fat.
And as to standards, they can be quite relative (making something that tastes slightly different doesn't necessarily ruin it) ... if you are making the desert for an indian audience, using clarified butter might taste quite normal =)
Using butter or oil is not really interchangeable in terms of cakes.
I am not a professional baker and am still learning but I bake almost every week. In my country ghee is a main ingredient in our houses, whether its made from clarifying butter at home or just buying it.
I use ghee in all my bakes, even in making caramel sauce, brownies, cheesecakes or cookies.
Just be careful what the recipe calls for. If it is cold cubes , then freeze it and then take it out after 15 min maybe and cut it just like butter. I the recipe asks for room temperature, then use it as it is.
It works everytime for me. For the taste part, if the ghee is home made then you have nothing to worry about. If you bought it ready just make sure it has a good not overwhelming taste and smell.
I used ghee in an icing recipe because I ran out of butter, and the texture was all wrong. Added a little milk after reading this and boom - the texture immediately improved. Some of the fat content separated, but I just poured it off and the icing was fine. I can recommend the combination of ghee and milk as a good substitution, at least for icings.
Hello, and welcome to the site! We generally express thanks with upvoting only (you will be able to upvote with a little bit of reputation) and delete thanks-only answers. Yours also contained valuable information about a working substitution which is not so explicitely described in the other answers, so I edited it to leave that part only.
Ghee is basically clarified butter. If a dessert recipe calls for "butter" then it's probably not going to work. If it calls for cold butter cut in pieces... it definitely will not work. If a recipe calls for melted butter... you'll be ok.. use a touch less and add a splash of cream. Ghee is butter with the milk solids removed.
No, ghee cannot be used in place of butter, because ghee is clarified. This removes the water from the butter, which is a key component of butter when used in baking. The water evaporating and creating steam pockets gives a lot of foods their fluffy texture. The removal of the water would create a lot of issues in getting your desserts to come out right, even if the taste of ghee was similar to that of butter (which it is not)
Can you point to further sources about the evaporating water theory? It doesn't fit with what I remember about rising mechanisms. Also, I'm quite sure I've eaten steam-leavened food (like Danish pastry) with a substitute fat which does not have water.
Clarification does not necessarily mean that the water content has been removed (see for example this YouTube video). What is removed is the milk solids in the butter. Although in ghee, the water has also been boiled away (and the milk solids allowed to brown), as you point out.
I can't believe no one thinks Ghee tastes like butter. It tastes exactly like the fresh farm butter my grandmother used to use when I was growing up. Maybe slightly nuttier but not at all like any oil I have ever tasted. I can't say but think if the recipe calls for softened butter you could use equally I am almost sure but the rest I am not sure of. I know an earlier poster or two said that you can bake with it and I am sure you can there may need to be tweaks if it doesn't call for softened butter but according to the earlier post you can harden it in the fridge and use it has your cold butter in recipes calling for that.
To sub ghee for butter in a baking recipe you'd need to add a blend of water and ghee to make up for the water lost during the ghee making process. For my recipes, I use about 10% water to 90% ghee by weight when replacing butter.
That might not be required for recipes you're not baking, but for recipes that rely on steam to create layers it's important to put back in some of the moisture.
You can bake with ghee as you would with butter. Like butter, ghee gets very hard when you put it in the refrigerator. Like butter, ghee gets nice and soft when you take it out of the refrigerator. Ghee lasts long than butter because the milk product is gone. Ghee has MORE fat than butter so the person who suggested you use butter and walk more has the information all wrong. You can use ghee in a microwave (but why would you use a microwave for anything) and in the oven. I think the poster who asked if margarine was being used instead of ghee was on to something. Go with the ghee. People in India bake with it all the time and you can find a truckload of websites and blogs written by Indians who use ghee in every way of cooking.
As others have said, you can't "bake with ghee as you would with butter", because ghee is pure fat, whereas butter is 80-85% fat. You may be able to substitute ghee for butter depending on the recipe, but the two are not interchangeable.
I used ghee added to brown sugar to make toffee. IT DID NOT WORK. The brown sugar didn’t congeal with the ghee so I had clear butter and a glob of brown sugar boiling separately in the pan. Never saw anything like it.
I have baked and cooked plenty of times with ghee, and I have made dozens of biscuits. Nothing wrong with it. Biscuits have the best flavor with ghee.
The point of using ghee for many people is to avoid dairy so adding milk is not solution for them. My daughter is dairy intolerant but because the milk solids are removed from ghee she does not react to it. Here in Australia the only other butter alternatives all contain hydrogenated vegetable oils like margarine so I do not want to use that. We used ghee in some gluten free shortbread we made the other day and they were delicious! Tasted just like shortbread should! Im searching to see if it would be ok for french macarons but as there seems to be much conjecture I might just have to try it and see. One site i read said it can tend to make things a little crispier. I didn't notice that with our shortbread. The brand we buy is just like softened butter when cool and melted butter when warm.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.825587 | 2013-07-18T12:37:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35368",
"authors": [
"AmeriLingua",
"Dan C",
"Donna Staines",
"HelloGoodbye",
"Iris VeleZ",
"Journee Robinson",
"Neil Meyer",
"Nina King",
"RalphMudhouse",
"Tor-Einar Jarnbjo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120824",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139806",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141991",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68856",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79769",
"manu muraleedharan",
"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
} |
32072 | What is the best way to store homemade sauces?
Sometimes I make korma, satay, masala or pasta sauce for meals in advance. What is the best way to store these, once they're made? Ideally the sauce won't go off within a week and I want minimal loss of flavour. I would be grateful if anyone here can tell me the best method of storing them.
Not sure what you are actually asking for, is it simply how to store them for more than a few days, or how to actually make the sauces themselves?
any particular troubles you have run in to in the past? a simple plastic storage container will keep damned near anything in the fridge for a week.
I've found that glass storage containers are a little better for flavor retention. Perhaps freezing them in glass would work?
If you apply a best-case/worst-case/likeliest-case approach to estimating when you will be using the sauce, you will want to maximize food safety (i.e. shelf life in fridge is shorter than in freezer or in a jar), time to prepare (i.e. defrost), and time to store (i.e. jarring).
If you have a given sauce X, all risks being equal, and you want to store it for one to four weeks, I would recommend freezer bags for the following reasons:
Food safety: a sauce will last a few days in the fridge, it will last weeks and months in the freezer or in a jar
Time to prepare: having your sauce in the freezer means being prepared in advance to use your sauce, and defrosting the night before, in the fridge or a jar you can just open and use it
Time to store: in the cases of jarring/canning, the storage process is cumbersome for a one-off sauce that is not being stored in multiple quantities, in a pyrex in the fridge, or a ziploc in the freezer, it just takes as long as pouring it into the container
Jarring will have the best shelf life in all likelihood (assuming you don't contaminate your jars, or end up with exploding glass), as freezing your sauce may cause a separation, and in the fridge it will pose a health risk quickly.
Storing sauces in securely closing plastic freezer bags, in the freezer, is my preferred method in the scenario you have outlined as it allows you to portion out smaller quantities, has a good mid-range duration of food safety, and isn't terribly likely to cause any flavor issues within three to six months, let alone in the scope of one. As for defrosting, it sounds like you are already planning out your dishes, and putting a bag of sauce on a plate in the fridge in the morning wouldn't be problematic.
The korma source i make i stole from jamie olivers forum and it includes yogurt and coconut. I hope im wrong but i can't see that lasting a week. Or would it if i cooked it first before storage? To another question i am asking how to store homemade sauce.
why wouldn't that last a week? regular yogurt lasts much longer than a week in the fridge.
@bill I have previously made and stored cream based sauces in the freezer. They do less well than a tomato sauce, but with a patient hand in reheating (and possibly incorporating through a roux), they can be frozen and defrosted without much difficulty. In the fridge, there are too many variables to give an across-the-board answer
When referring to homemade tomato sauce, how it is stored depends on how long one wants to keep it.
Use clean, sanitized containers.
Keep it covered (limits mold exposure).
Cool it quickly and thoroughly. Use shallow containers and refrigerate or use an ice bath.
Refrigerate at 40°F or below. Use within a week. Check for signs of spoilage before use. Reheat completely. For longer storage, put it in the freezer.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.826226 | 2013-02-20T14:39:18 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32072",
"authors": [
"Brendan",
"Dewbear7855",
"GdD",
"GraceBakes",
"Jerome",
"N. P.",
"Oaty",
"Ringo",
"Sophia S.",
"bill",
"colejkeene",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16902",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73774",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73784",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73833",
"mfg"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
32291 | Why are there no recipes combining both yeast and baking powder?
I've never seen anything with both yeast and baking powder. What's the reason for that? Shouldn't e.g. muffins get even more fluffy by adding some yeast? Or bread by adding baking powder?
I know there are differences in flavor, but there are cakes with yeast as also non-sweet things with baking powder. So that shouldn't be the problem...
Actually, there is one baked good combining yeast and baking powder (or sometimes also just bicarbonate of soda): Crumpets, see, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crumpet for a general description, and here http://britishfood.about.com/od/eorecipes/r/Recipe-Traditional-English-Crumpets.htm and here http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/recipes/crumpets_61013 are two recipes.
Folks, please do not post recipes as answers to this question. The question didn't ask for recipes, and we don't allow recipe requests.
The existing answers already explain why yeast and baking powder won't work together. But even if they did, you wouldn't have a reason to use them.
You seem to think that fluffiness depends on the amount of gas produced by the leaveners. In fact, it depends on both the gas and the ability of the dough to trap that gas. If you produce too much gas (no matter whether through yeast or through baking powder), then the fluffiness will be less than when using the optimal amount of leavener. This happens because your dough cannot hold the gas and the bubbles break, resulting in the dough deflating like a punctured tire. So even if combining two leaveners would have resulted in more "blowing big" action (which it doesn't, see the other answers), you would not end up with a fluffier end product. If you want fluffy muffins, you have to use a recipe and a technique which is best capable of retaining the gas produced by the baking powder. The amount of gas production is not a bottleneck.
This is a really critical observation, which addresses a lot of lore about leaveners. I've definitely heard it said that you should just add a little more baking powder/soda to get a fluffier result in many recipes, or (in a similar way) that old baking powder can just be used if you use more or even double of it. (The assumption being that extra leavener can't hurt if the baking powder hasn't lost much strength). It's a point that I've rarely seen addressed in cookbooks, and I only figured it out myself some years ago through trial and error.
Everything @Cascabel says in her answer is correct--I wanted to elaborate on why it is true.
In order for a yeast raised bread to work, since the yeast generates the raising gas (carbon dioxide) slowly over time, it has to stay trapped for a long time. This requires a good gluten network. The gluten network is like little rubber balloons throughout the dough, and the yeast blow them up with their.... erm... exhalations :-)
It takes a lot of work to blow up all the metaphorical gluten balloons, but the yeast is a slow and patient worker--it is like the turtle, not the hare. With patience you will get there.
Chemical leavenings like baking powder (or baking soda plus acid, which is what baking powder is) generate their gas quite quickly. They are normally used in batters that are going to go into the oven as soon as they are assembled (the famous muffin method), so that gluten does not develop, giving them their charactaristic tender crumb, unlike yeast raised bread.
If you establish the gluten network for slow yeast raising to work:
You don't need the baking powder very much--you can (within reasonable limits) wait for the yeast to produce as much leavening as you desire.
You have created a tough gluten network that the chemical leaveners, which are like sprinters, cannot raise very effectively. They just don't have the endurance to make it to the finish line. It is counter productive to add them, especially as they add a characteristic bitter or "chemical" taste for some people, or if there is too much.
There are some cases where you will see a small amount of baking soda (not powder) added to a yeast raised bread. One of my favorite toasting breads is in this category. The purpose of this baking soda is not to leaven, but rather to change the pH of the dough, making it less acidic, and facilitating browning of the crust.
As @Rumtscho has kindly pointed out is: If you did mix yeast and baking powder and then...
... wait a short time, then the yeast won't contribute any leavening (it will not start leavening soon enough)
... wait a long time, the baking powder won't contribute any leavening (it will spend itself before the dough goes into the oven)
Bottom line:
Yeast raised breads are:
Slower to create, as they require time for the yeast to work
Have a yeasty flavor, which many people prize
Require the gluten network of "balloons" to blow up, which lead to a chewy or toothsome bite to a greater or lesser extent
Are not amenable to chemical leaveners which run out of oomph before the gluten network would be raised.
Chemically leavened quick breads are:
Almost instant to rise--assemble the batter, and bake right away (with a few exceptions)
No yeasty flavor
No significant gluten network
Much more tender crumb
Some small risk of a chemical aftertaste if over leavened
I like your answer, but I think that there are two simple points it describes in such details that they may not be immediately clear to the reader. They are: If you mix yeast and baking powder and 1) wait a short time, the yeast won't contribute any leavening (it will not start leavening soon enough) 2) wait a long time, the baking powder won't contribute any leavening (it will spend itself before the dough goes into the oven).
@rumtscho Shamelessly stealing and adding... :-) And still haven't talked about oven spring, and double acting baking powder but there are limits to all things.
@SAJ14SAJ adding is good, answers are supposed to provide all the information while comments are considered ephemeral. But don't worry about oven spring and the like, you don't have to produce the complete theory on leavening in the answer to a single question :)
@rumtscho That can be the name of the first SA cooperative book: A Complete Theory of Leavening: With practical examples from around the world :-) :-)
@rumtscho : there might be some rise from the baking powder if it's double acting. I think this is how the 'rising crust' frozen pizzas work ... yeast for the flavor, but a double acting powder to get the actual lift when baked.
@joe Yeast can survive being frozen, so it may also be oven spring... But haven't eaten a frozen pizza since I was child at friend's houses; I have never bought or made one myself, so I have no idea what miracles of food science are brought to bear to make them work.
@SAJ14SAJ people smarter than us have already written these books. We are only here repeating the info from them on case-by-case basis for the people who don't have the time/motivation/priority to read a whole book to solve a cooking problem. Frankly, if these books didn't exist already, I wouldn't have that knowledge - it's not as if I can do tons of food technology research in my free time. So sorry, but I don't think I'd participate in such a project :)
@rumtscho It was a joke, not a proposal or suggestion.
@SAJ14SAJ My answer was supposed to be a joke too. I just have a hard time letting people know that I got the joke in written conversations, in person is so much easier.
@rumtscho :-) :-)
Note that many baking powders are "double acting" in that they have a second reaction when heat is applied, so "(it will spend itself before the dough goes into the oven)" isn't always true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baking_powder#Single_vs_double_acting_baking_powders
You might want to have a read through Why use yeast instead of baking powder? to fully understand the differences between yeast and baking powder. The short summary is that baking powder tastes bad if there's enough to taste, but it's a lot easier and faster to use. But either one provides enough leavening to do pretty much whatever you want. Given that, the answer to your question is pretty much, why would you bother using both?
If you're okay with spending enough time to use yeast, you might as well use only yeast. Sure, maybe you could replace some of it with baking powder, but it won't save you any time, and it might taste worse. On the other hand, if you're okay with using just baking powder, why bother making your recipe take substantially longer? In either case, you'll be making things more complex without any real gain. If you want to make something fluffier, you can just increase the amount of the existing leavening; there's no need to combine two. And of course, in many cases, it's simply not feasible to use yeast. For example, a lot of quick breads (like muffins) are bad if overmixed, and letting them sit long enough for yeast to do its work would be bad too.
I think the case where you're thinking combined leavening would be useful is with something leavened with baking powder, where adding more would make it taste bad. But if it's possible to use yeast, then you might as well use only yeast. And if it's not feasible to use yeast, then maybe you use beaten egg whites to add fluff. Either way, you don't end up using a combination of yeast and baking powder.
There are of course breads leavened just with baking powder or baking soda (notably soda bread), and there are sweet baked goods leavened with yeast (for example cinnamon rolls). But in either case, there's really no reason to switch to using a combination of the two. Recipes pretty much pick the best tool for the job and go with it.
As you're saying: it tastes worse by increasing the amount of baking powder (or yeast if you don't like that). But as they have a different taste, you could use more of them in sum without having a bad taste
@cee If you're talking about something where adding more baking powder would make it taste bad, then you have to completely change the recipe in order to use yeast anyway, and so you might as well use only yeast. And in general, you can leaven things as much as you want with yeast without anyone ever thinking they taste bad, so like I said, there's no reason to add any baking powder.
I have been using baking powder in yeast bread dough for a little while now. I dont use much, for about 3-4 cups of flour, I add maybe half a table spoon. The thing I have noticed what it does to the dough, is changes the density quite a bit. I had baked quite a bit of bread with just yeast, and no matter how long you let it rise, and rest, I was never able to get it as light of a consistency a with a little bit of baking powder.
Don't get me wrong, I don't advocate using it in all situations, as some breads are much better off with being baked without any baking powder at all, and will have a nicer flavor without it. But if you desire a nice light baguette for instance, or just a soft white bread, a small amount of baking powder will help with the texture quite a bit.
It will actually be very close in texture and taste to the type of baguette/white bread you get in the grocery store bakeries etc. It is quite tasty, and I would reccomend you try it if you want to experiment. Just remember, its not a great idea in all applications, some breads are really good when they are just a bit denser.
My Tibetan friends make a yeast dough, then adds
a little baking powder while rolling it out.This gives the steamed dumpling dough more resiliency.
Cool tip. Welcome to Seasoned Advice Anette.
Actually I discovered many professional bakers do use small amounts of baking powder in their yeast breads. Some call it their secret. It is also used in packaged breads and acts as a dough improver for texture, not for more fluff. I add around 1/2 tsp baking powder to my pizza dough (around 2 1/2 - 3 cups flour) and it seems that it stretches easier. I also add to many bread recipes I have, 1/4 to 1/2 tsp. I do not know the science behind it but it works.
As far as adding yeast to muffins and cakes, I am not sure, but I have a couple recipes for sweets that includes semolina, and yeast along with baking powder is used. The cake has to rest an hour before baking even though it does not rise, but after baking, the texture is the desired one.
Do you not mean to reference baking soda, that is sodium bicarbonate, not baking powder?
I've made Chinese buns with both yeast and powder.
I use a small pinch of baking powder in my yeast breads. I don't know I always felt like it helped form little pockets that the yeast then farted in pretty abundantly. Like how a balloon animal clown stretches the balloon real hard before he blows it up.
i agree, adding 1/2 tsp in 3 cups flour along with 1 sachet of yeast does makes a different. bread comes out very soft and fluffy. It is easy to handle as well. i love baking breads now
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.826580 | 2013-02-28T17:06:26 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32291",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Andrei Sorokine",
"Athanasius",
"Cascabel",
"Janet Griswold",
"Joe",
"Martin Cron",
"Pat Sommer",
"Preston",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Will",
"cee",
"godfatherofpolka",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100307",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24081",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97343",
"littleturtle",
"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
} |
33741 | How long should chia seeds soak?
I am new to use chia seeds.
I soaked them in water for about an hour and there was no significant difference in the size.
As per websites it could grow like 12 times the original size.
How much time does it need to be at its maximum size?
From my experience, they can gel 12 times their volume of water, but the seeds themselves don't actually expand much. The water they're in just gets goopy.
I usually let it soak overnight, though it isn't necessary to soak that long. You should soak it till it forms a paste/gel like consistency and it would take at least 2-3 hours, though this website claims under ten minutes (time might vary depending on the batch of the seeds). You could also soak it in any juice or fruit extract as well.
Additionally, you can also use it in its raw form without soaking, the way one would use poppy/sesame seeds.
Scarifying the seeds before soaking should give a more uniform swelling time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarification_%28botany%29 I use a rock tumbler with 1/2" pebbles overnight, but there are plenty of ways to do it.
From my personal usage I have experienced that chia seeds works well with warm water. Warm water helps & triggers the surface of chia seeds to open-up absorbing water faster. 35C - 45C is the average permissible temperature to soak chia seeds.
It has also been observed that ceramic vessels or glasswares have good insulation property they maintain the temperature, thus giving chia seeds a favourable environment.
When it comes to time, 15-20 minutes in warm water is enough for chia seeds to increase their size. Although size depends on the type of chia seeds, because not all type chia seeds grow about 9-15 times!
Water:chia seeds ratio of 5:1 should be at-least maintained for a good result.
Hello Vikram, and welcome! Our style is to always answer questions very literally. Your post got flagged, so I removed the part which had general advice about where to use chia seeds (which was not asked in the question) and left the part which is related to soaking. Also I changed your capitalization, as in an English text, words only get a capital letter at the beginning of a sentence or if they are the name of a person or a geographic location. It is hard to read when multiple words are started with a capital letter. Thank you for sharing your experience, I found your answer useful.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.827553 | 2013-04-25T18:28:09 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33741",
"authors": [
"Ragad Mohamed",
"Scherry Needle",
"SourDoh",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130914",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130944",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"luisa monsalve",
"rumtscho",
"wave leopard"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
43500 | cooling pasturized milk
I live in the Romanian countryside. Everyone here pasteurizes milk in a pan on the stove. No one goes through a quick cooling process: people just don't have conditions to do it, I guess. Instead, the milk is cooled in the pan and then poured into bottles and stored in the fridge. What is the point of the quick cooling that I read about on the internet?
Can you edit and post a link, otherwise you may not get an answer.
It is safer and helps increase the shelf life of the milk.
Otherwise the milk will pass through dangerous temperatures and and may be recolonized with air born pathogens. These will grow rapidly during the period the milk is warm, and more slowly once it is refrigerated. While the milk may not become immediately unsafe or unpalatable, its storage lifetime will certainly be reduced.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.827863 | 2014-04-14T11:15:36 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43500",
"authors": [
"Al.Sal",
"Ankur Banerjee",
"Deb",
"GdD",
"Hannah",
"Sean",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101914",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101915",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101971",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"orion2112"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
20654 | Why marinade meat with acid or enzymes?
This might sound like a queer question, but why do we marinade meat with acid / enzymes? Given that marinading doesn't tenderize meat, it just turns the outer fibers into mush and releases the juices when cooking? Why not just go with a flavored brine instead?
In other words: Why is it customary to use such marinades, and why is it commonly said that it tenderizes the meat?
Source Shirley Corriher:
http://www.finecooking.com/articles/marinades-flavor-tenderize.aspx
At first, water molecules are attached to and trapped within this
protein mesh, so the tissue remains juicy and tender. But after a
short time, if the protein is in a very acidic marinade, the protein
bonds tighten, water is squeezed out, and the tissue becomes tough. If
you've ever tried marinating shrimp in highly acidic ingredients, it's
likely that you're familiar with this result.
Also
My experience with tenderizing enzymes mirrors that of Dr. Nicholas
Kurti, a famous Oxford physicist who tried tenderizing a pork roast by
injecting half with pineapple juice, leaving the other half untouched.
A noted chef, Michel Roux, was to judge on television which side was
better. After cooking, the half treated with pineapple was total mush
and looked like a pile of stuffing. Not surprisingly, Chef Roux
preferred the untreated half.
Hardly a queer question. We marinate in acidic liquids because it tastes good, really. As Alton Brown said in the Good Eats episode, "Raising The Steaks":
"Acid doesn't tenderize meat nearly as well as enzymes. But acids can help you tenderize your own food. That's because acids taste tangy, and tangy tastes tell our saliva glands to do their stuff, and saliva is full of enzymes."
As that same episode shows, we generally don't marinate in enzymes, as it would turn meat to mush, and not in a good way.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.827988 | 2012-01-21T10:49:36 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20654",
"authors": [
"6227020800",
"Boring Loop",
"Corez",
"Jamie Gaffney",
"Worried steak",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100656",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45395",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45733"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
41805 | Best way to stabilize wedding cake tiers
I am baking a 3 tier wedding cake for August. It will consist of 2 white layers and 1 chocolate layer in the middle. I am covering these layers with white fondant. Should I rather stabilize these layers with straws or rather wooden skewers?
I have done a couple of 3 tiered wedding cakes. I would recommend using something stronger than plastic straws, mainly for your peace of mind. You will be putting a lot of effort into the cakes and like @Joe said, the straws can be useless if crushed or deflected. If you want to use the straws so that the wooden skewer doesn't touch the cake, you can always use the straws and then insert them with the woden skewers for additional support. Straws and skewers are both easy to cut as well, so there's not much of a difference there either. There are heaps of videos and articles online and you can always ask your local cake shop for more tips and tricks.
Another thing to keep in mind is to use dense cakes like mud cakes to use for stacked cakes, otherwise your tiers will collapse. And please give ganaching a good thought as well. Even though there is extra cozt, effort and time involved, ganaching will make the cakes a bit tougher as the chocolate should harden once set and give very beautiful sharp edges when you fondant.
Having tiered cakes need "pipes" I would say. Instead me explaining the process I could share a link with you. There's this cake "Boss" Buddy Valastro : TLC Star.
http://www.tlc.com/tv-shows/cake-boss/photos/buddys-sketchbook-season-4-pictures.htm
He shows number of ways to slice, dice , stand , hang, hold cakes in different sizes, different layers.
PS: not sure what you meant by straws...as straws are quite weak..
Straws are strong! Mr. Wizard put a paper straw right through a potato. (they're tubes, so quite good at compression along their axis ... they're useless when crushed or if they start to deflect, but the cake pushes from the sides to keep the straw straight. (and the wider cross-section means the cake can help more than for a skewer)
And it's generally a good idea to summarize your link ... all I saw was a bunch of design sketches, nothing about structural integrity of cakes.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.828180 | 2014-02-06T10:58:18 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41805",
"authors": [
"Dean Erasmus",
"Jackie L",
"Joe",
"MinistrChleba",
"Spammer",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"Yeganeh Mobini",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97526",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97529",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97538",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97706",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97717",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97794"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
34899 | What temperature and time do I need to bake a 35cm Madeira cake?
I am cooking a very large wedding cake (35 cm or 14 inch) and can't get the cooking time right. Is there a specific temperature I should use?
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/10387/67
It's very difficult to cook a cake that large without a heating core.
Basically, it's a metal cup that you put in the middle of your cake so that you can get some heat conduction in the middle of the cake, like you would with a bundt pan or other ring-shaped pan. Unlike the ring pan, as it's a cup, you also fill it with batter so you have a plug to fill the hole that's created.
(and you generally need to fill the cup with either batter or something else heavy so that it doesn't float in the batter).
You also want to go with a lower temperature and bake it for longer -- this is not only because of the size of the cake, but you also want it to be more dense; if you're going to be stacking on top of it, you do not want it spongy, and you need to reduce the amount of open spring from a high temperature. I'd highly recommend looking for recipes specifically intended for large stacked cakes.
As medeira cakes tend to be slow cooking to start with, you might be looking at 1.5 to 2hrs to get it fully baked through.
According to Wilton and Ultimate Baker who both offer the same advice, a 14" cake should be baked at a somewhat lower temperature than normal, 325 F (163 C), for 50-55 minutes.
Rose Levey Berenbaum recommends in The Cake Bible a baking time of 40-50 minutes for a 1 3/4" (4.5 cm) deep 14" (35 cm) layer, based on a standard butter cake formula.
The general principal is that the larger the layer, the longer the baking time at a lower temperature.
I would caution you that like all baking times, these estimates cannot be exact, and you should rely on the appropriate doneness test for your particular recipe, such as the toothpick test.
I reviewed the Cake Bible by Rose Levy Beranbaum which to me is probably still the most authoritative source on cake baking, despite originally being published in 1988. Beranbaum does not specifically mention times for 14 inch cakes in her detailed recipes (her wedding cake recipes are for 6, 9, and 12 inch tiers which she indicates will serve 150 people), so the information above comes from the chart for recipe scaling (page 490).
She does indicate that the diameter of the cake pan does matter for the recipe, specifically that the larger the cake, the less baking powder is required proportionately. That is, each tier would then receive a specific amount of leavening depending on its size.
Beranbaum does not mention cake cups, but instead recommends cake strips or magic strips, which help promote baking even layers.
She also provides formulas for scaling various types of base cake recipes to various sizes, including the baking powder scaling.
Modifying cake recipes for large sizes is fairly detailed; I recommend consulting recipes or formulas specifically for this purpose. The Cake Bible remains a fantastic source, but does not have a recipe for the particular Madeira cake you have mentioned.
cake strips slow down the cooking out the outside edge, so that they don't set before they've had a chance to rise ... it makes for a less domed top (which is why I'm surprised at the pictures on the page you linked to) ... but it doesn't help the center set.
@Joe At the KA site, note that the pan with the cake strips has far less doming than the one without. I agree they have no effect on the center--but that is going to cook from above and below anyway. Beyond an inch or two from the perimeter, that is true of any diameter cake, yes? I never heard of a heating core until your post--Beranbaum certainly doesn't mention them. Not saying that they don't exist or work, just they haven't come to my attention.
After more research, evidently heating cores and cake strips achieve the same end, through different means, which is to ensure the center cooks before the edge overcooks. Heating cores due it by speeding the cooking of the center, and the cake strips by slowing the cooking of the edge. This also reduces the doming. So same goal, lower differential, handled via different means. Sources also indicate a couple of inverted flower nails can be used in lieu of a heating core.
Modifying cake recipes for large sizes is fairly detailed; I recommend consulting recipes or formulas specifically for this purpose. The Cake Bible remains a fantastic source, but does not have a recipe for the particular Madeira cake you have mentioned.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.828393 | 2013-06-24T08:53:37 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34899",
"authors": [
"Christian",
"Cope ",
"Dirk Wybe De Jong",
"Dorian Marchal",
"J. Doe",
"Joe",
"Josh Grosso",
"Lutfor Rahman",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Thilina Karunanayake",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81417",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81427",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81434",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97993",
"user81415"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
35193 | Can I add tomato paste afterwards, instead of during cooking, for a tomato sauce?
So I have a pizza tomato sauce recipe that called for adding 6 tablespoons of tomato paste during the cooking. Unfortunately, due to being very disorganized, I only realized half way through cooking that I didn't have any tomato paste in the house and the local 24h corner shop didn't stock any.
I carried on cooking the tomato sauce topping without adding the tomato paste and then put it in the fridge overnight. Should I pick up some tomato paste and add the "finished" product to the frying pan, heat up and put in the tomato paste or should I just leave it. Does the tomato paste add anything bar depth of flavour?
Could you post the whole recipe?
Tomato paste stirs in more easily when it's good and hot. Adding in cold, to a cold sauce can give you lumps of pure paste, unless you stir assiduously.
Hard to say what you "should" do, but I generally like to fry my tomato paste over decent heat before fully mixing it into anything. It deepens and darkens the flavor significantly, which may or may not be what you want for this particular recipe.
I agree with jalbee -- cook the tomato paste as can be a little strange in its straight-from-the-can (or tube) state. I'd recommend instead when warming back up the sauce, first heat up your pan with a touch of oil, then cook the tomato paste, then adding the tomato sauce to that to let it warm up. Tomato paste also acts as a bit of a thickener, but you might not get that effect without a long, slow cook.
In general you need to consider the purpose of the ingredient, and what would happen to it during the cooking that it's missed.
For example, there's no point stirring a spoonful of flour into a sauce after cooking, since the flour needs heat in order to thicken the sauce.
In the case of the tomato paste, not much will happen to that particular ingredient during cooking. It may have caramelised a little, depending on the cooking method. It would have infused more deeply into some of the other ingredients. But these are subtle things. Taste your finished product. If you feel it would benefit from an extra boost of tomato flavour, by all means stir in some tomato paste.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.828783 | 2013-07-09T11:13:30 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35193",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Mien",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jalbee"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
39341 | Can Wilton cake fondant be kept in freezer?
My mom put a package of Wilton cake fondant in the freezer by mistake. Will it still usable once thawed and, would you thaw it now or just before its intended use?
Yes, freezing fondant is fine if it is well wrapped, although doing so is not normally necessary as it is so high in sugar that it is essentially shelf stable.
The main issue is that when you thaw it, you want it to be well wrapped so that condensation does not get onto the surface of the fondant itself, making it sticky.
This link should help. One of the replies says that if you do freeze your fondant, you have to bring it out of its frozen state by refrigerating before bringing to room temperature to finally dry it out to its normal consistency.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.828991 | 2013-11-10T22:28:57 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39341",
"authors": [
"Jeff Hbdnxjcn",
"Jeri R. Leibman",
"Marci",
"Masrur",
"Nortiz",
"Steve H",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91314",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91315",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91316",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91354",
"lakr"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
43076 | What to order at a Japanese restaurant?
We would be visiting a Japanese restaurant this weekend. However we are completely clueless what should we order this being our first time. Could you suggest something for beginners? Normally we prefer Indian cuisine and sometimes Chinese as well. To change our monotonous eating habits we decided to visit this place. Any suggestions?
Most restaurants, especially if they offer a particular cuisine, will welcome you with open arms if you simply admit that this is your first time for trying this particular food.
There are many kinds of Japanese restaurants. It is not possible to recommend what to order, because depending on the type of restaurant they may not have it on the menu.
But if you explain to the wait staff that you do not have any previous experience with this establishment and would like some advice on what might be a good choice, I'm sure that any restaurant will be happy to make recommendations. They should ask you if you prefer meat or fish or if you like your food spicy or mild. Then they should point out suitable items on the menu for you to consider.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.829098 | 2014-03-27T06:41:43 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43076",
"authors": [
"Aaron Godwin Pang",
"Claire Deits",
"Refund Man Taxes spam",
"Spammer",
"bugmagnet",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100768",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100774",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100775",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100785"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
41650 | Do beignets have to sit overnight?
I made beignets and I want to hurry and bake them before going to sleep tonight. Do I have to let them sit overnight or will they be fine if i just put them in there for a few hours then fry?
This is the recipe:
1 cup warm water
1/4 cup sugar
1 Tbs active dry yeast
1 egg replacement
2 Tbs vegan butter
1/2 cup soy creamer
4 1/4 cups all-purpose flour
1/2 tsp salt
Oil for frying
Enough powdered sugar to choke out an army
In a stand mixer or mixing bowl, combine the water, sugar and yeast. Allow to sit until the yeast gets bubbly and happy, about 5 minutes. Add in the butter and the egg replacement and beat until combined. Add in the soy creamer and half the flour and beat for 1 minute. Add in the salt and the rest of the flour and finish with the dough hook. If you don't have a dough hook, knead the dough by hand.
Spray cooking spray or a light bit of oil into a bowl or dish with a lid. add in the dough and turn to coat. Cover and allow to sit in the fridge for 8 hours, or overnight.
Heat your cooking oil to 360 degrees. On a lightly floured surface, roll out your dough to approximately 1/4 to 1/3 inch thickness. 1/2 inch thick is too thick.
Cut the dough into 3" x 3" squares or diamonds. Place into the hot oil carefully, making sure not to crowd the oil. The beignet should float to the surface almost immediately. Cook on each side for about 20-30 seconds, or until a rich golden brown.
Once golden brown on both sides, remove from oil and allow to rest for about 1 minute. With a sieve, sprinkle the powdered sugar generously onto the top of the beignets. Enjoy, traditionally with a cafe au (almond) lait.
It would help to see the whole recipe. If they're proofed overnight in the refrigerator, then a few hours at room temperature is probably fine.
@sourd'oh its a vegan recipe on effyeahitsvegan.com but my friend said she didnt put them in overnight but hers werent vegan
is it overnight refrigeration?
@Brooklyn, is the recipe that I put in the right one?
One of my classic Hungarian cookbooks has a long chapter on yeast-risen donuts, and it is adamant that the donuts must never, ever catch a chill for even a moment. The suggestion of an overnight stay in the refrigerator would send the author into conniptions, I think.
Warning: this answer isn't about traditional beignets, but about New Orleans beignets, which are actually made from yeast dough, like donuts. It refers to this recipe which the OP is most likely using.
For yeast dough, the difference between long and short rising times is that longer times give you more flavor development. Beignets are so chock-full of sugar and fat that they don't need the subtle flavoring of long fermentation. They can be made with very short rising times.
I don't know why the recipe tells you to refrigerate overnight and then forgets to tell you that the dough should come back to temperature. There are some rich doughs which are baked from cold in order to hold their shape (brioche and other butter-rich relatives), but due to the physics of deep frying, you don't want fridge-cold dough in your pan. But there is surely no need to get it thoroughly cooled; the recipe is probably advising the long stay for fermentation or convenience reasons, not because you need chilled dough. One possibility which comes to mind is that the soft dough might be a bit hard to roll when warm, but a combination of non-stick mat, clingfilm and flouring usually takes care of that.
If you keep your dough out of the fridge, it will be ready much earlier, and you can fry it as soon as it is properly risen. But because this recipe has such an insanely high yeast ratio (equivalent to 7.5% fresh yeast in baker percentages), you have to watch it closely, it might rise very soon.
I will say, nearly any yeast product benefits taste-wise (sometimes drastically) from a long, slow, cold rise compared to a shorter, warm rise.
I never refrigerate my beignets overnight. the longest I have ever chilled the dough is about 4 hours. Most important thing to remember is to make sure you let them rise to room temperature once you remove them from the refrigerator. Never put cold dough in the oil to fry.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.829231 | 2014-01-31T23:45:18 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41650",
"authors": [
"Aakash",
"Alison",
"August Coyote",
"Brooklyn",
"Cordierite Pizza Stone",
"Curious_Mind",
"Hania Singh",
"Marti",
"Mien",
"Sofie Flagstad",
"SourDoh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22934",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97133",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97155",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97282",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99351",
"raghdam",
"rfusca",
"Ольга Климова"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
41825 | Bubbles on the Noodle surface
I observe lots of bubbles on the noodle surface after frying. What causes this and how can I control it?
Can you be more specific? What kind of noodles are they? How are you frying them?
Why do you want to control it? It sounds to me like you are just getting the shape of your noodles changed. It shouldn't affect taste much, and would be hard to change unless you accept much larger changes in taste and texture. It is basic physics that water (within the noodle) will turn to steam and expand a lot when suddenly heated in the oil.
Deep frying noodles is likely to create bubbles, depending on exactly how the dough was formed; this is normal and expected. You see this on almost all battered fried foods.
The actual mechanism is that the heat of the oil partially sets the starches on the surface of the noodle fairly quickly, creating an a barrier to the further escape of water or steam. As the water under the surface converts to steam from the heat of frying, it expands dramatically (about 1,700 times the volume of the water), but has no where to go. The pressure created from the steam pushes out the surface noodle, creating a bubble.
As the frying continues, the starches completely set, making the bubble surface crispy and brittle.
I don't think there is a simple method to control this process. You could try frying at a slightly lower temperature, which would slow the process down, and perhaps allow more steam to escape rather than create bubbles, but I haven't tried this, and am not confident that it would work.
If the OP's noodles are especially wet, maybe it'd help to dry out the noodles, or at least the surface, a bit first?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.829588 | 2014-02-07T10:12:24 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41825",
"authors": [
"Brian Drake",
"Cascabel",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Raja Mehar",
"Spammer",
"Theresa Thompson",
"cutiehulk2329",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97583",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97713",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97716",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97729",
"just_learning",
"rumtscho",
"xilliam"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
40262 | What is the difference between normal oils and cooking oils?
I am not proficient in cooking but I have one question which I am not able to figure out.
I have read on internet some oils should be used for dressing, other for cooking.
But to me, they all look same. I mean what will happen I use same oil for
Cooking
Deep frying
Dressing
I mean, what's the difference and why is there a difference in cooking and dressing etc. in oils?
This might be helpful for the OP: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/701/what-oil-or-fat-to-use-for-different-purposes
There are three major properties an edible fat (I am assuming you are not asking about inedible oils like petroleum based products) has that affect how it is best used:
Flavor
Saturation
Smoke point
Properties
Flavor
The flavor of the fat is very important. So called neutral oils (like canola oil or refined grapeseed oil, or refined peanut oil, among many others) have very little flavor and so are suitable for almost any cooking task, as they will not interfere with or compete with the other flavors in the dish.
Other oils such as sesame oil are primarily used for the delicious flavor that they provide, and are almost more of a condiment than an oil for culinary purposes.
In between are oils like olive oil and coconut oil which have a distinctive flavor, but also have good qualities for cooking. Many non-oil fats used in cooking (like butter, or bacon fat, lard, or suet) also have distinctive flavors.
Saturation
The level of saturation in the fat controls how hard the fat is at room temperature.
Most oils are fairly low in saturation, and are so quite liquid even at room temperature. The major exceptions among the vegetable based lipids are coconut oil and cocoa butter. Coconut oil is solid at room temperature, and cocoa butter is actually quite hard at room temperature.
Note that while you only asked about "oils", many common cooking fats not usually called an oil are much more saturated, including butter, lard, and hydrogenated vegetable oil such as the US brand Crisco.
The level of saturation can affect texture of baked goods made with a given oil, and whether the fat is suitable for the creaming method or in making laminated pastry in baking.
Saturated fats also resist rancidity better over time better than non-saturated fats (although they are still subject to rancidity).
Smoke Point
The smoke point of a fat or oil is temperature to which it can be heated before it begins smokng.
Oils which have a high smoke point (such as grapeseed oil or peanut oil among others) are more suitable for high temperature searing, or deep frying.
Applications
The oil for a given application is based on the properties it has.
Cooking
For general cooking uses (by which I am inferring general sauteeing, shallow frying, greasing of casserole dishes, and so on is meant), normally you want a fat which is either:
Neutral in flavor so as not to interfere with the dish. The neutral oils are all useful for this.
Complimentary in flavor, to enhance the dish. Many cuisines have traditional fats which are flavorful, but are integrated into their cuisine, such as olive oil or butter.
Saturation matters less (as the fat can be melted before greasing a pan, for example), and smoke point is not terribly relevant unless the application is searing, in which case you want a very high smoke point.
Depending on the application and the cuisine from which a dish derives, almost any oil or fat may be used for general cooking purposes. The major exception is sesame oil, which is so flavorful that it is used as a condiment, not a fat, for culinary purposes.
Deep Frying
The most important aspect for deep frying is smoke point. A low smoke point oil would break down and add off flavors to the dish (not to mention making the kitchen smoky and setting off smoke alarms).
Secondarily, for oils that are going to be reused over time, saturated fats such as hydrogenated vegetable shortenings break down more slowly, and may be considered advantageous.
Generally, flavorful oils are not indicated, as the same factors that give them good flavor often give them low smoke points.
Some good oils for deep frying include peanut oil, canola oil, or hydrogenated vegetable shortening.
Dressing
For most dressings (by which I infer you mean salad dressings as used in many Western style cuisines), the most important factors are flavor and saturation.
You want an oil with good flavor (such as olive oil) or neutral flavor (such as the many neutral oils like canola, refined peanut, corn oil, and so on).
Most dressings also need an oil which is liquid at room temperature, and thus low in saturation. The major exception is the class of hot dressings made with bacon fat.
Many dressings are made from olive oil, or one of the neutral oils.
Baking
While you did not ask about baking applications, there are two types of baking which require a fat with specific properties: cakes made by the creaming method, and laminated pastries like croissants or puff pastry.
These applications require a fat which is solid at room temperature, but still plastic enough to be manipulated. Generally, only butter and hydrogenated vegetable oil are suitable.
Bottom Line
The oil or fat you choose for any particular purpose will be based on what is best for that application—but a good neutral oil with a high smoke point such as refined peanut oil or canola oil can serve the vast majority of culinary purposes most of the time.
See also:
What is meant by "neutral" oils?
When is a cooking oil not appropriate to substitute for another?
In addition to the excellent primer by SAJ14SAJ, I would even more stress smoke point of various oils.
Oils burn and give food a nasty flavor if they burn. You should be very careful not to use oil in applications that will cause oil to become higher in temperature than that oil's smoke point. Smoke Points of Oils
Avoid oil burns, not just because of the nasty flavor, but also because it can be dangerous.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.829775 | 2013-12-15T08:09:47 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40262",
"authors": [
"Bryan Tan",
"Cree Smith",
"David Buechele",
"John Edward Thomas Spam",
"June Reid",
"Mien",
"Saikat Das",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93577",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93578",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93584",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93586",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93676",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93677",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93678",
"jackaroodave",
"renew passport",
"thorepet"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
42368 | Difference between Pancakes and "Kaiserschmarrn"?
Is there a difference between pancakes and Kaiserschmarrn from Austria?
There is a wide range of pancake variants.
Kaiserschmarrn are an egg-white leavened pancake often served with fruit and nuts, with the pancake itself being shredded for presentation.
This is different than the most typical pancakes served in the US, which are not egg-white leavened, but baking powder leavened, but it is still a type of pancake.
To complete this question and answer, is there a difference between Kaiserschmarn and crepes?
@mien Well this is big and puffy and fluffy, not thin and unleavened like the prototypical crepe.
A couple of years ago, I used 'pancake' to explain the problems of polysemy (words having more than one meaning, but due to divergence over time and not a case of being homonyms).
Kaisersharrn was one of the items used in my display, as I intended it to represent a pancake that was :
egg white foam leavened
not a breakfast item
... but those weren't the problems that people called out. My sample size wasn't statistically significant, and my methodolgy was pretty sloppy (it was intended more as performance art), but, when we look at why people though kaiserschmarrn was not a pancake:
8 responses : isn't flat
2 responses : wasn't a breakfast item.
1 response : wasn't chemically leavened.
5 people said pancakes had to be fuffy, but didn't specifically call out the type of leavening.
For those that called kaiserscharrn for not being flat, I followed up and asked if they had even cut up pancakes for someone, and if the items that were cut up was still a pancake, but I don't recall any good responses to that line of questioning. (and I didn't record their response yes or no)
I really didn't think this would've been one of the items called out ... people were more accepting of corn tortillas being a pancake (due to shape) than kaiserschmarrn.
IMO, kaiserschmarrn are related to pancakes the same way scrambled eggs are related to omelets: same ingredients, same tools, and there ends the similarity.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.830570 | 2014-02-27T13:24:08 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42368",
"authors": [
"Marti",
"Michael Crawford",
"Mien",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98922",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98941",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98943",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98999",
"kora",
"shoespenthouse",
"sqrt6",
"technicaltrading",
"user98921"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
34661 | How to separate milk kefir grains?
How many kefir grains will make a quart size of kefir? I think I have too many grains in one batch. I also am still a novice, been at this five months. I enjoy making it, and have many grains. Some very small, some the size of a pearl. What is the best way of separating the grains?
From this comment on a passionate homemaking article, the commenter suggests that 2 Tbsp per quart of milk is an appropriate amount of kefir grains. In my personal experience, I've found that the amount is fairly variable, and that half to twice that suggested amount will produce kefir relatively quickly (how quickly, of course, changes with the amount present).
As far as separating them goes, they should pull apart relatively easily with the use of a couple of plastic spoons. While it is possible to smash them apart, this won't actually damage their ability to ferment kefir. My recommendation is to keep a 2 Tbsp measuring cup sanitized the next time you change out your milk, and add them to the fresh milk once there are enough to fill up the cup. The remainder can be used on another batch, eaten, or put in a sealed jar in the fridge with a smaller amount of milk to serve as a backup for later. Your worst-case here is that you just throw away the excess, which I would only consider "bad" if you can't find someone to give them to.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.830768 | 2013-06-13T11:30:35 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34661",
"authors": [
"AnthonyS",
"Flame_Phoenix",
"Jen Tila",
"Mamanyinja",
"Md Mokhlesur Rahman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80824",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80825",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80829",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80843",
"monty spam"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
34041 | Can I use cornstarch in fondant icing?
Can I use cornstarch instead of gelatin in a fondant icing? If so, what is the needed quantity of cornflour/starch given that the original recipe asks for 1 teaspoon of gelatin?
I want to know because I'm a vegetarian, so I want to avoid gelatin.
can you please add your recipe.
If you google "vegan fondant recipe", you will find a number of recipes for fondant which do not use gelatin.
In general, they use agar agar in lieu of gelatin (most seem to use flaked agar agar substituted one to one by volume for gelatin powder), and include glycerin as an anti-cracking agent. Most seem also to use some hydrogenated vegetable shortening.
While it is possible that a cornstarch gel might be effective, I have not tried this, and none of the references I could find mentioned it—they all seem to use agar agar.
. . .
If you are not averse to a commercial product, the Satin Ice prepared fondant is certified kosher pareve, and vegan, and so contains no animal products. There may be acceptable commercial products, but this one came up several times in my research.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.830920 | 2013-05-10T07:22:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34041",
"authors": [
"Alchn packaging",
"Caleb Jares",
"Joost Döbken",
"Spam",
"Spammer",
"Wings",
"Zeina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79155",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79161",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9401"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
34055 | What is the shelf life of my home made coleslaw dressing?
I made about a gallon of dressing today from Kraft mayo, apple cider vinegar, and sugar. What is the shelf life of this?
Also, what is the shelf life of balsamic vinegar, salad oil, garlic, honey, salt and pepper?
possible duplicate of How long can I store a food in the pantry, refrigerator, or freezer?
I don't see the generic article as a duplicate when it doesn't cover the particular case.
Seems like those are two entirely different topics
Your coleslaw dressing is almost certain to be sufficiently acidic as to have an essentially unlimited (call it at least a month or two) in the refrigerator. Commercial mayonnaise is acidic enough off the shelf to discourage bacterial growth pretty well, and you have enhanced its acidity with the cider vinegar.
The balsamic dressing--it is difficult to say. It depends on how acidic it is, and that depends critically on the recipe.
See also:
Room temperature "rest" for fresh mayo?
Making "long(er)-life" homemade mayonnaise
ok .. Just wondering, so ur pretty certain on that i felt it would be the other way around.. been cooking professionally for like 10 years.. ok the balsamic had in it. 1/2 gallon balsamic vinegar/ 1 gallon salad oil. . quart of honey tsp dry mustard, salt and pepper and 8 cloves garlic minced... fully blended with immersion blender..
The issue is that balsamic vinegar ranges from sugar syrup to moderately acidic, and there is no standardization, so I cannot give you any particular advise. Assuming it is sufficiently acidic, it will also last a long time, but that depends on the nature of the specific vinegar you used. I am guessing it is not the traditional product in that kind of quantity.
well its a modena brand that comes in 2 gallons at a time, anyway the issue i would be concerned with is the garlic, however i think the vinegar will take care of that. im also wondering if there are preservatives that can be used.
I found out the balsamic vinegar I was using is 6% acidity
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.831047 | 2013-05-10T20:34:25 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34055",
"authors": [
"Carri",
"Cathy Cook",
"Dave",
"Error",
"Katya",
"Mien",
"Patrick Siau",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Shannon",
"Sushen Biswas",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79189",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79190",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79204",
"user18260"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
34221 | How to fix a sauce with overheated yogurt that has separated?
I was trying out some healthier recipes from the New American Plate cookbook, one was a Greek lamb casserole with lots of green beans and potatoes. The lamb was marinated in plain yogurt to which spices were added prior to being added to the pot and baked at 350 for 45 min. The flavor is good, but it is not attractive due to the yogurt separating into a grainy curds and whey.
I now have a lot of leftovers, and am thinking if I can fix the texture of the sauce, the kids would be more enthusiastic about eating it. Is there anything to salvage this huge pot of tasty food? Thanks.
Did it and rescued it - important extended family meal and I took a curds and whey disaster to a great sauce! I cooked up chicken with its yoghurt base marinade, the yoghurt split. It tastes fine it's just the proteins have changed at high heat and clumped to form curds.
To solve it I:
took a small amount of water (2 tablespoons or so) in a jug and mixed in a couple of teaspoons of cornstarch. I then added this to the sauce. Don't add cornstarch directly or it will just lump.
OPTIONAL: take other sauce ingredients that are meant to be whole (tomatoes in my case) and add 1/2 to sauce
blend to a smooth sauce using stick mixer (careful of hot sauce splashes)
Reduce sauce, if necessary, to thicken sauce on a medium heat stirring frequently
Return chicken to sauce and add the rest of the ingredients.
Serve and eat, and not to self "next time you cook with yoghurt do it slowly on a low heat - DO NOT BOIL"
Once the proteins in the yogurt have curdled, you are unlikely to ever get it back to a truly smooth consistency. This is far more likely with low-fat yogurts, which have proportionately more proteins.
This is different from a broken emulsion (such as a hollandaise), where the fats and water in the sauce separate—these can be repaired under some circumstances. Unfortunately, when the cause of the breaking is curdled proteins, once the proteins tighten up, it is essentially irreversible. What you have are little bits of fresh yogurt cheese suspended in the sauce.
Of course, it is still perfectly safe to eat, even if it doesn't look as good as you would like.
In the future, you can mitigate the chance of the sauce breaking by using a full-fat yogurt—you might have to get this from an ethnic market, depending on where you live. Recipes with lower acid are also less likely to curdle, although you haven't mentioned the full recipe you used.
Add teaspoon or two of flour to the yogurt before adding to the sauce will greatly reduce the chance of curdling. Also add the yogurt at the end of cooking and keep it no higher than a bare simmer. Adding yogurt slowly helps too. Also use the higher fat yogurt. A dash of cream added before the yogurt goes in will help. Starch and fat reduce the chance of the clumping of the solids in the yogurt thus lessening the chance of curdling. Once curdled it is hard to fix. However, whisking the sauce to beat up the curds, add some cream and flour can effectively hide the curdle and get it to the point of being acceptable.
Corn starch, well whisked in, is also very effective and might give less of an off taste. However, be careful not to thicken your sauce beyond intent accidentally :)
I just had this happen to me when making an alfredo sauce, but I managed to fix it! I had TRIED to go gentle, adding some hot milk to the yogurt and thinning it first, then adding it 1/4 by 1/4 into the larger pot. When it still separated, I turned the heat off immediately.
Then, in a pot on the side, I made a basic bechamel sauce (no onions, herbs, etc - just roux and milk) and stirred it into the separated alfredo sauce, turning the heat on as low as it could go. Once it was stirred in, somehow I think the bechamel absorbed the whey or something (I am no cooking chemist, I just go by instinct). Anyhow - it worked! And it may work for you too :)
You can't re-integrate once yogurt is split for the reasons @SAJ14SAJ has said, the only thing you can do is to try and break the curds up as small as possible by using a blender. This will destroy any texture you have in the dish, so it may not be a workable solution for you.
I've had this happen to me many times, especially using low or non-fat yogurt. It's really hard to keep non-fat from splitting, even by using the methods below, so stick with low-fat:
Reduce the heat before adding yogurt. Adding your yogurt while the dish is cool, then heating it back up again slowly will help reduce the chances of yogurt separating
Add it in a spoon at a time. Adding it all at once will almost certainly make it separate
Using method 1 alone takes too long if you're on a time budget, what I do is turn off the heat, then after 30 seconds or so I add the yogurt in a spoon at a time, then put the heat back on. I've found that method is the fastest way to get yogurt into a dish.
It can help to puree the sauce with peeled, cooked potato. Thickens the sauce and hides the separated dairy bits. Any non-fibrous cooked veg in your stew can be incorporated into the puree, further thickening and masking the problem. Sweet potatoes, carrots, and peeled tomatoes work well, for example.
Take the dish off the heat and let cool for 5 min then take about 1/2 - 1 cup of the sauce out and add the yoghurt slowly , mix well then slowly put back in to your dish then slowly bring back to serving temp.
Welcome. The question was about fixing a sauce that was already broken, not about preventing it in the future.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.831249 | 2013-05-20T23:29:21 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34221",
"authors": [
"Annika",
"Christian Terzulli",
"Debbie Collins",
"Habtamu Enyew",
"Jeff Axelrod",
"Patrick Wood",
"Shawn V. Wilson",
"Spammer",
"eagle275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106848",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79639",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79645",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79664",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79665",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79667",
"rackandboneman",
"user79667",
"user9399422"
],
"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
} |
35354 | Does ghee make a good substitution for lard?
I'm trying out a recipe which requires sauteeing something in lard. A lot of people seem to recommend butter as a substitute for lard, but I'm not fond of sauteeing in butter, because of the low smoking point and difficulty in getting it the right heat.
So does ghee work as a substitution for lard (specifically pig lard)?
Yes, you can use ghee or oil for sauteing instead of lard.
NOTE: You will not get the same "lardy" aroma from butter, ghee or oil, but if you use other stronger aromas / spices in your recipe it might not really matter.
Clarified butter (ghee) has one of the highest smoke points of any fat. It even has a higher smoke point than lard. In general any fat can be substituted for another fat, it just depends on the taste you are looking for.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.831708 | 2013-07-17T15:14:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35354",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
39637 | Can you replace whole eggs with only egg whites when baking pumpkin pie?
I am going to be baking a pumpkin pie for Thanksgiving but me as well as several family members are currently losing weight together... I'm already replacing the sugar with stevia to dramatically drop the calorie count. BUT, the recipe calls for 4 eggs and I was wondering if I could further reduce the calories by using only egg whites instead... would this ruin the flavor of the pie? I've replaced whole eggs before when baking brownies and they came out fine, but I just want to make sure it won't severely mess up the Thanksgiving classic :)
I'm just curious, how are you handling the pie crust? Replacing the sugar in the filling and eliminating the yolks is all fine and good, but gram for gram, traditional pie crust is about as fattening as prepared food gets.
Using sugar substitute and egg whites is not going to make for as good a pie, there's no way around that. Given how many calories is in the stuff just from the pumpkin and pastry you may as well go for broke and make it taste good, otherwise what's the point? Just have a slightly smaller portion.
You'll probably get something that tastes better if you were to, say, roast a pie pumpkin (either halved, or in cubes) with the traditional pumpkin pie spices. Maybe a little maple sugar dusted on top. Trying to remove all the calories from a pumpkin pie is going to leave you with something completely unsatisfying. Good recipes include sugar, plenty of cream, & eggs, all full of lots of calories.
Pumpkin pie is basically a custard, removing the yolks could change the texture of the pie. Yolks contribute both proteins and fats to the pie which are important for the structure of the filling as well as its creaminess/smoothness. In general, two whites can be used to replace one whole egg. Avoid whipping or over-mixing the filling to prevent making the custard rubbery.Be sure not to overcook the pie, without the yolks there to emulsify the filling and lubricate the protein bundles, you could end up with a dry, curdled mess.
I would go even farther and say that the higher the yolks to whites ratio, the better the pie will be. A pie with yolks only will be silky and rich, while a pie with whites only will be rubbery and dry.
Yes, you can, but it will reduce the tenderness of the custard. It will be slightly stiffer and slightly less... erm... creamy or pudding like.
Egg whites are essentially water and protein (albumen) and set up to a more resilient and slightly rubbery texture than do egg yolks which contain significant amounts of fat and natural lecithin, which is an emulsifier.
This is why the tenderest, smoothest custards are made with only yolks, and no whites. Using whole eggs is a compromise between the two textures.
Of course, the pumpkin pie filling also has significant amounts of starch, pectin, and general pumpkin solids, so you may not notice the difference (especially if you won't be comparing two pies side by side made with different parts of the egg).
•1 large egg = 2 large egg whites •1 large egg = 1/4 cup egg
substitute •1 large egg white = 2 tablespoons egg substitute.
Considering replacing some not all the eggs in your recipe unless using an egg substitute. Remember egg whites are a drying and leavening agent.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.831805 | 2013-11-22T05:05:03 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39637",
"authors": [
"Björn",
"Deedee Summers",
"Dewitt Durham",
"GdD",
"Jolenealaska",
"derobert",
"gigi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/92020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/92021",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/92022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/92023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/92025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/92030",
"karl",
"nicholas runstedler",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
38014 | What is soy chicken and how is it prepared?
In many places in the US, I have eaten something called Soy Chicken varieties. I would like to know how this is prepared. Does anyone have any idea?
I edited this question because I think there were two distinguishable questions. If OP wants the other question answered too, feel free to ask it again as a new question, but I don't think that would work here.
Is this really about chicken or a product made to have a similar texture as chicken, but is actually made of soy?
Soy chicken is usually available at Asian grocery stores that cater to an East Asian demographic. It is normally sold as "soy ham" or "veggie ham", with "chicken" as one of the varieties available. It's usually in a sort of log shape and you just cut it to whatever size you need. It is technically already cooked, but many recipes will call for it to be coated and baked, etc.
That sounds just awful. :)
@Jolenealaska If you get over the whole "imitation meat" thing, and especially if you find one that doesn't have weird artificial meat flavor, it's actually not bad at all. It has an substantial texture, isn't prone to overcooking like meat is, and works well in dishes with other flavors. And chicken doesn't have that much flavor to begin with, so you're really not losing much.
"Soy chicken is usually available at Asian grocery". - I could not find it in any Indian supermarket or grocery store, despite being Asian grocery stores.
@BlessedGeek I made it more specific.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.832076 | 2013-10-30T18:00:16 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/38014",
"authors": [
"Baarn",
"Barry vT",
"Cascabel",
"Cynthia",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kitkat",
"Mien",
"NickG",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"anjama",
"dasmy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8717",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89494",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89495",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89515",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89568",
"josephine",
"orzechow"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
67421 | How do I reconnect cake pieces that stuck to pan?
I baked a commercial funfetti cake. When I removed it from the pan, a piece of the bottom of the cake stuck to the pan. I was able to remove those pieces with a spatula and place them on the cake.
How do I secure them to cake body? Can I just put a little frosting between the pieces or is there another way that works well?
Use icing, but thin it some, so it's not going to go on too thick. You don't want it too runny, but you want it to flow a bit on its own ... think of a self leveling compound. (because if you have to spread it in the crack, you risk tearing up the cake in the process, making the whole thing worse)
In my experience using frosting to join broken cake will just draw attention to the fact something went wrong. If the loose part is on the bottom you can rely on gravity to keep it together, and when you slice it up if it comes apart you just put it on the plate and say nothing.
If gravity is not going to do the job then frosting will work fine, but be a bit obvious. Less obtrusive is food glue, which is simply watered down white fondant icing/sugar paste.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.832338 | 2016-03-14T15:17:56 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67421",
"authors": [
"Aubrey Padaoan",
"Darryl Stawinski",
"Jane Turner",
"Joe",
"John Eiland",
"Judy Staggs",
"Marita Peak",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161932",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"lynneflapaolcom"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
67543 | Why was my carrot cake very heavy?
I made carrot cake but it turned out very heavy. Is this normal?
I followed this recipe:
2 cups all purpose flour
1/3 cup brown sugar
1 tsp each: cinnamon, salt, vanilla
2 tsp baking powder
2 eggs
1 cup each: grated carrots, sweetened coconut, raisins, various nuts
2/3 cup oil
1/2 stick butter
1/4 applesauce
Combine all dry ingredients in one bowl, all other in separate bowl. Add wet to dry and stir until combined.
Bake for 30 minutes on 350 degrees F. Let it cool in the pan for 15 minutes, then get it out and cool it on a rack.
Heavy compared to what ? or dense ? carrot cakes are heavy and dense and moist.
How are other cakes you bake in your oven at that temperature? Maybe the oven temperature is hotter than it says and you're over baking.
In my experience carrot cake is heavy and dense. I don't think I've ever had a carrot cake that you could call light and fluffy. I love carrot cake.
If I had to guess, I'd attribute it to the huge amount of stuff that's in the batter, which makes it more like a fruitcake than like a traditional cake.
You only have two cups of flour but you have four cups of carrot, coconut, raisins and nuts. This is definitely going to make a very dense cake and it sounds like it's supposed to.
This is pretty common in carrot cake recipes but it's not required. I recommend that you find a recipe designed to be more cake-y (higher flour to stuff ratio) rather than trying to fix this one. I've been really happy with the carrot cake recipe from Cook's Illustrated/America's Test Kitchen but it's behind a paywall.
The density of a cake or bread largely has to do with the leavening (bubble formation). Cakes like this one are chemically leavened: baking powder or baking soda reacts with acids in the other ingredients to create CO2 bubbles in the batter (like when you combine baking soda and vinegar). There are a lot of factors that determine the end result, including the protein content of the flour and how much the batter is mixed before baking. One significant factor in this case is the physical weight of the added ingredients (carrots, coconut, raisins, nuts). In a plain cake, the pressure from the expanding bubbles pushes the cake upwards, making it rise. If you add a bunch of stuff to the batter, the bubbles have to physically lift those chunks in order to make the cake rise. The bubbles exert the same amount of pressure, but there's more weight, so it comes out with a dense texture.
Another way of thinking about it is in terms of what would happen if you replaced some of the batter with chunks of things. The batter has the active chemicals throughout, and will form bubbles and expand. The chunks contain no bubbles, and just sit there. So with the same amount of cake, you get less bubbles, and hence less lift for the same amount of batter, leading to a dense texture.
Actually, the cake turned out very good after 2 days! Became lighter and delicious - my family loves it and asked that I make it again.
I am also going to try making some adjustments as other answers suggested, such as creaming the butter and sugar first. Thinking of eliminating the oil completely. I will let you know the results.
I'm glad folks helped you out, but this space is really reserved for answers, not saying thanks. Instead, you can upvote answers that were helpful, and optionally accept one that really helped. However... it seems you're also giving an answer here, saying that the already-baked cake got better after a couple days? So I've edited to focus on that, and please do update your answer after trying those modifications!
Brown sugar will give you a richer flavor than white sugar, but its moisture content is different. Brown sugar's higher moisture content will contribute to a denser, richer cake.
In addition, most butter-based cakes start by creaming the butter and sugar. This not only assists in dissolving the sugar to create a more homogeneous mixture, it incorporates tiny air bubbles. Those air bubbles are the foundation for that light, cakey crumb you're accustomed to in most cakes.
Try replacing some of the oil with butter, and replacing the brown sugar with white sugar (or a combination of the two). Be sure to cream butter and sugar together to get a mixture that looks like light, fluffy frosting. That will give you a head start on a lighter cake.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.832491 | 2016-03-18T18:05:28 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67543",
"authors": [
"Andrew Higginson",
"Betty Kerwin",
"Cascabel",
"Christina Moses",
"Emily",
"Escoce",
"Fernanda Freitas",
"John Kirchhoff",
"Julio",
"Margaret Rowlands",
"Marianne Baumgardner",
"Max",
"Melissa Goodman",
"Michelle Gale",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162157",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162165",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162166",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162173",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162175",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"user162164"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
34855 | Can I use only urad dal to make dosa?
I've been making dosa lately and was wondering if you could make the batter using only soaked urad dal (black lentils)? Or, do you have to include soaked rice, as well?
I am diabetic, so I am trying to make dosa batter more "diabetic-friendly," because I love them so much!
If not, what's the smallest amount of rice you can use?
Currently, I use 3 cups rice and 1 cup urad dal. I am using brown basmati rice, because it's a little better, carb-wise.
Thanks in advance for answers!
From a diabetic view, any ground carbo is a problem, not just rice
Good Indian green grocers should sell diabetic rice. I have seen them in my local shop although Im not sure what exactly diabetic rice is.
Main ingredient for making a traditional dosa is rice. Rice can't be substituted. Although you can definitely reduce the amount of rice you are using.
From what you've mentioned, you are using 3:1 rice to black lentil ratio. Using 2:1 rice to lentil ratio can also yield you similar batter without compromising the crispiness.
I am assuming that you only use rice and black lentils. You can try adding more types of lentils like Moong (Split Green Gram lentil with skin removed) or Toor Daal.
The point here is to reduce the amount of rice in per serving by adding lentil. I usually follow 4:2:1 rice to black lentil to Moong Daal ratio.
If you completely cut out rice, you can still get similar crepes using substitutes but they won't be authentic dosa. You can try Rava Dosa (Semolina Crepe) or many other substitutes mentioned here
Yes, you can make dosa without rice! I am very health-conscious and one day tried making dosa without rice and it worked very well. Moreover, this doesn't even require fermentation. Just soak urad dal for couple of hours and grind it into a smooth paste. Make the batter as thin as regular dosa batter and enjoy :)
How does this work? The fermentation is a main part of the taste and texture of the dosa? It not a just a flour pancake!
@TFD: In this recipe, fermentation isn't necessary: https://www.vegrecipesofindia.com/urad-dal-dosa-recipe/
Yes, urad dal can be used for making dosa, and fermentation is not necessary [source]. Moreover, there are many other no-rice dosas, which use:
Rava
Grated cucumber
Oats
Jowar
Moong
Masoor dal
Ragi
Bajra
Wheat
Barley
I don't know if you can make it with only dal but I made a dosa with masoor dal and rice. 2 :1 ratio. Ie more dal than rice. It turned out perfect and tasted just like a normal dosa. Rest of the steps are same. I added some methi seeds to aid fermentation
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.832869 | 2013-06-22T07:27:18 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34855",
"authors": [
"Andre Vandal",
"Lori Fay",
"Miguel Angel Moreno",
"Nav",
"Nebril",
"Neil Meyer",
"Pam",
"Spammer",
"TFD",
"Turksarama",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81292",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81298",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83459",
"jmkriz"
],
"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
} |
56715 | How long can food last if reheated periodically?
Say I fixed some stew that's been in the refrigerator for around three days. Will putting that stew in a pot, heating it up to around 170F (77C), and letting it simmer for a while make it last longer in the refrigerator? And if so, then can this be done (nearly) indefinitely?
I think the answer is yes, because whatever microbes have had an opportunity to take root in the food will have been killed by the high temperatures, but I am not sure about whatever biproducts that might remain (e.g. toxic chemicals exuded by the microbes as part of their metabolism or something).
Yes, it will "make it last longer in the fridge" for a certain definition of "last longer": it will not mould nor infect other foodstuffs in the fridge if it doesn't come into direct contact with any of them.
Is it still safe to eat after a few of these re-heatings? Very probably not!
Elaboration: More then half of the number of cells in your body are actually bacteria; bacteria don't generally kill you but the toxins they release is what kills you. E.g. Botulinum Toxinum D (one of the toxins released during Botulism) has an LD50 of 0.4 ng/kg, which means that you need about 500g (a pound) to kill 99.9% of all human beings on the entire planet...
(And that is for just a few re-heatings; for "nearly indefinitely" we need to bring extremophiles in the equation...)
Related, but not identical question
Here's a more generalized version of that same question: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16872/can-one-preserve-food-by-periodically-heating-it. It's also worth mentioning that quality and nutritional value will degrade with each re-heating, so this definitely can't be done any more than a few times for multiple reasons.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.833084 | 2015-04-16T13:29:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56715",
"authors": [
"Anonymous",
"Dominique Burro",
"Greta Wagner",
"Joanne Paquette",
"Larry Carson",
"gerda de weerd",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134876",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
22587 | Can I freeze stir-fry vegetables?
I have been buying pre-cut and prepped stir-fry veggies at Trader Joe's and I was wondering if I could freeze my own bags of veggies. Would there be any issues with cutting up stir-fry veggies and freezing them in a conventional home freezer? Are there any veggies that do not freeze well to stay away from? Are there some that work especially well?
You will have the best results if you prep by cutting and blanching prior to freezing. This should ensure that moisture content in the veggies does less damage over time in the freezer and improve color duration. I find it helpful to freeze vegetables separately rather than as mixes as you can always grab from multiple bags, but you can't unmix mixed vegetables without more work.
The majority of vegetables for stir-fry (e.g. broccoli, peas, etc) will freeze well enough, the ones in your freezer aisle obviously freeze a bit better than others. If a vegetable has a high water content (i.e. lettuce, which I hope you aren't stir-frying with) that is more integral to its structure than the cellulose it is likelier to burst cell walls in freezing; these vegetables are better to avoid.
I take it Bok Choy is similar to lettuce in it's high water content and ill-fit for the freezer?
@ben Freezing Bok Choy doesn't do too well as far and eating again raw, but kale and chard will. I am not entirely sure why. However you have the options of freezing loose and flat then storing in bags for cooking down (and stir-frying), or dehydrating. Dessicating (i.e. by sprinkling some salt on the surface) might aid in removing moisture, which would help the freezing to not destroy the cell walls.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.833249 | 2012-03-27T17:02:47 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22587",
"authors": [
"Bobbie D",
"Carrara",
"Kurt Leadley",
"Noah Spurrier",
"Sam",
"Zelda",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50871",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50878",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50880",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7778",
"mfg"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
32054 | Homemade mayonnaise difficulties
I have been trying to make mayonnaise and have had no luck. I have tried it 4 times now, twice in a Blendtec blender following their instructions online and twice following these directions . Each time the mayonnaise came out like yellow stinky soup.
I have been adding the oil very slowly, it takes about 2 minutes to add a cup. I have let my eggs warm up to room temperature for an hour. I have bought fresh eggs.
It looks so simple, but I am having no luck. Please help.
Related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12134/making-mayo-by-hand-using-whisk-emulsion-breaks-down
That YouTube method is bizarre, adding all the oil at once. You're saying 'eggs' - I assume you're only using the yolks, yes?
Why was it "stinky"? Even if it's not a nice mayo, it shouldn't smell bad.
For the immersion blender method, how narrow is the container you use? I use that method myself and it doesn't work at all unless the head of the blender barely fits at the bottom of the glass. And for the record that method works with whole eggs too, I don't bother separating.
this method works just fine, i think the problem the OP is running into is the blender he's using. The stick blender isn't nearly as powerful as the blendtec. I am assuming by the soup your looking at an overmixed emulsion kind of like if you were to whip cream too long and it turned to butter and forced out all of the moisture. I would try doing it by hand first with a whisk so you get the hang of what its supposed to look like.
What type of oil are you using? It isn't easy with olive oil, it works better with canola and such.
How long are you leaving the blender on for? I don't see how if you dumped all the ingredients into something as powerful as a Blentec and left it running for 3-4 minutes at max speed that it wouldn't emulsify the sauce.
You might want to try it by hand with a whisk first, rather than going straight to a blender, though a blender will work fine (though I've only done it with a standing blender, not an immersion blender) The key I've found is the very slow addition of the oil to the beaten egg yolks. (only yolks, no white). You might want to taste your oil to make sure that it isn't rancid, which might be the cause of your "stinky" issue. It does take some practice to pour the oil in slowly while you are beating the yolks, but you can add more oil at a time as your emulsion gets more stable.
I've found that it's not so hard to do by hand, and that you will get a real sense of accomplishment once you've done it.
Secure you bowl so you can use both hands - one to wisk and one to pour the oil in a thin, steady stream, while you beat the emulsion really fast. That should do the trick (the arm workout is an added bonus)
The all-at-once, egg at the bottom, oil on top, add vinegar/lemon juice, salt - STICK BLENDER method- works fine almost every time. Otherwise I couldn't do it. That s..l..o..w drip method is too hard for me.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.833426 | 2013-02-19T17:47:19 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32054",
"authors": [
"Betty Cox",
"Brendan",
"Daniel Platon",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Emily Anne",
"Jay",
"Joshua Kast",
"Lindsay Dawson",
"Mien",
"Sean Regan",
"Stefano",
"Steve",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10884",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144720",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73718",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73869",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"nickc"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
38250 | Digital meat thermometer that does not cause juice losses
Sometimes when I'm trying a new cooking method that uses different cooking temperatures compared to what I use normally, I find it difficult to estimate when my roast/meat is done.
Digital meat thermometers that make a noise when the internal temperature reaches a certain value are therefore attractive to me. However, when I have used meat thermometers (I have not used one of those digital thermometers where you leave the probe inside the meat during cooking) and penetrate the meat with the probe, juices start to leak out when I then remove the probe and the meat will start to dry out.
How do you usually deal with this? How do you use meat thermometers and prevent juice losses?
Another note:
Is there an information sheet somewhere that tells you, approximately, how long you have to cook different kinds of meat products on a lbs basis to meet target internal temperatures or meat texture (e.g. rare, medium, well done, etc.)?
http://www.seriouseats.com/2013/05/ask-the-food-lab-is-it-ok-to-probe-my-meat.html?ref=search http://bbq.about.com/od/grillingfaq/f/f071204c.htm
While I heartily recommend a remote probe thermometer that you can leave in your meat and have a readout outside of the oven, it is only for convenience. Piercing the meat with a thermometer (or fork, etc) isn't going to cause any significant loss of juice. You may rupture a couple of cells right where the thermometer went in, but that's it. Your meat isn't just a water-balloon of juices waiting to be popped, so you needn't worry.
Myth: Never use a fork to turn meat
Is it ok to probe my meat?
I really recommend using a thermometer you leave in the oven. It saves you a lot of trouble, especially because you don't need to take the meat out of the oven and you don't have to worry about drying out your meat.
Analog versions are left completely in the oven, however it might be hard to read the temperature as you have to adjust the thermometer to face the oven door. Using them with closed baking dish is impossible.
The digital ones I know, have the probe inside the oven. A heat-proof cable which is small enough not to cause any problems with the oven door, is then connected to a screen. Or in more fancier versions, to an antenna that transmits the data to the screen.
A lot of those already have programs available to cook your meat to a desired point. You stick the probe into the meat and just wait for the core to reach a certain temperature. You don't have to worry about time, just watch the temperature climb up until the meat is done. The only thing you need to take care of is to stick the tip of the probe close to the center of the piece of meat.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.833686 | 2013-11-07T20:46:37 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/38250",
"authors": [
"Alex",
"D. Gibbs",
"Deena_1998 ",
"John Goudy",
"Liam F-A",
"Mien",
"Stefanie",
"Tom Painter",
"William Rosenstein",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90094",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90095",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90101",
"raznagul"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
36094 | How to do a beer-butt chicken?
A friend of mine told me how great Beer-Butt Chicken is. Apparently you take a chicken and beer flavors it in well, the butt. How can I cook the chicken like that while keeping the beer in the chicken?
The more traditional name for this is "beer can chicken," which might help explain things.
this has been covered : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/4752/67
If you google beer can chicken, you will find many, many recipes and descriptions.
The basic idea is that you use a half-empty beer can as stand for the chicken, placing the chicken's cavity on top of the can before roasting or grilling.
The idea is that the aroma from the beer will transfer to the chicken, and the steam will help keep it moist.
You can even buy commercial racks to do the same thing without the beer can.
My personal opinion is that both of these ideas are bunk:
Very few if any aromatic molecules will transfer to the chicken, and even if they do, they will not penetrate past the surface
The steam will not keep the chicken moist, as the dryness of the meet is essentially a function only of the temperature to which you cook it, and very little else. If the chicken is cooked to too high a temperature, then the proteins will tighten up and express water making the chicken tough, rubbery, and dry tasting. The minimal amount of steam cannot change this fact.
Totally agree with your personal opinions on these. My personal theory is that beer can chicken is popular mainly because of its novelty. A properly brined and roasted chicken is the way to go.
Not only it's questionable whether the beer flavour transfer to the chicken, what does get transferred is the likely non-food-grade ink on the can. First hand, I can tell you the ink left an awful taste and heaven knows what kind of chemicals. The vertical roaster racks, however, do a much better job.
This article from meathead hits it dead on the head:
Debunking Beer Can Chicken: A Waste Of Good Beer (And It Is Dangerous)
I have cooked many "beer can style" chickens. I use something similar to this. I have found that beer does not flavor the meat very much but I have used wine, chicken stock and especially aromatics such as onions and garlic in the "can" part really seasons the chicken well. Another trick is to try to close the neck-hole as much as possible. Around here, chickens are generally butchered with a little bit of neck and I try to push that closed. Granted a little bit of room for steam to escape is good. I have also used an actual can that I cut the top off and had the similar results but it tipped very easily.
There has been testing on the cooking for engineers site which shows that using beer doesn't actually impart any real flavor. What really makes a difference in flavor of chicken is a) getting a good quality chicken in the first place, and b) marinading or brining, and c) not overcooking it. Get yourself some good chicken and a decent meat thermometer and go to town.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.833949 | 2013-08-18T15:07:59 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36094",
"authors": [
"Athena22410",
"Cag",
"Dinesh",
"Helenagnes",
"JAre",
"James McLeod",
"Joe",
"Mansoorkhan Cherupuzha",
"amethyst_deceiver",
"chadwick crawford",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84668",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84678",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84689",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84745",
"jkraybill",
"ohneVal"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
22842 | How should I control the time and temperature when baking two dishes?
I want to cook multiple dishes at the same time using a conventional oven. A 9x 13 pan with potatoes should bake in an oven of 350 degrees F for 45 minutes. The other dish, a ham, should be in a 325 degree F oven for about 2 hours and 15 minutes.
How long can the potato dish be cooked for at 325? Any help would be appreciated. This will be done for Sunday dinner while at church. Please help.
The ham should rest for at least 15 minutes after cooking, and probably longer than that. So you could put the potatoes into the oven when the ham has 20 or 25 minutes remaining, and then when you take the ham out, increase the temperature to 350-375F and continue cooking the potatoes while the ham rests for 15-20 minutes.
I would put your oven at 325 for both. Put in the ham and after 1 hour 15 minutes, put in the other dish. Let them bake together for about an hour.
I wouldn't recommended doing this while you're not at home, but that's your own choice.
The ham can also be cooked at 300. For about 3 hours. If you cook it in a closed container a little over cooking shouldn't cause any problem there. At 300 you will probably need about 1:20 but if it has to be in for 1:30 it should not be overdone.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.834226 | 2012-04-06T17:36:03 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22842",
"authors": [
"Justin Hamilton",
"Torrezno",
"brenda",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51558",
"itscaro",
"ruskin23",
"vibhav"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
22384 | How should I organize making a cake days ahead?
My wife's birthday is coming up and I want to make a cake for her.
I was thinking of making a layer of sponge cake, amarena cherry sauce (cherries, wine and sugar), chocolate mousse, another layer of sponge cake with sauce, Diplomat cream and amarena cherries on top.
The problem is that I won't have time the day we eat the cake (Saturday) and the day before (Friday), so I need to make it in advance. I'm thinking of preparing the sponge cake, cherry sauce and chocolate mousse on Thursday and build the bottom layers and put it in the freezer. I can make the Diplomat cream on Friday morning, save it in the refrigerator, and build the rest on Saturday (after we'll arrive home).
Does this sounds like a good plan? is it better to just make the pastry cream on Friday and mixed it with the whipped cream on Saturday? Can the cake and the mousse wait for two days?
I edited your question quite a bit. We only answer constructive questions. The part where you asked our opinion (if this cake would be good enough), can't be answered objectively. You can ask another question if there is something not clear in the recipe you chose. I changed your second question to make it a bit more clear.
I forgot to mention this in my previous comment: if you aren't sure of your choice of cake, feel free to discuss it in our chat room.
I wouldn't make the layers fully in the freezer. It will be hard to seal up and may dry out. Also, frozen layers are easier to work with. The freezer will dry out unsealed cake extremely fast.
I'd bake all the cake, trim and level them, wrap tightly and freeze on Thursday. Make the sauces and creams on Friday and put them in the fridge. Assemble all on Saturday.
I think cherry sauce can be prepared on Thursday without a problem, just like the chocolate mousse (when prepared correctly) and kept in the fridge (I don't know how much time the OP has on Friday morning).
@Mien You certainly could, I just trying to make it as close to time as possible to extend the shelf life for leftovers. If the OP is planning on having no leftover cake, then make it anytime in the 3-5 days beforehand.
@rfusca Hi,Thank you both for your replies. I don't have much time on Friday.
It seems to me that all can be prepared on Thursday except for the cream.
I still have two Dillemas: saving the cake and moussse separated from each other or built in layers and if it's better to save the cream before adding the whipped cream (and add it on Saturday) or after
@yuchtman I'd save them seperate from each other, unless you think you can sufficiently wrap stacked cakes tightly for the freezer (I'm not sure how you could accomplish that without squeezing out the mousse). As far as the dipolmat cream - if you're doing it with a thickener like gelatin, it should be fine to make ahead.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.834371 | 2012-03-19T10:32:43 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22384",
"authors": [
"Anne",
"Gord Thompson",
"Mien",
"Orophen",
"Stefan Fischer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50344",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9551",
"rfusca",
"yuchtman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
36127 | Freezing an unbaked pie
I combined sugar and flour and mixed with frozen blackberries and placed in unbaked pie crust, dotted with butter and froze. Will this turn out all right when I bake it?
Yes, since the blueberries were already frozen, you are unlikely to have them making the crust soggy. It should work out well.
You will want to bake it from frozen, probably, rather than thawing. You might want to slightly lower the oven temperature since it will need a little longer, and you don't want the crust to over brown.
You should be able to do this without any big issues.
If you aren't starting with frozen fruit take your pie pan, line with foil add your fruit mixture and freeze separately, once frozen remove and assemble your pie in the frozen state.
Makes it easy to bake a pie on short notice or when items aren't in season.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.834714 | 2013-08-19T13:47:11 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36127",
"authors": [
"ChefJesseB",
"Peter Cohen",
"Sara",
"gurghet",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84735",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84736",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84737",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84760",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84764",
"kizmetkat999",
"richgkav"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
40073 | How is this kind of cattle called?
I've heard of beef, not specifically "veal", where the animal can be older but has had mostly a milk diet and been restricted of physical movement, preventing muscle development, making for softer and more tender cuts of meat throughout the whole animal. Is this true? What's this meat called?
Certainly sounds like veal to me, and the nasty kind as well.
@ElendilTheTall If you mean "nasty" like I assume you mean, I concur. I'm a carnivore, but I draw the line at veal. That's just cruel.
@Jolenealaska. You might be interested to know that in the UK, we produce 'rose veal' - the calves are treated differently, under the auspices of the RSPCA, the meat is pink in colour, and usually, it's bull calves which have been produced by dairy cows; these would otherwise have been slaughtered at birth, given they can't produce milk.
The length of the life means much less than the quality. Is this "veal" that doesn't involve unreasonable bondage? I'm all for that. Even if I don't care to eat it.
I believe the cattle you're referring to are Japanese Waygu - there are a number of breeds under this rubric, but there are notable points:
Genetic predisposition to exceptional marbling and tenderness
The animals are hand-massaged by the farmer, due to insufficient space for the cattle to wander freely
Grain fed rather than grass fed, as the cattle is generally tethered or penned for its life.
A heifer is a young cow that hasn't had babies yet, but it eats like a regular cow.
Are you referring to Kobe beef perhaps?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.834831 | 2013-12-08T14:35:21 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40073",
"authors": [
"David Ghobril",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Herbalistics 9",
"Jolenealaska",
"SYDNEY MILLER",
"Spammer",
"andyk",
"bamboo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93150",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93153",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93243",
"icecreamery dave"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
26049 | Can agar-agar be used in fondant icing in place of gelatin?
Can china grass (agar-agar) be used as a substitute to gelatin in fondant cake icing?
Hello Poonam, and welcome to the site. I deleted your second question because I thought it was quite unrelated. Feel free to ask it again in a new question though.
I'd prefer if the OP didn't ask that (now deleted) question again, as the answer is trivial to look up...
Yes, there are several vegetarian fondant recipes using agar. Most tend to substitute it for gelatin in equal amounts.
Keep in mind two things:
Agar has a much higher melting point and sets firmer than gelatin, so the resulting icing will be less "melty".
The hydration process is completely different from gelatin. It doesn't bloom; it needs to be dispersed in cold/warm water and then heated all the way up to 90° C with constant agitation.
I'd recommend that you include the glycerin in any agar-based fondant recipes - they'll make it a lot easier to work with. Some gelatin recipes leave it out but IME you need it more for agar.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.835017 | 2012-09-08T06:17:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/26049",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Mien",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
33673 | Constructions of Lego Bricks Made of Cake
My friends and I had this idea while drunk one night, to create a big batch of small cakes shaped like LEGO bricks and interlock them into a larger, round cake. Morning came, and we grew daunted by the task we had set, so promptly gave up. My question then, is this: were we right to give up, or is this actually a possibility?
My primary concern is that cake seems a fairly fragile material. The hollowing process for creating the bricks may spell an end for it right from the start, and even if it can survive that, how well will it be able to stack without collapsing on itself?
Secondary is a concern over the interlocking, how difficult would it be to allow modular construction and destruction? The original idea was only for a bigger cake, but if it works well that won't be where it stops.
Are there any techniques that could make this task more tractable? Cake recipes that might withstand the stresses better?
Whatever you were drinking, either drink it a lot more, or stay away from it completely... I am not sure which...
If you insist on that idea, you'll fare better if you tried to make Lego cookies and stack them. Choose a stiff cookie, for example lady fingers
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned lego-brick-shaped cake pans. You can't really build with them (since they don't have the indentations on the bottom), but you can use them as the top layer of a sheet cake to quickly and easily make something that looks like you built it out of bricks.
You never said what size the cake had to be, or how well it had to actually hold together.
If you make too large of a cake, it's not going to work -- cake is heavy enough that as you get larger, you need to add additional supports. Most multi-tier cakes have some sort of rods (plastic or wood) placed in them to help support the upper levels. If you make it too small, you won't have sufficiently sized knobs for it to actually be able to hold anything.
Most professional cakes are more dense than your home-baked cakes, to help get around this issue, and you can chill them to help firm them up before stacking. If you're going for a recipe from scratch, look for a pound cake recipe. If you're using a box mix, you can add in a packet of instant vanilla pudding mix and reduce the temperature by 25°F / 15°C but increase the time.
Size will be an issue as the larger that you get in a single cake, the weaker it's going to be; the bit of crust that you get from the pan is more significant the smaller the cake is. It'll also be stronger when the dimensions are all close (ie, more cube-like), as you don't have issues with things breaking off due to slenderness.
Your next issue is the connections. As we're not dealing with plastic, we can attempt to take advantage of two things -- friction, and compression. To get friction, we need the surface to be rough and fairly strong ... and this means that carving it down is right out, it'd have to be cast directly if it's going to have any strength. You'll likely have to play with the sizing of the holes vs. the knobs, but you'll want the knobs to be large enough that it's a press-fit, and takes a little effort to seat them (compressing the knob in the process), but not so much force is applied to the cake that it causes a failure at the wall around the hole. If it were me, I'd try to make the knob between 1/3 to 1/2 the length of the cake, and the knob stick up 1/4 of the depth.
And now you're wondering of course how both the top and bottom could be cast -- by making two molds, and gluing the top and bottom together using icing. Depending on the strength required, you might have to add some rods to pin it together ... but one vertically through the knob will only help you in compression and sheer, not tension. For that, you'd need three or more diagonally through the knob in a radial pattern. I'd personally avoid the supports, with the argument that it's no longer fully edible, and might not be a cake anymore. (and those who enter gingerbread cake competitions would instead just use something edible as the rod, like an un-bent candy cane).
So, to summarize:
You'll need two molds, one for the upper, one for the lower, bake, level, then join them together.
The knobby bits in theory should be 1/3 to 1/2 the length of the side, and about 1/4 of the total height
The knobby bits should be slightly wider than the hole they're fitting into.
Avoid slender pieces (ie, no 1x4 pieces; 1x1 or maybe 1x2)
Stiffen the cake with gelatin, refrigeration, and bake at a lower temp (but you need to cook it longer to get a bit of crust to form)
And now, for the reason it just won't work :
If they're lego shaped, they're rectangular ... and you can't make a smooth circle out of a bunch of rectangles, at least not until the diameter of the circle is significantly larger than the width of the rectangles ... but we have the slenderness issues, so you'd be making a whole bunch of 1x2 pieces to stick together and it'd be quite tedious.
Depending on what you're willing to qualify as 'cake', this could be possible to make out of gingerbread (as used for cookies and houses, not cake), but you'd have to dry it so far that it'd not cut like a conventional cake. (make it from layers, then laminate them to make individual pieces, you might have to use hole saws after they're dried to get the proper sized knobs and holes, and then sand to get 'em perfect)
I was thinking about either carving the edges, or casting edge pieces specifically. Good explanation of the stresses involved, and how to stiffen the cake for less fragility.
And as SAJ14SAJ has mentioned -- part of this is speculative ... but I also have a degree in civil engineering (although have never practiced it professionally) -- the inability for a cake to support tension is the same problem you have with concrete -- and have done a fair bit of cake decorating through the years.
You could certainly build a cake to look like it is made of Lego blocks.
However, I don't think that any cake is going to be strong enough to actually play with and move around, even if you could be precise enough to make the bumps fit the holes (or mortises fit the tenons or whatever the right terminology is for a Lego block).
Even the firmest strongest cake (probably a dense pound cake) will not stand up to that kind of treatment. Cake is not smooth like plastic, so you would need considerable clearance. The holes would have to be significantly larger than the bumps. Cake also has essentially no strength in tension (pulling it apart is easy), even though it can stand some compression (as demonstrated by the wedding cake industry—and even there, often there are dowels and cake circles in the construction to fortify it) The top cake would just rest on the bottom cake by gravity, not be joined.
You certainly would not find any cake that you can actually join together so that they could be picked up as a unit through the strength of the joint.
Then there is the issue of construction; you would either need to create custom molds, or somehow hollow out the holes, and join the bumps on. Neither of those are going to be very robust.
Now, for looks, just google "lego cake image"....
As you always seem to complain about downvoting, and I so rarely do it -- my justification is argument from ignorance
I stand by my answer. While you could certainly make such cakes that could be stacked once under gravity and compression, due to the minimal tensile strength of cake, the high friction of cake on cake (and worse friction of icing on cake if used in the construction), being able to played with or permitting "modular construction and destruction" as asked in the question is an extremely difficult goal. I certainly don't believe you could build anything that could be lifted by the top cake--that is be truly snapped together. It is more than a rigorous enough analysis for a drunken question.
re-read the original question ... the ability to re-use the cake was a secondary concern ... and he never once said that you had to be able to lift the whole thing from a top-most cake. But any lego fan would know that if you build too large of a structure you can't necessarily lift it from a single piece.
If you don't move them, its essentially cosmetic in any case. Which goes back to all of the google images.
you can't lift a full cake from its top tier, either ... you have to support it from the bottom. This is why my first statement of my answer was that he hadn't fully specified what the requirements were. Everyone has their own opinion for what are the defining characteristics of an item are. If you want to be able to move it easily, you could use the gingerbread idea to make a base plate to construct everything on top of it. (but it might need to be set on top of a sheet of MDF or plywood for really large sizes)
Legos work because the material they are made from is both elastic and durable, and they are designed to take advantage of this - the "nubs" atop the brick can be forced into the cavity at the bottom of another with an audible snap. More, if you look in the bottom of the brick, you will see various structures built into the brick to reinforce the shape of the piece, and keep it under enough tension to keep the other brick plugged into it.
Cake has two problems -
1) it's not very elastic or rigid, being made of cake.
2) It cannot be engineered to retain its shape, as cake is by necessity has much thicker walls.
3) It will bake into an unpredictable shape, even in a mold - you will need to trim and carve out hollows for the nubs underneath.
You will be relying on the coarse friction to keep the pieces together, and... and... and... nevermind. I can see you really want to build a lego cake. Have at it.
I think it could be done as my wife makes plain victoria-style sponge cake so light that you can barely feel you're holding it. As your question specified making lots of small cakes, I would suggest that rectangular blocks, about 2" x 1" x 1" (50mm x 25mm x 25mm) would be ideal. In volume they'd be about half the size of a cupcake. I know that you can get rectangular cake moulds. I wouldn't worry about the underside of the cakes too much, but I'd make an inlay to put in the bottom of the moulds to get the Lego shaped top.
Once they're cooked, you could carve a small amount out of the bottom for the "nubs" to fit into. You won't get a "snap-fit", but I reckon that for your purposes you'd be happy just to have them look right, and let gravity hold them together.
Off-topic, you've inspired me to try to make a set of Tetris cake moulds.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.835143 | 2013-04-22T19:54:24 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33673",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Marti",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sconibulus",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17986",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
35420 | What makes certain fruits work well in savory dishes?
Lime and lemon zest / juice are probably the most common example I can think of, but there are others. Pineapple, for example, can be found grilled, on Hawaiian pizza, or with kebabs.
What specific characteristics make certain fruits, which are mostly eaten raw or in sweet/lighter dishes, work also in savory dishes?
There are different characteristics in fruit that can cause them to complement savory dishes. The reason why adding a dash of citrus to savory dishes is so common is that a bit of acidity can bring out other flavors in a dish and make it taste "brighter". Some chefs also use vinegars for this.
Other fruits are used to play off of specific flavors. For instance, the sweetness of some fruits like (like pineapple or melon) can play well off of spicy or salty dishes. Hence the popularity of pineapple with ham or chiles, or melon with prosciutto.
Beyond that it can get a bit more complicated. In some cases, the characteristics of the fruit can help to play off of contrasting flavors in a dish (here is a chart), but in others there can be flavoring compounds shared between items that make them complement each other(And here is more about that.)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.835951 | 2013-07-20T19:08:45 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35420",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83915",
"user83915"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
34779 | homemade pizza - getting the dough crispy
When I put my pizza in the hot oven, the top crust gets blackened, but the bottom crust doesn't really cook enough. I want the bottom crust, the part that is underneath the cheese and tomato sauce, I'd like that to cook well and the very bottom of the crust to be CRUSTY. It's always too limp for me and even a little raw, but if I keep it in the oven longer, the top gets black and is not good.
How hot is your oven? Do you use a baking stone?
Where in the oven do you put the pizza (bottom, middle, top)? I use a stone on the lowest rung, and there's never a risk of the top blackening (if anything, I'd like it to blacken just a little more before the bottom crust is done). Curious if having the pizza too close to the top might contribute to your problem.
In general, getting a crispy bottom crust for home made pizza with typical home ovens can be very, very challenging, as home ovens do not generally get much hotter than 500-550 F (260-285 C).
In side the home oven, you have several options to improve your crust:
Use a pizza stone
Use a "pizza steel", essentially a slab of food grade steel used much the same way a pizza stone is used. Kenji alt of Serious Eats rates this very highly.
In either case, you pre-heat your oven to its maximum temperature with the stone or steel in it, and then slide the pizza (from a peel) onto the preheated surface. The absorbed heat in the stone or steel helps cook and crisp your bottom crust.
See also: How to cook a thin crispy pizza on a pizza stone
If you have a grill, you can also make grilled pizza outside.
Taking it even further, you can buy accessories for some grills that turn them into improvised pizza ovens.
Lastly, there are other styles of pizza where you allow the crust to essentially fry in olive oil in the bottom of the pan, to crisp up. This is a very different pizza experience, but can be hugely enjoyable.
A cast iron frying pan or griddle also works, even though they can be a bit more troublesome to use, but they are often much cheaper and more readily available
This is a common problem with residential ovens and pizza.
One thing you can try is double baking it:
Spread a not-too-thick layer of pizza sauce on your dough and stick it in the oven.
After a few minutes, pull it out and put the rest of the toppings on.
You can also try moving the pizza tray to lowest rack in the oven. That way the heat from the bottom element dominates and helps making the pizza crust crispier. Be careful though, it may turn black and you wouldn't even know it until it's too late!
If you are overloading the pizza with wet ingredients (sauce, cheese, etc) then they are going to soak and fight making the bottom crispier, try using thicker sauces and less cheese. It helps to run the oven as hot as it goes (usually 550°F).
You may also want to experiment with placing an inverted lasagna tray over the pizza for the first 10 minutes or so to prevent the top from going black.
Finally, a pizza stone or steel can help but only if you're making one pizza (per hour or so) and you'll have to leave them in the top rack under the broiler for quite some time to store enough heat to make your dough crispy.
I've found that the following keep my pizza dough crispy:
Preheat the oven as high as it'll go with the pizza stone (or, if you don't have one, an upside-down cookie sheet, but it might warp the cookie sheet) in it for about a half hour
Drain the tomatoes (if using canned) for the sauce for as long as humanly possible. Then add garlic, red pepper, salt, whatever, blend it - but don't cook it, and don't get much liquid in it.
Don't use bufala mozzarella. It's too wet. Use aged cheeses.
Don't put too much on your pizza. If you're using things like mushrooms, saute them briefly to dry them out a tiny bit.
Make sure your dough is thin enough.
Lightly coat a piece of parchment paper with cornmeal or semolina flour. Put your pizza dough on that. Add the toppings, drizzle with a little olive oil, and then when it's ready, put the whole thing - paper included - on the pizza stone. Cook 10-15 minutes. It hasn't failed me yet.
I have worked on getting my crust really crispy and have found the following steps have really worked. Just an FYI, I use a pizza stone so my tip assumes you have a pizza stone. I put the pizza stone on the middle rack of my oven.
Preheat your oven with the pizza stone inside the oven to the highest temperature it goes up to (mine reaches 525F). When it is done preheating, let the pizza stone sit in the hot oven for 45 minutes to an hour. You want the pizza stone to be as hot as possible before putting the pizza in.
Roll the dough out as thin as possible. I use a rolling pin to ensure the dough is thin and does not break in the middle.
Before putting anything on the crust (sauce, cheese, toppings), cook the crust in the oven for 3-4 minutes. This will limit the amount of moisture on the crust allowing it to get a little more crispy. Also, since traditional ovens do not get as hot as pizza ovens, the dough needs more time to get crispy.
Take the crust out of the oven and add the sauce, cheese, and toppings to the crust. Put the pizza back in the oven, cook for 3-4 minutes, turn the pizza 180 degrees, and cook another 3-4 minutes.
This should really crisp up your pizza!!!
I've always found pizza stones awkward, and I've never developed the skill for transferring a raw pizza from peel to stone. Now I use the method taught by Chef John. Chef John's Pizza He prepares the pizza on an aluminum sheet pan, and cooks it in a 450 F oven. He starts it on the floor of the oven, not the lowest rack. After 5 minutes there, he moves it up to the middle rack for about 5 more.
He does this in a gas oven. I do it in an electric oven, and it works great. I rest the steel rack on the heating elements, and the sheet pan on the rack. I like a little bit of golden brown on the underside of my pizza, and this does it. No more spilling cornmeal all over the oven, or accidentally making my pizza into a calzone. You can adjust the top vs. bottom doneness by the relative time on the oven floor vs. the middle rack.
He uses the dough recipe from W. Puck.
Just tried this yesterday, works perfectly!
Pizza Steel! Even better results than pizza stone for me.
Important: needs to be raw steel, no stainless steel since the heat transmission of raw steel is higher.
I preheat for ~1h (8mm steel) and bake 4 pizzas sequentially, the first for 4 minutes, the last one for ~7m.
And it doesn't need to be the specialized product: there are loads of webshops offering custom-cut metal products where you can order one that fits your oven. Or go to a local metal shop and ask there...
bbq plate cut to fit grill.
can get plate hot hot on stove top. then slide in grill!
I haven't perfected it but thats sort of what i do.
Can you try expanding and clarifying this, to add value.
Very simple!
First you pre-heat your oven, 475-500 degrees.
Once it is heated, you take your pizza pan, spray it with some non-stick cooking spray, then spread your dough out onto your pizza pan.
*If after you spread your dough out on the pan, you then spray your pizza dough with the same non-stick cooking spray, that will help seal the dough, so that your sauce & cheese don't make it soggy.
Cook your pizza dough for 6-7 min. depending on the heat of your oven, you may want to keep an eye on it.
Take it out and immediately spread your sauce, toppings etc, and bake for 10-?? minutes, again depending on the oven heat, and desired "doneness".
Most of the cooking method solutions have been covered (i.e. pre-heated pizza stone). One thing I'd like to add, is that you can get a crispier crust by using bread flour to make the dough, due to it's higher gluten content. The dough will be more elastic, so you'll have to spend a bit more time rolling it to get it thin, but it's worth it.
I'm not experienced at this sort of thing but have tried my own hand at it and experimented a little. The method I've used to make a thin and crispy pizza base that's actually crispy:
Make your basic dough: Roughly a cup of flour with a teaspoon of salt mixed with about half a cup of warm prepared liquid (Of the liquid I use roughly 2/3 water, 1/3 milk, about a teaspoon of sugar and yeast plus about a tablespoon of oil - give it a stir and leave it to sit a few mins). Kneed it on a lightly floured surface for 5-10 mins, dusting lightly with flour until it feels fairly elastic.
At this stage, I quickly rub a baking tray all over with olive oil and butter and pop it in the top of the oven, putting the oven on max.
While that heats up, I roll out the dough to fill the tray, but I've taken to lightly rubbing my hand in butter and gently rubbing the top of the dough to give it a very thin layer of butter. Fold in half and roll again. Repeat. This is approaching what you might do with pastry but helps to keep thing seperated and crispier layers. Personal taste. Once it's rolled to shape, take the tray out the oven (BE CAREFUL). Put your base on it and lightly oil the top. Return to oven.
Keep an eye on it - you're looking for a golden brown before you take it out. Don't take it out too early or it'll not be as crispy as it could be.
Once it's golden brown with a crispy surface, top it with your preferred toppings and return to the oven. When it's darkened a bit, take it out and enjoy. Crunch :)
The ONLY way is to use a pizza stone, the thicker the better. Let the oven heat up (as high as it will go) with the stone in it and then wait another 30-60 min for the stone to fully absorb the heat around it. If you can find some, get something called Pizza Crisp (google it) Pull your stone out, toss some pizza crispy down on it and put your already made pizza on top of it. Put the stone back in the oven. The pizza crisp actually heats up and "explodes" leaving tiny pockets and raising the dough up a little which aids in the crisping process. You can achieve the same effect with some short grain rices. There will be tiny ashes left under your crust but they just fall away after you slice and grab your pieces of pizza. I've owned and operated a pizza place for over 15yrs, so I guess my answer should have been ….call a pizza place.
You say that the "ONLY" way is... but you proceed to offer other suggestions. Also, there are clearly other answers here, yet you haven't offered any reason why they aren't valid? Answer would be more useful if you left in the section about Pizza Crisp and removed everything else. Also googling pizza crisp wasn't very useful to me... Perhaps you can provide an image or a link to what you're talking about? It actually seems like your whole answer is an excuse to arrogantly say "call a pizza place".
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.836104 | 2013-06-19T15:23:29 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34779",
"authors": [
"Aiswaran Devaraj",
"Bakis Green vlog",
"Gibbons",
"Martin Melichar",
"Mien",
"Mikhail",
"O. Jones",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Stefan",
"Tom Hopwood",
"googleadstraining123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81119",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99296",
"joy chera",
"nsfm",
"talon8",
"zoned post meridiem"
],
"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
} |
34614 | My chutney is too thick
I made two batches of chutney a week ago, one with tomato, apple and raisins, the other one with plum and cranberries. Making the chutney I added all the usual spices, sugar, vinegar etc. but I tried one of the jars and it is way too thick. Could I take the chutneys out of the jars and put them in a pot with some apple juice to heat up? Would this lighten it and would it be okay? As you may have guessed I have never made chutney before. I hope someone can help.
What is your intended use of the chutney? If you're going to be using it on its own (eg, as a spread or dip) you can warm it up ... if you're going to be using it in something with moisture (eg, a curry), just add more liquid to the item you're adding it to.
Cranberries (and to a lesser extent, apples) have a great deal of natural pectin, which will make your chutney gel when it is cool or refrigerated.
If you want a thinner consistency, you can reheat it and add any complimentary liquid that you desire: apple juice would be fine, but remember, you are diluting the flavor of your chutney with the additional juice, so you will want to find balance between texture and flavor that you like the best.
The other thing you can do is warm the chutney for service, which will make it more liquid.
When I make cranberry chutney, chilled, it is as stiff as a good commercial jam. This might even be desirable.
Note: I am assuming these are refrigerated chutneys. If they have been home canned, you should not change the recipe, as the acid balance is essential for safety in canning.
Pour some water to it and keep it freezed all time, have it with hot rotis and it will be fine.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.837373 | 2013-06-10T15:32:37 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34614",
"authors": [
"Andrew Edmondson",
"Boudinot Starring",
"Brice Nyuyfoni",
"Dandelion",
"Joe",
"Kate McIntosh",
"Rainb",
"Sophie Taleb",
"dsiddy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80711",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80712",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80713",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80729",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80730",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80731",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80751",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80752",
"mark"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
34720 | Why do you need eggs when making icecream?
I was looking for a good recipe to make pistachio almond ice cream, but all of them needed Eggs.
My uncle used to sell home ice cream in Mexico, and I'm 100% that he never used an egg to make pistachio almond ice cream, or any other ice cream.
However, it's not the first time I see eggs listed as an ingredient for homemade ice cream.
Is there any particular reason for that? Why do you need eggs? What other thing can I use instead of eggs?
Cross-ref: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18359/substitute-for-egg-yolk-in-ice-cream-egg-allergy
There are two main base recipes for ice cream. French style ice cream contains egg yolks, which help make it soft, rich, smooth, creamy, custardy. Philadelphia style ice cream (sometimes called American style) has no eggs, and relies on the fat in the cream to keep it soft, but will still never be as rich and smooth as French style, and will still tend to freeze harder.
You can make pretty much any ice cream in either style, including the pistachio-almond you want to make. You can look around for recipes without eggs; I wouldn't be surprised if you manage to find one one. Or you can simply use a Philadelphia style base, and look at one of the recipes you found to see how to add the pistachio and almond. Depending on how rich you want it, you'll want 2-3 cups of heavy cream for each 1 cup of milk; about 3/4 cup of sugar should work, depending on how sweet you want it. If that's not rich enough for you, you can even replace the milk with cream. (You could also just go find a recipe for Philadelphia style vanilla ice cream and use that as a base - it doesn't get much simpler than that.)
(P.S. You could also try gelato, something like this recipe - it uses corn starch as a stabilizer instead.)
Check this out. I bet it would make an awesome gelato If you don't mind taking out a second mortgage to pay for it. Pistachio Paste
Ice cream is an emulsion of air, water, and fat. As Jefromi points out you can make gelato or Philadelphia style without egg yolks.
Besides the taste and texture, egg yolk protein helps firm up the ice cream emulsion as an emulsifying agent (same way gelatin helps set Jello).
Not only you don't need the Egg Yolks to make ice cream, you don't even need the fat! As long as you can make a frozen emulsion, you're in business.
For example, Turkish ice cream (Dondurma) is made with milk, sugar, salep, and mastic (gum arabic). The mastic acts as a thickening agent and the salep (and its starch and proteins) is the hydrocolloid to set the emulsion. Mix air into this and you have ice cream without cream or eggs.
I wish I could find salep to make dondurma but it turns out it is only produced in Turkey and illegal to export from there. :(
@Sobachatina the orchid root is not only native to Turkey, so you can find it in many places in North America including Amazon. You may find it in your local ethnic stores as well. I have some in my kitchen, but haven't learned to mix it so it doesn't clump (it's pretty stubborn).
I live in India.
Most ice creams & kulfis (Indian style firm ice cream) are made without eggs here because eggs are considered non vegetarian.
Kulfi is usually made by reducing milk & cream by boiling down to about 1/4 of the original volume. Sugar, saffron, almonds & or pistachios are added & the mixture is frozen in cylindrical 'popsicle' type molds with a stick for a handle. Kulfi is a bit grainy in texture, and although creamy not as smooth as US ice creams.
The ice cream I make for my restaurant here uses whipping cream plus sweetened condensed milk as a base.
The usual ratio is 1 can sweetened condensed milk (14 oz.) + 300ml whipping cream + whatever flavor I want.
For example, in my mango ice cream first I mix the can of sweetened condensed milk with 2 cups fresh mango puree & set aside.
Then I beat 300 ml whipping cream to stiff peaks.
After that I fold the mango puree mixed with the can of sweetened condensed milk into the beaten whipped cream.
Then the mixture is frozen in a 9"x5" loaf pan covered in cling film over night.
This makes a very creamy, smooth ice cream that is quite 'scoop able' and does not melt quickly in the Indian monsoon heat.
I've never used a machine or churn to make this ice cream.
But this does remind me a lot of the Mexican ice creams I had as a child growing up in California!
Hope that helps!
It's interesting that they consider eggs as non vegetarian ingredient, but you still use milk to make the ice cream. Do you use any other kind of milk like almond, soy or rice milk?
Sorry Mr Chavez, I'm new on here & don't know how to reply properly yet.
I make one ice cream that is based on fresh coconut milk & sweetened condensed milk.
Yes, milk & dairy products are 'veg' in India, eggs are 'non veg'.
That's part of the reason for the 'sacred cows' of India! But your question about rice & almond milk makes me think of a 'Horchata' flavored Mexican cinnamon/vanilla ice cream I've had in California before.
I've never had Horchata ice cream, but Horchata flavored water it's pretty common in Mexico even though I believe Horchata is more spanish than mexican.
@AlanChavez, there is a Valencian (not generally Spanish) drink called horchata / orxata, but it is very different to the Mexican drink called horchata. Neither is much like barley water, which I understand to be the strongest hypothesis for the etymology of the name.
@AlanChavez: milk is vegetarian because you can drink it without killing an animal. Eggs, on the other hand, are potential chickens that you're eating before they've had a chance at life. (Well, OK, not really, because 99% of eggs never saw a rooster and thus have zero chance of developing into anything other than a lovely omelet, but you get the idea.)
I make delicious Italian ice-cream regularly. Eggs are not used when making Italian ice-cream (gelato). Just double cream or standard cream and condensed milk. Have a look at this link (fantastic receipes for gelato plus much more:
http://scrapbook.channel4.com/programmes/made-in-italy-top-10-classic-dishes
You need protein to keep the water and fat in the ice cream together. You can also use cream cheese instead of eggs. I just started making ice cream using recipes from Jeni's Splendid Ice Creams at Home. All her recipes use a whole milk, cream, sugar, and corn syrup base, then mixed with a slurry and cream cheese.
Sorry to downvote you, I know it is unpleasant when you are a new user, but I think that your answer is factually incorrect. You don't need protein for creating an emulsion. As for the cream cheese, it is not used "instead of eggs", it is a totally different ingredient. If it has to be interpreted as a substitution for a classic ingredient, it replaces the heavy cream.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.837569 | 2013-06-17T03:22:21 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34720",
"authors": [
"David E Speyer",
"ILikeTacos",
"Jolenealaska",
"LioMom",
"MandoMando",
"Marti",
"Nick",
"Peter Taylor",
"Samsara",
"Shubham",
"Sobachatina",
"Terry ",
"crixel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80994",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80995",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81007",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81090",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84733",
"joynoele",
"nonce",
"obewanjacobi",
"rumtscho",
"shirley pryor",
"zansara"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
34018 | candied mints storage and transporting long distance
I'm making mints for my nephew's wedding (containing powdered sugar, butter, white syrup). The wedding is in August. I have to travel more than 1,000 miles to wedding. I have two questions:
If I make them ahead of time, how do I store them to keep them fresh?
How do I transport them in an automobile?
Your main limiting factor is the butter, which can go rancid and it highly sensitive to warm temperatures.
You should freeze the mints for storage until you take your trip. You don't want them absorbing moisture or off flavors, so you want to wrap them very well, using freezer grade storage bags. I would suggest double bagging, small bags in larger ones.
Get a cooler large enough to take the mints on the car trip, packing it with dry ice (which you can buy) or commercial freezer packs (sometimes called blue ice, such as this product on Amazon) to keep the butter at least cool for the duration of the car trip.
You may need to plan to find a purveyor of dry ice at one of the places you stop during the trip, or arrange to have your freezer packs rechilled along the way.
Thanks for your advise. All is do-able,and I appreciate your time!....sj
You'll go thru some pounds of dry ice a day, so it might be worthwhile to check your stopover town(s) online to see where you can buy replacement dry ice pre-trip. Also, carbon dioxide gas will readily displace the oxygen from a closed space such as the interior of a car. For safety, leave a window or two cracked a bit.
@WayfaringStranger Good point on having the open window, or keeping the cooler in the trunk. We only want to keep the butter cool during the trip, so freezer packs may do the job well enough.
You could likely also manage with just normal ice, as long as you're careful to keep things from getting wet. They don't need to be actually frozen, a good ice chest does keep ice for a day or two (depending on how hot an August you have), and it'll be easier to restock than dry ice.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.838133 | 2013-05-08T18:02:20 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34018",
"authors": [
"Amy McAndrews",
"Cascabel",
"Gabrielle",
"Joe Guest",
"Rachelle",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sheryl",
"SpiritualChocolate",
"Sunil",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79084",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79085",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79086",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79087"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
30036 | Should ghee be kept out of light?
I have ghee in clear glass jar on a shelf in my kitchen, would it keep for longer if I try to store it in a dark place? Does light speed up oxidation?
According to IndiaCurry, it should be stored in containers opaque to ultraviolet light for long term storage:
The UV rays from sunlight, florescent lights, and other sources
accelerate oxidation process. The storage container container for ghee
must be opaque to filter out UV rays. Preferably ghee must be stored
in a dark place
I was unable to find credible sources with more detailed information that indicate exactly how this affects storage life. In fact, it was hard to find any references at all--most were far more concerned with keeping it from being exposed to air (oxygen).
However, as it is such an easy thing to arrange--just put the jar in a cabinet for example, or use an amber glass jar--that it seems worth doing. My guess is that in practice, unless you are using your ghee very slowly, or have an extraordinarily large amount, that it makes very little difference, but again its easy, so why not?
I did find lots of references to using ghee in lamps--this is the power of Google! :-)
Did you make it yourself or is it bought?
Ideally ghee and clarified butter should be stored in the refridgerator which is dark by default. Ghee is essentially just butter that has been clarified and has the water and impurities taken out, but sometimes some can remain which is why ideally it's best to keep it in the fridge.
It's from the store. I've heard the ghee would become too hard to use in the refrigerator though, so I prefer to have it at room temperature.
Okay, I put half of the ghee in a smaller jar in the fridge for later use and at the temperature mine is at, the ghee is still soft enough to scoop out of.
@citizen That seems sensible. Just take your ghee out of the fridge an hour or so before you intend to use it, same thing you'd do with butter really.
Homemade ghee doesn't need to be stored in the refrigerator.
You can put it in an opaque container and store it in closed cupboard.
Also, the older the ghee is, the yummier and healthier it is.
When making ghee at home, make sure you over cook it a tad bit (this will not alter its taste).
This will ensure that your ghee stays good a longer time, even over a year.
Even slightly undercooked ghee starts giving a foul smell within a month and should not be consumed.
You know your ghee is perfectly cooked when you see it well granulated.
So I'll run on the assumption that you're correct about not needing to store it in the refrigerator, but I'd take out the "healthier" bit (unless you have something to back that up). We tend to avoid "health" advice here.
@citizen please don't start a health-related discussion. As for the rest of the comment, the OP didn't say "should", he said "need not", which is true of many oils and fats.
@rumtscho: Yeah, I wasn't going to start a discussion, I was just curious about what he meant by it getting healthier over time. Never heard that before.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.838349 | 2013-01-13T13:02:02 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30036",
"authors": [
"1111111",
"Ann",
"M Taitano",
"Mark G",
"Rob",
"citizen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70054",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70055",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70875",
"ksav",
"rumtscho",
"spiceyokooko",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
32199 | Cooking schnitzel without thinning it
I'm quite good in cooking schnitzels, but in the place where I live now there is no hammer to thin the meat. I wander if I can use the same technique like coating in breadcrumbs and frying on the pan but on the non-thinned slices of meat? As far as I understand, this also involves cooking on a lower heat for a longer time, so it will cook properly over all of its thickness.
It depends how thick the meat is. A common mistake people make when cooking steak is not warming the meat up to room temperature before frying - which means the centre is cold when out side is crisp. Bring your pork up room temperature (or warmer), then coat and fry it ~140C. This will work up to about 3/4cm thick, and will also give you golden bread crumbs on the outside :)
The oven route will also work but I suggest you spray the bread crumb coat with sunflower oil or clarified butter to give you a nice finish. If you just bake it the coating will be dry.
@ElendilTheTail right about the rolling pin and heavy based pan!
If you like snitzel Flamenquines are definitely worth a try, really good!!
The problem you will have is cooking the meat without burning the breadcrumbs and/or the breadcrumbs absorbing lots of oil. You could get around this by baking the schnitzel rather than frying them.
However, you don't necessarily need a hammer to thin the meat - a heavy saucepan or rolling pin will do just as good a job.
Nothing more to add. That answer sums it up really nice.
I've also used a thick sturdy plate to pound the meat thinner and tenderize using the edge.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.838623 | 2013-02-25T09:47:49 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32199",
"authors": [
"Bradley Lewis",
"Dontcha Know",
"Frederik Baetens",
"Henry Le",
"Jin",
"Lorelei Schmidt",
"Martha H",
"Sono",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74155"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
32071 | Indian Mango Pickle producing gas is that normal?
I am trying to pickle some mangoes the Indian way. I boiled the jar in hot water, dried it and then added the mixture of spices, salt and mangoes to the jars after the mixture had cooled. I made the mixture in a frying pan to try and remove as much water as I could. After it was cooled, I put it in the jar and heated some mustard oil till it just barely started smoking. I let that cool and poured it over the mango spice mixture.
For the first three days it was fine. On the fourth day, I opened it to test the taste and ended up adding more salt. Now, there seems to be gas forming in the jar. I've noticed it a few times now. When I open the jar, I hear a whooshing noise as air escapes. It's quite a lot, since I opened the container about 3 times in a 10 hour period and each time gas escaped. Has this pickle gone bad? Or is this something that's normal?
@user16900i am providing recipe below it will surely help you out.
it will never produce gas,for that you need to follow right procedure.
apart all you can try out many instant pickles too.their production process is not long and you can keep them refrigerated for at most two weeks.
This is completely normal and expected.
Indian pickle is fermented. One of the by products of that fermentation is gas.
The salt keeps undesirable bacteria from growing.
In the future you should use a container that can be less tightly closed and allow some of the gas to vent as it ferments. You wouldn't want a bottle to burst.
i used to prepare mango pickle almost every year,and i did kept it as it is for 5 yrs long with that freshness and taste.
i am having experience in making mango pickle from my teenage and for sure i remember my mom never let the container closed less tightly as it will lead moisture in it which ferment the pickle.you need to close it tightly and properly,and even while serving you must used a clean,dry spoon for it.
@Sunishtha- I hear often that moisture will spoil pickles. It's on my list to experiment because it doesn't make any sense at all. The jar is already full of moisture from the juice. To make a difference there would have to be so much moisture that it significantly dilutes the salt and acid- much more than just a few drops. I'll test it eventually.
Its not necessarily happens every time that your pickle will spoiled or fermented due to moisture. But actually these instructions are to be followed to increase the shelf life of pickle. As dust particle can ferment and spoil it, where as you mentioned that"the jar is already full of moisture from the juice" i am not getting to what juices you are pointing, pickle is a produced by mixture of oil and salt, to thaw the desired fruit/veggie. The natural juice of raw mango, that is helpful in producing pickle.
Mangoes are 84% water. Plenty of dust will waft in before the bottle is sealed. The salt and acid prevent pickles from spoiling. I just can't imagine that a few extra drops of water could make a noticeable difference unless the water was heavily contaminated.
yes it will, that's not actually water its natural contains. And after under going pickle recipe the whole ph of the mixture is changed,so it have its different properties and procedure to store.
These videos explain the process:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqUVTnE-Yzk
and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Et3VgJobTrU
You also need to take care while preparing pickle:-
the container must be of glass ware,properly cleaned and dried.
the salt should be little more so it won't let fermentation.
after purchasing all whole spices, put them under sun for a day or two, it will make them dry, for an alternative you can fry them in deep frying pan (kadhai) without oil at medium flame, then grind them finely powdered in grinder.
let it be cooled down to room temp, keep away from water or any such container which may moisten it.
mix all the spices and oil well with the chopped pieces of mangoes (you can chop according to your will 4-6 pieces of a mango), and put them in that cleaned jar/pot.
your pickle is almost ready, now last what you need it to keep that jar under sun for approx 4-6 days regularly. It will help in reducing fermentation and you can keep your pickle for long.
The most important while making pickle your hands, jars/pots must be clean and dry properly. And in case you are purchasing all powdered spices then fry them in frying pan without oil one by one each ingredient on sim flame.
in case you can keep it under sun,then dry all ingredients by frying properly without letting them burn out.and add some more salt to it,in this it will take atleast 2-3 days more to eat.in case you found that pickle is soaking oil you need to add more mustard oil to it.
@Sobachatina undesirable particles lead to fermentation and spoilage.
Mango Pickle producing gas is a regular thing. But you have to be careful not to overdo it. Otherwise, your glass jar may crack. Keep your pickle jar in the sun occasionally with the lid off to avoid excess gas production.
If you used Methi seeds, it should be properly roasted. It should splutter .Gas generation some times may be because of quality of mangos.
Your answer could be improved with additional supporting information. Please [edit] to add further details, such as citations or documentation, so that others can confirm that your answer is correct. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.838823 | 2013-02-20T13:21:47 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32071",
"authors": [
"BNK",
"Community",
"Danu",
"Dav Ree",
"Dorothy Bennett",
"Maine Cerbito",
"NoahS",
"Sobachatina",
"Sunishtha Singh",
"Tarekac",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/-1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73764",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73768",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73769",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73914",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73915",
"user73764",
"user73765"
],
"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
} |
21857 | How much salt should I put in a vegetable stew?
I'm making a vegan vegetables soup (i.e no powders or prepared stock - just fresh vegetables and fresh spices), and I'm not sure how much salt to put in to just bring out the flavor without getting the stew actually salty.
Any rule of thumb that I can use? I heard that potatoes absorb saltiness so you have to add extra salt when cooking with potatoes.
Salt is very much an individual thing. Luckily, you can always add more if needed.
The only rule of thumb I can think of is to add a little, taste, and see if it needs more.
I would also suggest sweating the vegetables before adding water, with some salt on them. Brings out the flavours better, thus needing less salt overall for flavour.
It's always a good idea to salt at the beginning and end of cooking. +1
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.839276 | 2012-02-29T19:22:06 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21857",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
25226 | What can I use as an alternative sweetener for smoothies?
I make fruit smoothies often, and started off adding sugar. I'm looking for a more "natural" sweetener though. I know I can use honey, but it adds a distinct taste that I'd like to avoid. I've tried using dates as well, and it's a workable alternative, but also changes the taste slightly (and makes the smoothie "stickier"). What are other natural sweeteners to try, preferably that don't make a big difference to taste?
Hi clueless, since health is off-topic on this site, I edited your question a bit to get the health part out of the way, while preserving your question as good as I can.
You know of course that sugar is just as 'natural' as honey, agave nectar, or anything else? Especially if you use unrefined sugar.
all sugar comes from refineries. just a matter of how much color is left behind
Concentrated natural mango juice from your local Whole Foods or Trader Joes or Asian market.
You could try agave nectar -- but I'm not sure if it will be that much of an improvement over honey. A tiny pinch of salt might also help make the smoothie taste sweeter.
Usually though, if I want my smoothies to be sweeter I just add more juice or fruit (e.g. ripe berries, peaches etc).
I usually make mine with fruit, yogurt, and juice. That tends to be sweet enough, and I like things really sweet.
I wonder if the OP is using less sweet (and more tart) fruit, or even underripe fruit? Maybe they just like things really sweet, though.
I generally make a milk-based smoothie, so I guess it's more like a milkshake. So there's no juice. Just milk and fruit, some frozen and some fresh (and occasionally a bit of plain yoghurt). I have occasionally added a bit of juice and it gave me the desired taste... but I've been told that it's very similar to adding sugar :) I did try the pinch of salt trick, though, and it really made a difference! :) thank you
@Jefromi - at what point is fruit the sweetest? The riper it is, the sweeter...?
@clueless: If adding juice does what you want, then why not just do it? Sure, it's effectively adding sugar, but that's what all the alternatives will do too, unless you're looking for artificial sweeteners. And yes, riper fruit is sweeter.
Salt is the original flavour enhancer, BTW.
Maple syrup is great in smoothies! You only need maybe a tablespoon-full or so and at that amount the taste isn't overpowering or anything.
The very act of sweetening it will change the taste. That's really the point.
However, if you like the taste of the smoothie sweetened with cane sugar, but are looking to ditch the cane sugar, there are three things you can try:
Dextrose
Stevia
Cream
Dextrose is basically glucose, rather than the fructose-glucose molecule of cane sugar. It isn't as sweet as cane sugar, but it won't alter the taste of your smoothie in any other way.
Stevia is quite different. Gram-for-gram, stevia is much sweeter than cane sugar. It also has a very slight aftertaste for some people, but nowhere near as pronounced as with something like aspartame. There is also suggestions your body doesn't even process it as sugar.
One other trick that I'm sure you won't have thought of is to add a little dairy cream. However, this only really works if you've cut right back on your fructose intake already (cane sugar and HFCS). The reason it works is because your taste has, by then, been resensitised to genuinely natural sweetness.
I like Stevia a lot, but if you buy it in the stores it's way expensive. Far cheaper to get the pure powder online and make up a concentrated (1 drop per teaspoon sugar equiv) stock in 20% ethanol. Stevia's a slow binder (it takes a while to taste), so sometimes a mix of part Stevia and part sugar works best flavorwise.
frozen apple juice concentrate works well with a lot of flavors. Thawed keeps at least a week in the fridge.
Using up the last of a jam jar's sticky residue by shaking some juice/milk around, sweetens a smoothy with -yes, sugar- a bit extra flavor.
When you have a bunch of bananas go overripe, peel them, cut them into pieces, put them in a freezer bag and freeze them -- then use them in your smoothies. When bananas go black, they get very sweet and are ideal for things like smoothies (or banana bread), where texture doesn't matter, but the sweetness is desired.
If you want your smoothie sweeter, just add a half a banana.
Sweet potatoes add sweetness and creaminess quickly- use sparingly!
This might work in a smoothie that is meant to incorporate the taste of sweet potatoes, although the OP did specifically ask for sweeteners that "don't make a big difference to taste".
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.839385 | 2012-07-24T07:04:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25226",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Cascabel",
"CommercialIndustrialLightingLt",
"Cynthia",
"ElendilTheTall",
"GKFX",
"Greg Wetherall",
"Hannah",
"Kathy",
"Lielac",
"Mien",
"Pat Sommer",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Yamikuronue",
"Zohreh Afsharnaderi",
"clueless",
"frame jockey",
"gulshan arora",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122801",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57687",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57689",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57697",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57698",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57702",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57997",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85577",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85594",
"ilent2",
"staticsan",
"user57698",
"user57997"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
23195 | Why is orange juice or apple juice added in a smoothie?
I currently have strawberries, bananas and yogurt in my fridge and this got me thinking about the Strawberry-Banana Julius from Orange Julius. Previously I've made smoothies with strawberries, bananas, yogurt, milk and a light dash of sugar.
I know most places add in some orange juice or apple juice. What does the addition of orange juice or apple juice do to the smoothie? Does it amplify the flavor of the strawberries and/or bananas?
How much would someone suggest adding if I do not want the juice flavor to overpower the smoothie?
Thank you!
Apple juice will give you very little additional taste, but it will sweeten your smoothie. Especially filtered apple juice has a rather subtle flavor which is easily covered by other fruit flavors. Juice producers use this to make their juices cheaper - if a juice advertises 100% fruit, and a flavor from an expensive, non-juicy fruit like strawberries, it is usually a blend of a small amount of strawberry juice and a large amount of apple juice (this is not fraud, the ingredients are listed on the package if you care to read it). Apple juice is normally made from low-acid apples, and it tastes quite sweet, so it is useful not only for bulking, but also for sweetening blends made with sour juices like elderberry, cranberry, etc. In a smoothie, it will have the same effect as in a juice blend, plus a diluting effect, as it is less viscous than your other ingredients. It won't amplify the flavor of the smoothie, it will even reduce it, as sugar tends to suppress other flavors in general. But the reduction won't be too big, and you might find the overall result better if you are accustomed to heavily sweetened food. You can also remove the sugar if you use apple juice - I wouldn't put it there anyway, even without juice.
Orange juice is much more acidic than apple juice, and it has a stronger aroma. It will add an orange flavor to your smoothie. I would count this as an advantage, because orange flavor goes especially well with bananas and is OK with strawberries too. It will also make the smoothie taste more sour, and again dilute it. Overall, the effect will be pleasant. As for what constitutes "overpowering" the taste, I think this is subjective. You should just experiment, adding a the juice in small proportions, until you have achieved the ratio which tastes good for you.
Thank you for the detailed response! I will definitely give it a go and experiment with adding some apple juice (to start) and maybe another experiment with some orange juice (if I don't run out of strawberries and bananas)!
You need to add some kind of liquid to a smoothie to get the right consistency; otherwise it'll be too thick. Milk does that in your current recipe. Replacing the milk with juice would get you a more fruity, less milkshakey flavor to the drink (I prefer mine that way and use a variety of juices rather than soymilk). Juices tend to be sweet, so you won't need the extra white sugar.
If you use juices that don't taste too heavy (you know how orange juice can sometimes be super heavily flavored? Don't use those brands), you won't overpower the fruit before making the drink too diluted to really be called a smoothie. Apple juice is usually safer than orange if you're worried about it. I don't know how much milk you normally put, but assuming you like that ratio, try the same in apple juice -- I find ratio of liquid affects the consistency more strongly than the flavor.
There are a couple of "make your own Orange Julius" recipes online. I would suggest starting with that and work in your strawberries and bananas to your own taste.
If you reduce the quantity for frozen OJ concentrate (but not eliminate it) and then sub in the fresh fruit and perhaps sub in your yogurt for some of the milk you should get pretty close.
It find it adds a bit of taste from the OJ (yum!), but the main thing it does is add excess sugar to the drink. A cup of Orange juice can have over 20g of sugar!! (That's about 5 teaspoons)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.839886 | 2012-04-19T04:01:56 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23195",
"authors": [
"Charlie",
"Chelsea Fletcher",
"John",
"LucyMarieJ",
"R. Crow",
"SirCobalt",
"Vikram Rao",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52462",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52463",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52484",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52493",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52500",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9892",
"jabob",
"linthum",
"phido",
"user52493"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
23198 | How can I make the crust of my chicken pot pie crunchy?
I was wondering how to make the breading/crust on the top of a chicken pot pie really crunchy, not flaky, but crunchy and crispy.
I know all the ingredients to make the topping in the first place. I just don't know what to add to give it that extra crunch. I don't know if anyone has had the pot pie from KFC, but I want my topping and sides to be that crunchy.
Can anyone help me?
Haven't had the KFC one, any idea if its deep-fried? That'd probably work.
Have you tried using an egg wash? That's the first idea that came to mind when I read your question, but I didn't want to put it down as an answer because I can't really back it up.
Just a thought, you might like to swap your normal breadcrumbs for "Panko" Japanese crumbs, (available in most supermarkets)
these crisp up more efficiently with tiny dots of butter on top. The other trick I often do for crispy breadcrumb toppings, is to add a small amount of dry couscous to the mix, before baking.
I also roll wet potatoes in dry couscous, to make roast potatoes really crispy, The extra texture and crunch is great.
I really doubt the OP is talking about bread crumbs. Most pot pies are made with pastry dough as the crust. And while I understand that some faux pot pie use bread crumbs as the top "crust", I don't that's what the OP is talking about. Specifically when the OP says that she wants the crust to be crunchy rather than flaky(how normal pastry crusted pot pies are).
Thanks Jay, the wording "breading/crust" confused me, as in Australia we would take that to mean of a breadcrumb-type. For a more crusty shortcrust pastry topping, try placing one layer of pastry over pie, then egg wash the top, and add another layer of pastry, and then egg wash it.
I am going to assume that you used pastry for the crust of your pot pie.
Did you make the crust yourself or did you use store bought crust? If you are making the crust yourself, then there are several things you can do to make the crust "crunchier."
You can change the recipe of the crust slightly and make it into a shortcrust pastry dough rather than the flaky pastry. A shortcrust pastry is very similar in flavor to the flaky pastry but due to slightly different ratios and preparation, the texture is closer to what you desire. It uses less fat to flour ratio(about 2:1 flour to fat) and fully incorporates the butter and the flour. Most pastry recipe will tell you to not over-mix the dough or it will not turn out flaky. Since you want the opposite, you should on purposely fully mix it. This will result in a less flaky, firmer crust. Finally, adding an egg wash will also give the top crust some extra crunch.
These changes will insure that the taste is still relatively similar while the texture become a bit closer to what you want.
Good idea, but bad details. First, standard shortcrust is 3:2, not 1:1. Second, you won't get gluten formation. For gluten, you need water and flour, fat and flour won't build gluten, no matter how long you mix. Also, you don't really need gluten for a crunchy crust, it gives you a tough dough.
@rumtscho, I thought flaky pastry was 3:2? I actually made a typo and meant to type 2:1 flour to fat ratio, not 1:1 for shortcrust.
What kind of ingredients are you using in your current crust topping? Usually the addition of a bit of butter will add to the crunchiness a bit, that would be my first suggestion.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.840217 | 2012-04-19T05:30:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23198",
"authors": [
"Antivirus960",
"Bala",
"Charmaine",
"CodeMonkey",
"Grams",
"Jay",
"Mick Walker",
"RichieHH",
"XtraSimplicity",
"cookingclinic",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52495",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52497",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53815",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53833",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9376",
"m bale",
"rumtscho",
"user53816",
"wanderingscribe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
24474 | Does placing a metal spoon in an open bottle of sparkling wine (etc.. .) help keep its fizz?
Does placing a metal spoon in an open bottles of bubbles, sparkling wine & Champagne help keep its fizz ? If so why is this ?
Related: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/4636/is-the-taste-of-champagne-preserved-by-hanging-a-spoon-in-the-bottle
Didn't Mythbusters do an episode about this?
if they did we have not yet seen it here in NZ
Scottish, just get a pressure stopper. You can get rubber ones designed for soda for $3 each in the states; I expect you could even find them in NZ if you went to a large dollar store.
As a beer brewer, I'm pretty concerned with fizz ;) Since the below may be a little tl;dr, the short answer to your question is, "I don't think so."
This is actually the first time I've heard of the metal spoon "trick", so I can't directly comment on that, but I'll share a little of what I know about carbonation.
Carbonation is carbon dioxide (CO2) that is dissolved in the liquid (beer, champagne, soda). The fizz is that CO2 coming out of solution and escaping into the air.
Keeping it cold helps keep the fizz, as CO2 dissolves more readily into a cold liquid. And conversely, comes out of a warm liquid more readily. Ever pour a glass of warm soda or champagne straight after opening? It'll foam over everywhere.
The only way to not lose all that CO2 is to seal the container. Even then, the CO2 will come out of solution and pressurize the headspace (space in the top of the container). That's why you get a hiss when you first open a bottle.
Again, temperature comes into play. In a warm bottle, more of the CO2 comes out of solution and pressurizes the headspace. Chill that same bottle down, and the CO2 can dissolve back into the liquid, giving you a sparkling beverage again.
Now, back to the spoon. I would think that putting a spoon in the carbonation liquid would produce nucleation points, causing the CO2 to come out of solution faster. This is why many beer glass manufacturers are coming out with laser-etched designs on the bottom of their glasses - the effervescence caused by the nucleation points helps bring out the hop aromas.
The spoon normally does not touch the liquid.
My own experience confirms the answers from the related question from Skeptics. If you hang a spoon inside an open bottle, the fizz goes out.
However, I've been able to keep the fizz in the bottle for a couple of days by putting cling film over the top.
good to know for when I don't finish a soda, as using the screwcap doesn't seem to help much.
@HeatherWalters, I'm not so sure this will work with soda... Cling film sticks very good to glass, but not to plastic.
I was actually thinking more along the lines of a can....I prefer those, but not having any way to 'close' them, I have purchased the plastic bottles. If this would work to seal a can, I'd love to buy them instead! There is a newer kind of cling film that is a little thicker that sticks really well to just about everything...I might try that.
@HeatherWalters, the problem with cans is that they easily condense on the outside, which is mayor problem for cling film. Give it a try and report back here :-)
Ok I'll do that!!
The condensation problem can be worked around with a rubber band to hold the clingfilm.
Doesn't work. The CO2 gas was dissolved in the soda liquid under pressure. Once the cap is opened the liquid is now at a lower pressure (room pressure) and the gas comes out of solution. That is, it fizzes. Putting a spoon in the bottle does nothing. Resealing the bottle would stop the loss of fizz.
Read somewhere that the spoon cools fastest therefore cools the air in the top of the container. This then creates a 'cold plug' and reduces the amount of fizz that is lost.
Not sure this makes sense - the spoon is in contact with the liquid in the bottle, so it's going to be helping exchange heat between the air near the top and the liquid near the top of the bottle. That means the air will be warmer than it would be otherwise, not colder. (It does mean that the liquid at the top of the bottle will be cooler than it would be otherwise - maybe that's what you meant?)
In any case, since this is about keeping fizz over a day or two, and by that time the temperature should've long since reached equilibrium (since the champagne would've been chilled to begin with), for it to really have an effect it has to be something besides temperature.
It works to me, & I've been doing it continuously for more than 30 yrs- since a friend show me the trick -to keep the fizz put a spoon on top of a bottle, beer, cava, whatever sparkling it works.
since ever I wonder why. and browsing out for an answer i fuond you
Still i do not know why it keeps but it does. I suspect it has to do with some geometric issue: the spoon intercepting fitzz waves coming from within the bottle. i don't know
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.840544 | 2012-06-15T07:34:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24474",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Cascabel",
"FuzzyChef",
"Jent",
"Kogitsune",
"Marti",
"Mien",
"Mingming Cui",
"Mother Clucker",
"Nancy Robinson",
"Peter Taylor",
"Sindy Li",
"Tom Campbell",
"dinneen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55737",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55738",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55740",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55741",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85490",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97560",
"huzzah",
"mjneuf",
"scottishpink",
"user55737",
"user55740"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
33541 | Why did my omelette turn out different than usual?
Why did my omelette have bubbles on top while cooking, develop tunnels, turn slightly grayish and have a rubbery texture? I rubbed olive oil on the pan surface first. I always cook omelettes the same way and this is the first time this happened.
Are you using different eggs? Eggs are always slightly different, and the ratio of yolk/white can significantly change the texture and taste of omelettes and scrambled eggs. On a side note, I usually add an extra yolk or two when I make scrambled eggs to help tip the ratio.
Bubbles on top while cooking - If you beat air into your eggs before you pour, air would naturally come to the surface.
Develop tunnels - The only explanation I have for this is that you didn't beat the eggs enough, and the mixture was not homogenous. But based on the physical characteristic of bubbles, it would seem that you did beat the eggs, so I'm not entirely sure.
Grayish - Overcooked iron/sulfur compounds in the yolk. Overcooking usually involves heat, which is a chemical reaction from a more reduced state to a more oxidized state. This usually brings about a change in the transition state of an element (sulfur or iron). A change in transition state causes a color change.
Rubbery - Overcooked. The proteins have coagulated very tightly due to prolonged heat exposure.
When I cook omelettes I usually use Jacques Pepin's method, which gives a creamy inside. Youtube "Pepin omelettes," and it'll probably show up.
Tunnels form with an overcooked omelette too (or any other egg-structure dish). Bubbles could come from high heat. So overcooking sounds like the right guess.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.840982 | 2013-04-16T16:40:14 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33541",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"jalbee",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
21067 | How Long Does Tomato Juice Last?
We've been buying tomato juice in smaller containers and now decided to buy bigger ones. But, when we went to the store the tomato juice says that it only lasts two weeks in the fridge. Expiration dates always err on the side of caution. How long can we expect to keep it after we have opened it?
According to this website, 5 to 7 days in the fridge.
No more than a week-ish, then it will start growing fungus on the top of the juice.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.841129 | 2012-02-05T02:07:32 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21067",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
33041 | What side effects should I expect by replacing cake flour with chickpea flour in all cookie recipes?
Last time I replaced maida with chickpea flour (keeping all other ingredients and their quantities same) in carrot cupcakes.
The only difference I noted was in rising. The cupcakes didn't rise much.
There was absolutely no difference in texture/softness/taste. In fact these cupcakes tasted a lot better.
So, I was wondering if I replace maida/cake flour/all purpose flour with Chickpea flour in all cookie recipes (keeping all other ingredients and their quantities same), what side effects should I expect?
Some people find Garbanzo flour gives a bitter aftertaste. By no means all people claim this, but be sure of your audience before offering them.
This article, from the Examiner, indicates:
Garbanzo bean flour (a.k.a. gram flour, chana flour, besan, chickpea,
or cici flour) should be a pantry staple. Unlike other bean flours,
garbanzo bean flour does not have to be combined with other flours
(although you can do it if you wish). Garbanzo flour is high in
protein and gives a slightly “beany” flavor to baked goods.
However, they are not focused on food issues, and may not be the most reliable source.
According to Living Healthy Mom, you can use chickpea flour as a flour substitute, but they recommend no more than 75% replacement (garbanzo bean is another name for chickpea):
Garbanzo bean flour- I know this gluten free flour doesn’t sound appetizing, but it is delicious, healthy and is a wonderful primary
gluten free flour that you can use up to 75% in a recipe. And…………..NO,
I know what you are thinking……… it doesn’t taste like beans! (I
thought the same thing!)
Again, not the same as a university extension center, but at least a practicing individual who tries these kinds of things.
Given that cookies are made from a structure of starch rather than gluten, the lack of glutens from wheat flour should not be an issue. However, chickpea flour also contains less starch
One brand of garbanzo bean flour indicated that it had 18 grams of carbohydrates per 30 grams of product on its nutritional information; that same brand's pastry flour (a wheat flour) had 27 grams of per 34 g of product. As you can see, chickpea flour has significantly less available carbohydrates (mostly starch, some sugars) to form the structure of the baked goods. This will change the texture and structure development.
In general, gluten free baking experts recommend using a mix of flours to substitute for wheat flour, depending on how it is being used, in order to get the best possible outcome. If your goal is not to be gluten free, only substituting for 50% of the recipe amount may provide good compromise on the outcome.
Bottom line, in a cookie, you would expect when substituting 100% chickpea flour for wheat flour:
Different texture, due to less starch and more protein. My best guess is that it will be a little more fragile, due to less starch structure, but I have never tried this.
Different flavor, due to the fact that beans taste different than grains
Update after the question was edited to talk about the effect of leavening:
In a cookie, the structure of the final product is based on gelatinized starches. With the reduced quantity of starch in the chickpea flour compared to wheat flour, there is simply less of a starch network present. This may reduce the capacity of the cookie to retain the gas generated by the baking powder or baking soda, and thus a flatter, less airy product.
I make cookies with garbanzo flour all the time, I find it it is a little more caramelly and golden. The texture is just slightly less smooth but the taste is great. I find they stay together fine. Just one warning, don't taste the dough before cooking. It tastes so bad you won't believe the cookies will be yummy, but after cooking, amazing. Have fun!
The biggest problem I have is the overpowering bean flavor this flour causes. I have had no problem using it in recipes other than the nasty bean flavor.
You have posted a question here rather than an answer. The format of this site is not conductive to having multiple questions. If you need to now this, search for the answer in similar questions or post your own new question.
This does actually answer the question - overpowering bean flavor certainly counts as a side effect. The last bit was a question, though; please post it as a question if you want to get an answer! (The answer might be "don't use as much" though.)
I use garbanza bean flour regularly, to lessen the gluten in my life. I don't get a bean taste in my cookies (oatmeal-chocolate-chocolate chip),cake(red velvet), breads(banana & pumpkin). I quite enjoy the healthier fare.
I have used besan (chickpea) flour as a partial replacement (50/50)for regular flour and find the taste is hardly changed, however the texture is more dense. Over a months time We have made pizza dough, cookies, and batter for fish and chips and we're not disappointed.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.841217 | 2013-03-27T11:07:20 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33041",
"authors": [
"Anne E Delozier",
"C. Crt",
"Carol Barron",
"Cascabel",
"Fiona Driver",
"Johnnie Dansby",
"LiliBernadett",
"Richard ten Brink",
"SChalice",
"Spammer",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Yvonne Mcwilliams",
"derekmckinnon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148648",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76444",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76447",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76484",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76486",
"pluckedkiwi"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
21397 | What does baking time in oven depend on?
Banana bread recipe requires 1 hour, and the banana muffins recipe require 20 minutes.
Both the recipes contain bananas, and flour. Why is the baking time so different among the two?
These are the things that popped up in my mind at first glance:
Volume
How bigger the thing, how longer it will take to be fully baked. This is the reason why you find such a difference in the baking times for banana bread and banana muffins.
Surface Area
The volume can be the same (ground surface x height), but the surface exposed to the heat can differ. If something is flatter, the center is more rapidly reached. If you would bake your bread in a normal bread mold, it would take a longer time than if you would flatten out a bread on a baking sheet (but note that the volume is the same).
Oven temperature
Something very obvious. If it's hotter, it won't have to bake as long. However, don't play too much with this. I would advice to use the temperature a recipe has recommended. If you put it too hot, the outer parts can burn, when the inner parts would not be baked fully.
This question is related.
Vessel Material
Some materials conduct heat better than others. As a consequence, some things will be faster done in metal than in glass for example. (But I believe this has a less important role than the other factors I've mentioned. I can't say much about it, since I don't know a lot about it.)
Rather than volume and surface area separately, what often really matters is the maximum distance any of the interior is from the surface. Unless you're baking something really strangely shaped, you can probably think of this as thickness/depth.
@Jefromi very good point :) However, I think it's more clear if I pull it apart. But if I'm mistaken, feel free to edit.
There are lots of variables, but in this case the answer seems obvious: volume of the product. It takes more time to heat all the big bread than a small muffin.
The other factors that could affect the time include:
the oven temperature used – the lower temperature, the more time is needed to pass the same amount of energy to the food
the process required to have the thing 'cooked' – protein denaturation (cooking an egg or tender meat) takes less time than starch gelatinization (baking bread or cooking potatoes) which takes less time than collagen hydrolysis (baking harder meat)
Ah, so it is the quantity? Okay. Are there any other factors besides quantity which effect the time?
I have updated my answer
Like I said on Mien's answer, it's not exactly the volume; mostly it's the depth/thickness. Usually the two are correlated: the middle of a loaf of bread is farther from the surface than the middle of a muffin. But if for example you scaled something up from an 8x8 pan to a 9x13 pan, and kept the same depth, it probably wouldn't take longer to bake.
@Jefromi I don't think you have the same depth if you bake something in a 9x13 vs in a 8x8 pan. Did you 13x5 or something? Or am I mistaken?
@Mien: Emphasis added: If you scaled something up... and kept the same depth...
Oh I see... Sorry. You're right.
Because of the size. The bread is much bigger than a muffin, so it takes longer for the heat to reach the center of the bread.
Split the bread to muffin-size pieces and the cooking time will be the same.
great idea. :) I'll split the bread to save time.
I didn't say the taste will be the same though ;)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.841721 | 2012-02-16T11:26:38 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21397",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Cascabel",
"Harpreet",
"Jacek Konieczny",
"Jarle Tufto",
"Jonathan Cender",
"Mien",
"Shrey Aryan",
"Spammer",
"Student",
"Teresa Edwards",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47325",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47329",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47338",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47340",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47349",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8956",
"loscuropresagio",
"mstrom",
"shaun",
"user21972"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
21205 | Does resting kneaded dough for few hours change the taste/texture/softness of parathas?
We use the kneaded dough for making parathas.
Does resting kneaded dough for few hours (covered, on shelf) change the taste/texture/softness of the final outcome?
P.S. After kneading the dough, all we have to do is to make small balls out of it and flatten them till they are thin enough.
Could you perhaps add the ingredients that you use? The answer is the same for all types of basic wheat dough: resting allows gluten to form a network, which probably is a lot less important in an unleavened bread. Also, it will allow your dough to relax, leaving further shaping easier.
@Max No ingredients, I add nothing to the dough (except plain water).
I know of four reasons to let your unyeasted dough sit for a while:
Gluten relaxation. user9074 has already explained this. The gluten that has formed during kneading needs time to relax, which will make the dough easier to work with and cause the cooked bread to be more tender.
Gluten formation. Kneading isn't the only way to get gluten molecules to link up. Time works well too. There are "no knead" bread recipes where you just mix the dough and then let it sit in a cool spot overnight, or in the fridge for a day or two. A few hours sitting on the shelf may improve your dough by letting more gluten molecules connect.
Autolysis. The flour itself contains enzymes that will break down some of the starch and proteins in the flour and improve its flavor. The effect of autolysis will be greatest if your dough doesn't include salt, but it may be a factor even with salt added.
Hydration. It takes time for the flour to really absorb the water that you add. If you've ever made a pie crust you'll know that pie dough changes dramatically during the rest period. It becomes soft, smooth, and pliable. That transformation happens because the rest period gives the flour time to soak up the water. I expect that giving your dough time to hydrate will improve it as well.
These are just some reasons why resting could improve your end result. Ultimately, there's an easy way to answer your question. Make up a batch of dough and give it time to sit. Prepare another batch just before cooking. Cook up some parathas from both batches and compare. I bet you'll find a noticeable difference.
All that said, I'd also bet that unrested parathas are better than no parathas at all. Don't let short time prevent you from making them any way you know how. If you're into experimenting, there are ingredients such as dough relaxers that you could add to get some of the same benefits that you get from a long rest, but in a shorter time.
Resting any wheat based dough will most likely change the texture because it gives the gluten a chance to relax. I can't speak for parathas specifically, but for American/European breads not letting it rest will typically result in a firmer/tougher (depending on your POV) bread. So as a general rule you want to let your dough rest after working it for shaping steps either let it rest after you shape it or work the dough as little as possible during shaping.
Yeast dough will definitely change in flavor over time as enzymes breakdown the starches in the flour and digest the simple sugars in it. Bread made from older dough tends to be somewhat sweeter and have a more complex flavor. Since it looks like your dough doesn't contain yeast the flavor probably isn't going to change much during the rest phase.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.842054 | 2012-02-09T11:26:44 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21205",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
6361 | What can I do with a lot of bay leaves?
I have a bay tree, and it's far too big. If I cut it back, I think I'll have around 40 pounds of bay leaves (and I'll still have a bay tree).
It seems like a waste to throw all those bay leaves away.
What can I do with lots of bay leaves? Are there any good recipes that use lots of bay leaves?
just a note to say my experience of our bay tree is that you can be extremely aggressively about cutting it back (to the extent of just leaving a stump) and it'll be back with a vengeance within a couple of years. so take good note of the answers ... the "problem" over oversupply isn't going to go away!
I wish I had your problem!
Regarding Not Constructive flags/votes: I think we can make an exception for this, because even though bay leaves are common in a lot of recipes (especially soups/stews), those recipes tend to only use one or two leaves. To reiterate yossarian's comment on justkt's answer, you'd have to make an impossible amount of soup/stew to use them all. The question of how to use a lot of bay leaves is not easily answered by a recipe search, unless you're running a catering business.
Sorry, flagged before I saw @Aaronut's comment--but still, other than using them for packing material (which Penzey's does or at least used to do, I haven't ordered in a while) its still a poll.
Have the best smelling bonfire in the area.
Make laurel wreaths?
not related to cooking, but you can put some between your mattresses to prevent / get rid of flea infection (in case you have a fury friend)
A nice thing to do is simply give them away. Last year someone dropped of a big pile of small branches of bay leaves at our child's school, with a "free" sign. You could do something similiar, maybe using your community email list or whatever depending on your personal circumstances. You may have many neighbors who have never experienced how amazing fresh bay leaves can be, and you might even end up with some interesting gifts in return!
Send them to your friends who live in more northern climes, where bay doesn't grow too well. They will adore you for it.
dry them and sell them at your local market
Macerate them in Everclear or midrange vodka for a week or so, then add sweetener and dilute to ~40% ABV. This makes a decent digestif, similar in spirit (no pun intended) to Chartreuse. Or mix in a small amount of fresh thyme, lemon balm, lemon verbena, etc, to make it a little more Provencale.
We picked up a bottle of 'Laurus 48' while in Italy a few years ago, and bay laurel is definitely the dominant herb, so this is not just a French idea. I might be able to dig up a recipe...
Maybe a donation to the local food bank? Herbs and spices and such are not cheap, and I bet there will be plenty of people who would appreciate them.
Dry the leaves and bundle with cinnamon sticks or other aromatics and make homemade potpourri/culinary gifts for the holidays. What cook wouldn't want a jar full of bay leaves?
When I went to Dominica, they would make bay oil with it.
Batter and fry the leaf, add as a garnish to a dessert. (You eat by just biting the batter off of the leaf.)
That or make a wreath.
Store them and use them to make stock, in soups, as flavors for sauces, and so on.
You'd have to make an unreal amount of soup to use up 40 pounds of Bay Leaves. I think your answer should be "start a soup company" in order to be a bit more accurate. ;o)
I've seen a youtube video of people making smoked cheese with bay leaves. They took an empty charcoal grill, put a metal bowl of ice in it (to keep the overall temperature down), and then lit a big pile of dry bay leaves at the bottom with a torch.
Seems like a tasty idea, if you've got the bay leaves to spare.
Mark Bittman has a recipe for a baked fish with potatoes and bay leaves that uses a lot of bay leaves. It's pretty good. Here's the page out of his cookbook (which is worth buying!): The Minimalist Cooks Dinner, p. 98.
Recently I stumbled upon a recipe for pata (Filipino pig's feet) that calls for tons of bay Substituting CHICKEN thighs for the pig's feet made a most incredible dish (Substitute dried lily flower for banana leaf. Lily flower sold at Asian markets.) you may need to triple recipe. Visit http://www.marketmanila.com/archives/paksiw-na-pata-a-la-marketman.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.842363 | 2010-08-30T15:23:07 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6361",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Asciiom",
"Blue",
"Dai",
"Doug",
"JGarber",
"Jake A. Smith",
"Jerry",
"Joe",
"Logy",
"Marti",
"Mel",
"Natalya Dsouza",
"OriginalDaemon",
"Philip Joseph",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Saddam",
"Tea Drinker",
"Vishal",
"WalksB",
"askrich",
"col237",
"dnozay",
"esskar",
"event_jr",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12667",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12668",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12692",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12693",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12696",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12697",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12705",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12706",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12720",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12738",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26560",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78577",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78578",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78589",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96049",
"limon",
"lukeweatherstone",
"reichenwald",
"slim",
"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
} |
21331 | Is there something wrong with this scallop residue?
After cooking scallops in oil in non-stick pan, I cleaned up and there was a white hard substance left stuck to the pan. It felt like plastic. These scallops were fresh caught one day before using, right from the boat. Also, when beginning to cook they had blue around the outer edge. Suggestions? We are wondering if there is a problem here!
Comments in this blog comment could offer a clue to the blue color. The most relevant part says:
The blue color in the liquid is due to a change in the natural
chemical composition of the scallop meat during spawning.
That doesn't explain the hard white stuff, but maybe it'll put you on the right track. If there's a state or university agricultural extension near you, they might be able to shed some more light on the mystery.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.842776 | 2012-02-14T01:48:45 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21331",
"authors": [
"BratPAQ",
"K white",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50578"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
24322 | Why is water often added to the eggs when making omelettes?
Why is water often added to the eggs when making an omelette?
Also, is there a recommended amount of water?
I find that water makes watery omelettes, where milk makes a much richer omelette. I prefer to use heavy cream if I have it around. Water certainly makes a healthier omelette...
Eggs are already 3/4 water anyway!
By mixing in a small quantity of extra water before you cook the eggs, you are slowing down the cooking process by making more water available that has be evaporated. This keeps the cooking temperature to less than 100°C (212°F) for longer, therefore increasing the the time for the egg proteins to foam and expand before setting
The amount of water you need to add depends on; personal preference, the type of egg, and how old it is. Older eggs generally require a little more water
Adding skim milk will enhance this process slightly too. Adding extra fat will generally not enhance this process
BONUS TIP To make even more spectacular omelettes place a loose fitting lid over the pan to increase the steam exposure all around, and let the egg fully develop
and when should we add the water or milk? right from the start or when the egg starting to whitening?
@KMC before cooking (answer edited to clarify)
Bonus tip +1 I as kid I saw my mum doing and when asked she said "science science" haha ... common sense was so common in earlier generation but with us ;)
Thank you, TFD! I wondered why a meringue recipe called for a small amount of water to be added, and I think this is probably the reason.
To get fluffier eggs.
When the water is heated to 100 degrees C, the water will begin to evaporate.
This will in turn make lots of small holes in the egg giving fluffy eggs.
Recommended amount of liquid (water or milk): 1 tbsp pr egg.
Using water does make the taste a lot better because the protein is a lot richer.
Not deleting, because it seems vaguely close to a real answer, but there's nowhere near enough explanation here to be a good answer.
Beef, welcome to teh site. Could you please explain what you mean by "richer", especially if yiu are dilluting the eggs...
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.842889 | 2012-06-09T10:11:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24322",
"authors": [
"Andrew",
"Aster",
"Cascabel",
"CrazyMenConnected",
"Jackson",
"Jorge Berenguer ",
"KMC",
"Peter",
"Rivke Flinkenstein",
"Rome Limon",
"Shruti Paliwal",
"Stephie",
"TFD",
"bonCodigo",
"haider_kazal",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137042",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137065",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3998",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55337",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55338",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55340",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58344",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8434",
"zzzzBov"
],
"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
} |
33321 | Trying to find the actual name of an eastern european distilled beverage
this is hopefully a simple question. I have had several friends from Eastern Europe, and they often visited with a bottle of a family-style distilled beverage. It is made with pretty much whatever fruits are available (I've had plum, prune, cherry, etc). The closest I can come with the pronunciation is "trweeka," but that is from memory so I could be slightly off. It would be found in the Ukraine, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Moldova, Poland... those types of places. I am hoping someone may be familiar and know the proper name in Cyrillic and transliterated to English? I'd like to learn more about it.
Kvass perhaps? I've seen that in eastern europe, it seems to be used as a catch-all term in some areas.
I think you mean Tuica. This is a Romanian liquor, made from fruits.
It is quite similar to Palinka, a Hungarian liquor with a protected name.
THIS IS IT! Thank you thank you thank you. I really appreciate it!!
If you mean 'distilled', then in Poland it would be "bimber". But there's also a beverage made by mixing a strong alcohol (spirit) with various fruits (or coffee ;) ) and leaving it for half a year or longer. This is called "nalewka"
In the Czech Republic (and other countries around us) we have a drink made from fruits called "slivovice"
Awesome! I was hoping I could find someone local who could provide an answer. We just finished a bottle of rachya (again, based on phonetics and not spelling) from Macedonia, and it turned me on to some of the cool home distilled things coming out of that part of the world. I appreciate the feedback!
You're welcome! The drink you're talking about now is rakia, not made in the Czech Republic under that name but great nevertheless:)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.843126 | 2013-04-08T15:40:37 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33321",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"GoTTimw",
"Mathias Bader",
"Matthew",
"Robert Richard O'Brien",
"Stephen Duarte",
"Tammy Deeb",
"anotherone",
"danbakery",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17733",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77235",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77240",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8339",
"jkottnauer",
"lina curious",
"ohgodOhGod_ITSNOTWORKING"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
22001 | Can I make a béchamel sauce with coconut cream?
I want to make a béchamel sauce with coconut cream instead of milk. Does anybody have a guess whether this will work?
First, you don't specify if you mean cream of coconut, or coconut milk. I think coconut milk would be the thing to try here, as it has less fat.
Second, if it works, it won't be bechamel any more. But this is a technical detail: if it is tasty to you, you should be able to use it as a substitution practically everywhere.
Third, does it work? I haven't tried it, but I would strongly assume that it will. Coconut milk has more fat than normal milk, but this isn't a terrible problem for roux-based sauces. Indeed, I have read recipes (in reliable cookbooks) which direct the cook to add melted butter to the roux before or after adding the liquid. Which means that the fat ratio in the sauce isn't too exact; it is the ratio of flour to water which you have to keep straight.
The one thing to pay attention to is that coconut fat melts around 34-35°C. So your coconut roux sauce will exhibit noticeable difference in thickness depending on the temperature. As long as you serve it warm, it will be a similar thickness to bechamel. If you let it go cold, it will probably thicken quite a bit. If you plan to serve it cold, adjust the flour amount accordingly.
It should work, I've seen recipes for coconut milk sawmill gravy that work great. Of course anything that has a coconut substitution will taste somewhat coconutty. One cheat I have is to not mix up the coconut if I'm using canned, the water tends to separate so you get a thicker item to start with.
@Manako The coconutty flavour was intended, and specifically the reason behind this question. Making a curry/moussaka mashup, which is currently in the oven - can't wait! :)
I make a coconut curry "béchamel" sauce every once in a while. Usually use it with chicken and broccoli and etc. recipes that I serve over pineapple fried rice. Make a roux (using at least some butter), shake up a can of coconut milk and whisk it in until the desired consistency (and then I also add curry to taste). FYI: Béchamel sauces aren't served cold regardless of how much the flour is adjusted. They're béchamel sauces, not pudding.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.843310 | 2012-03-05T09:16:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22001",
"authors": [
"Andrey",
"Manako",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9369"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
32905 | Chocolate mousse - methods to have firm foamy mousse using white egg and cream
I am working on a multilayer chocolate mousse but is kind of hard for me as some recipe suggested me that I should use the white part of the egg and others suggest me to use double cream.
I would like to derive a scientific method to have nice and foamy mousse all the times, independently from when I use egg whites or cream.
Most of the times I use the "egg white" I manage to get a decently
firm foamy mousse. Some people use salt to get it to become nice and foamy. Other people suggest is not needed. I noticed that when I whisk it and there are drops of water it doesn't foam.
When I use cream I don't manage to get it foamy. How can I do this?
Any tips?
Any help suggestion is greatly appreciated.
There are several common methods to make mousse, and give it its foamy characteristic. 1) whipped cream; 2) egg whites; 3) italian meringue. Sometimes these are combined. Can you give a base recipe so that we can see what you are having trouble with to give you better advise?
Hi, and welcome to the site. We close questions here if they are duplicates of already-asked questions. We already have had something very similar to yours, http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5482/how-can-i-make-my-chocolate-mousse-fluffier. Please look through its answers, and if there is some point not answered by them, edit your question to make it more clear how it is different from the old one.
The recipe I am trying to follow is this http://www.thegoodfoodguide.co.uk/news/hans-schweitzer-recipe .. is kind of a disaster.. especially because it uses a lot of dark chocolate in the mousse. I also do not have a termometer to measure the temperature of the mousse. The cream wouldn't get foamy so I used more gelatine in order to hope tomorrow morning to find the mousse foamy or at least thick.The problem is that I have a competition in 2 days and I never cooked a triple layer mousse like this before but I need to master it. I also would like to learn how to do a ganache layer to put on top
@rumtscho btw.. thank u for the link.. useful one
@mm24 this is a rather advanced recipe and not one I would do without a thermometer. Your chocolate will seize if overheated, your yolks will curdle if overheated but not fluff if too cold, and the cream will not whip if not chilled enough. We can give you advice, but if you are not accustomed to working with chocolate, you may want to choose another recipe for your competition - this one may take you 4-5 tries to learn.
Please edit your question with this new information... many people will ignore questions in which they have to read through a lot of comments to get all of the details.
In the referenced mousse recipes (there is more than one in that dessert), the vast majority of the foaminess will come from the whipped cream.
You need to ensure that your cream is beaten properly to maximize foaminess, that is air volume:
Chill your working equipment, including the bowl, whisk, and of course the cream itself
If whipping by hand, use a large balloon whisk
Beat until holding the whipped cream up from the whisk does not cause it to lose its shape--this is the stiff peak stage. You need to be careful, as this is the last stage before overbeaten.
In the praline mousse, the purpose of heating the eggs and sugar is so that the gelatin will dissolve; the gelatin will provide the stability for the molded dessert after it is formed and chilled. The air beaten into the egg yolk mixture will help a little, but it is the more minor factor in the overall mousse.
In the panache based mousse, half of the cream is used to form the ganache, but again, the foam comes from the whipped cream. In this mousse the post beating stability will come from the cocoa butter firming up when the dessert is chilled.
Thanks. I used some "Agar Agar" (about 4grs for about 600 ml of liquid ingridients - counting as liquid the melted chocolate) and subsituted the egg with only cream as I needed to be sure that taste and shape where preserved also the day after and it worked perfectly. Thanks for ur directions, they helped a lot.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.843826 | 2013-03-22T01:13:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32905",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Francesca",
"Health And Healing",
"J. Xu",
"LindaC",
"Robby1212",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12648",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76075",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76076",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76077",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76086",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76139",
"mm24",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
21914 | Cooking cakes on asbestos mats
My mother tells me when she was young her mother would bake cakes on an asbestos mat inside a lidded electric frypan. I'd assume the practice is gone now because of the reputation of asbestos, but what was the idea behind the asbestos--a simple heat spreader?
:) The mat was inside the electric frypan.
I edited out the ambiguity.
Health Risks Associated with Asbestos
The reputation of asbestos is indeed well-deserved. Inhalation of asbestos fibers can cause a wide range of potentially fatal conditions. It is unlikely that normal home use of a product that contains asbestos will expose one to asbestos fibers. However, people who work with asbestos, whether mining the raw materials or processing the asbestos into finished products, are at much higher risk of lung cancer and mesothelioma than the general population.
In other words, as long as no one ground up your grandmother's asbestos mat and blew it out into the room, there is no reason to be afraid of it. However, the people who mined the asbestos and the people who formed it into a mat at the factory may have gotten very sick later in life.
Thermodynamic Properties of Asbestos
Specific Heat Capacity
The reason why asbestos was a good choice for your grandmother's baking rig, other than the fact it wouldn't catch fire, is that it has a high specific heat. Specific heat is essentially a measure of how much energy it takes to raise the temperature of a given material.
Other consequences of a high specific heat are that the material will both heat evenly and loose temperature slowly. Water, for example, has a very high heat capacity. So, water takes a relatively long time to heat up, heats evenly, and cools down slowly. Of course, you can't make a baking mat out of water....
Looking at a table of specific heat capacities of various materials, we can see that the specific heat capacity of asbestos is only about one quarter that of water, but is more that twice the heat capacity of iron. If you made a mat out of iron, it would have to mass more than twice as much as the asbestos mat to have an equal heat capacity.
However, heat capacity is not the whole story.
Thermal Conduction
Thermal conduction is the transfer of heat between two objects that are in contact with each other. For example, cast iron transfers its heat to what it touches about 400 times faster than asbestos mill board. So, an iron mat would not work well at all, because it would, as you'd expect, burn the bottom of the cake.
Your grandmother needed a material with a high specific heat capacity, but low thermal conductivity.
Ovens
Baking cakes in a normal oven works similarly to how your grandmother baked cakes, and for the same reasons. The air in an oven also has a high specific heat capacity (about the same as asbestos), but very low thermal conductivity (about 1/6th that of asbestos).
An oven is much more expensive than an asbestos mat and an electric fry pan, and will take up a lot more space. It's just a trade-off.
There is still a reasonable health risk just using an asbestos product. Anyone having one should not use it, and should get it disposed of properly
@TFD, that is not the scientific consensus, it is a fairy tale told by litigators and mass media.
@Aaronut Great suffering batmans, an asbestos denier ;-) I live in country where you can't generally litigate, and we are getting rid of it!
@TFD: Denier? Everything that Adam says is correct, and I'm not disputing it - it's extremely dangerous in high quantities and many people involved in its manufacture have been harmed. But as the reams of scientific papers indicate, quantity (and also sub-type) is key, it's not true that any exposure is going to harm you, any more so than a mild bleach solution is equivalent to concentrated chlorine gas. Virtually every country has demonized asbestos and is getting rid of/has gotten rid of it, but like so many things that have been banned, that is more political than rational.
I found this today, clearing a house in Scotland
Great photo. It is nice to be able to see historic equipment such as this, it is a nice reference adds character to the original question.
Asbestos mats prevented food from being burnt or scorched.
I have a copy of the old "Joy of Cooking" and the recipe for mincemeat calls for using an asbestos mat to prevent the delicate organ meat from being burned while the rest of the ingredients cook.
Suppose you can use a Silicon baking mat instead
I only googled this, just now, so there could be mistakes in my answer.
At least where I live (Western Europe), women indeed cooked on asbestos. Some properties of asbestos is that it's isolating, cheap and strong. Those properties make it excellent (if there weren't the known downsides) for cooking: it retains the heat well, it's cheap and you can use it everyday for quite a long time.
That's all I could find (for now). My guess is that the most important property is the isolating one. The heat is contained in the asbestos, which makes it energy-saving.
There was also one mention of 'heating plates' from asbestos (I don't know the correct English term, but the modern version is something like this). So I think asbestos also stays warm for a long time, after having received direct heat.
"The heat is contained in the asbestos, which makes it energy-saving."? Asbestos is an insulator. Surely it would stop the bottom of the cake burning, while it 'baked' in the lidded fry pan? Just like a Dutch oven covered in hot embers. There is no energy saving, as the exterior of the pan is not insulated, so heat is lost to the outside air
@TFD: I meant more that once it's hot, it stays hot. This would not apply for a regular dish, but perhaps it would for a cake (since they would've been baked longer). But of course, you could be correct. I'll research some more.
TFD's answer sounds more scientifically plausible I must say. The asbestos would heat up slightly to cook the bottom but mainly cause heat have to travel up the sides of the pan and radiate into the interior, giving an oven effect.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.844311 | 2012-03-02T06:22:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21914",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Chef_Code",
"Mien",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135395",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8315",
"john timmons",
"jontyc"
],
"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
} |
22771 | Texture issue in homemade powdered sugar
The other day I was making marshmallows and ran into a multitude of problems -- broken candy thermometers, overheated mixers, syrup spill, you name it. I thought I'd escaped the clutches of fate and made decent marshmallows until I realized I ran out of powdered sugar.
Well, darn it. I had a big batch of marshmallows already made and ready for coating.
So I remember hearing you can make your own powdered sugar with granulated sugar and cornstarch. I gave it a try in my food processor and it kind of worked, but was still too coarse.
Is there any way to get around this besides to keep on pulsing and hoping for the best? Does a blender, coffee grinder, or another kitchen contraption work better?
I'm gonna guess you just didn't go long enough. I make my own in the food processor all the time, but I turn it on high, go have a snack and come back in 10 minutes. It certainly does take quite some time.
Agreed. There's a 1/(number_of_sugar_particles * adjustment_factor) chance that one particle hits the food processor blade. Additionally, there's only a chance that the collision is non-elastic (i.e. the particle hits the blade and some of its energy gets absorbed by the particle, breaking it up).
The smaller you want your sugar to get, the longer you have to run it through the food processor. As a particle shrinks, its terminal velocity becomes slower (higher surface area to volume means more air resistance relative to the amount of force exerted by gravity).
Ah, thank you. Next time I'll just keep it running for longer.
Perhaps a better alternative (I never tried it in a food processor myself) is a coffee mill. That's what I use and it goes very quickly. But of course, you can't put in as much sugar as in a food processor, so it would be slower if you need a lot of sugar.
I'm not sure if it's the coffee mill itself that's better or if it's because you don't grind as much at once.
I use a cheap electric coffee grinder. Like Mien said, you can't make as much in one go but it'll be powdered sugar. Depending the coffee grinder, you could repeat it multiple times, but mine (supposedly) overheats after long use. I never tested it out.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.844770 | 2012-04-04T03:09:38 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22771",
"authors": [
"Channaka",
"Eric Hu",
"NinjaSoap",
"TheSpatulaQueen",
"cain",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51337",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51347",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9742",
"jaydoubleu",
"librariman"
],
"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
} |
23102 | New potatoes in pressure cooker with salt: how to optimize water amount and cooking time?
I am trying to replicate a recipe that my father-in-law performed once at home… well, not much of a recipe, rather a cooking style, as you'll see.
The idea is to cook new potatoes (specifically, new Ratte potatoes) in a pressure cooker with salt. The potatoes are easy to find (at least here in France), and are quite small: about 5 cm in length. After scrubbing them but leaving the skin on, he put them at the bottom of the pressure cooker, with a little water and quite a bit of sea salt. After a small cooking time (which I estimated at 5 minutes), the potatoes were cooked just enough and crusted with salt.
Now, I have tried that three times myself, and the results were disheartening. The first time, I had put too little water, and burnt the bottom of the potatoes. The second time, there was too much water, and I ended up with regular pressure-cooked potatoes floating in salty water. The third time, I overcooked and while there was no excess of water, half the potatoes has exploded into mashed potatoes (and there was too much salt).
How could I get an idea of how much water, salt and cooking time is needed for this recipe? Trial-and-error is not working very much here, and I have no idea how to figure out these quantities.
PS: it's not relevant to the question, but he made with that an olive oil/coriander/chili sauce that was real good. That I managed to reproduce, at least!
Could you ask your FIL?
@EliLansey that'd be cheating, wouldn't it? more to the point, I did ask, and he said “yeah, you shouldn't put to much water, but not too little either… and cooking time depends on the quantity of potatoes, so just do it the way you feel it, it’ll work”
The only time I've ever heard of something similar is Salt Potatoes
www.nytimes.com/2008/08/22/travel/escapes/22rNYfood.html
allrecipes.com/recipe/syracuse-salt-potatoes/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_potatoes
but I've never seen them done in a pressure cooker. However, most pressure cooking charts (http://fastcooking.ca/pressure_cookers/cooking_times_pressure_cooker.php for example) list the cooking time of whole new potatoes at about 5-8 minutes. If it was me I would try one of the salt potato recipes and just cook them for less time.
That may well be the origin of this recipe because my father-in-law spent a few years in Syracuse a long time ago… Interesting, I'll ask him about it
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.844977 | 2012-04-16T20:28:58 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23102",
"authors": [
"Eli Lansey",
"F'x",
"Jason",
"Steven Whitney",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52233",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52235",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9940",
"jcook",
"joan bennett",
"user52233"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
13034 | Made oven ghee - what is the liquid at the top of my cold ghee?
Yesterday I made ghee in the oven by cooking sweet butter for 2hrs in the oven at low temp. I filtered the resulting liquid through cheese cloth and let the resulting clear liquid sit overnight.
Today, the ghee has congealed into a solid, as it should. However, on top of it is an oily liquid. I poured some into a glass and added water, and the two liquids don't mix, so it's not water left over from the butter (good news). Still, I'm confused why I don't end up with a uniform material.
Some butter is mixed with sunflower oil in order to make it more spreadable. Have you checked the ingredients list (if there is one) on the butter?
That was pure butter from pastured cows.
In the US at least, such a product would have to be labeled a "spread" or something other than butter...
Whatever it is, it is no good.
Since it is congealed, it should be a snap to remove, allowing you to carry on with your life, your mind at rest.
I just think it's different types of oils which have different properties. Oils congeal at various temperatures depending on their makeup. I am suspecting two different types of oils were in the butter.. Do check the ingredient list in the butter.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.845199 | 2011-03-11T10:14:32 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13034",
"authors": [
"A.P.",
"JDelage",
"Jemmeh",
"Karen",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"VitaminYes",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26969",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26971",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26984",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26990",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27003",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5014",
"notthetup",
"user27003"
],
"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
} |
22052 | My cake crumbled on the top and took very long time to cook
This time I didn't have much white sugar, so I added half cup brown and half cup white sugar to my carrot cake.
I observed that the cake crumbled on the top with large cracks, and took very long time to cook as compared to previous same cake in which I had used just white sugar.
The change that I did to the cake was to add half cup brown sugar. The taste was same as before.
Can brown sugar be the culprit here?
Other causes for cracks are overmixing (too much aeration) and overbaking. How did you determine that it wasn't done when you baked it longer? If you used the toothpick test or judged by color, it's possible that the additional moisture in the brown sugar caused wetter crumbs or slowed browning.
Brown sugar contains molasses, which is acidic, and probably threw off the acid-base balance in the cake. It also contains more water than white sugar, but neither contain much, so that probably didn't matter.
Did the cake rise as expected? I'm guessing “no”, which is probably what changed the baking time.
Quickly looking it up, between ¼ tsp and ½ tsp of baking soda would neutralize the brown sugar, if you feel like trying again.
Other possibilities:
your baking powder or soda is too old; how long ago was the last cake? Baking powder especially has a limited shelf-life.
mistakes (oven temperature set wrong, measured wrong)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.845350 | 2012-03-06T16:22:28 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22052",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
13534 | Is it bad to marinate meat for too long?
From my experience it is always best to marinate meat for a decent amount of time, so the meat can "soak" up the marinade and be more flavourful.
However, I came across this recipe here: http://www.abc.net.au/tv/cookandchef/txt/s2264630.htm
In the directions, it says: Add pork and marinade for a minimum of 6 hours or overnight, but no longer than 12 hours.
I was wondering, why does it say "no longer than 12 hours"? Isn't it good to let meat marinate for as long as possible?
Thanks.
Two things-
If the marinade is very strong or salty then the meat could simply become over flavored.
If the marinade includes a meat digesting enzyme such as papain then leaving it too long could turn the meat to mush.
what type of marinade ingredients will contain 'meat digesting enzymes' ?
@pyko- This is not something I am an expert at but... Some ingredients contain proteases, protein digesting enzymes. Two that are common are papain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papain) and bromelain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bromelain). These are found in papaya and pineapple respectively. They can also be purchased as Meat Tenderizer powder and added to marinade separately.
In my very limited experience the over-flavoring has been my most common mistake, especially for things that soak up marinade quickly, if you leave it too long it loses a lot of its normal "meat" flavor, which may or may not go against the taste you're looking for.
I've also found that if there's a citric acid i.e. lime or lemon juice in the marinade it changes the texture of the meat. Sort of like the process "ceviche" undergoes.
In Sibiria we used to marinate chicken over 24 before BBQ on open flames. We marinated in lemon juice with a lot of sliced onions and sometimes added wine.
One more thing to consider, when we did that we stored it in cold place. almost at temperature of fridge.
I guess in article they want to make sure that pork does not become bad and start to collect bacteria.
Marinades typically are more dense, acidic, and can sometimes contain a tenderizer. However, marinating typically only has a significant effect on the surface of the meat so most recipes recommend shorter marinating times so that the outer layers don't get too salty/over-flavored/mushy etc. If you are concerned with making a more tender, juicy, and overall better tasting piece of meat a brine is really what you want.
I've done deer meat for about 5 years now. I slice it 1/8 of an inch thick then try different seasonings on the meat then tenderize by pounding in then I use a big bottle of Louisiana hot sauce and a few sodas of the same flavor to top off in a sealed bowl or zip lock.
I keep the meat fully submerged for 3-5 days then I remove and squeeze out all fluids with paper towels or hand towels before placing on oven racks.
Last I sprinkle flavored seasonings of mine and families choices on them before placing for 12 hours on the oven's lowest temperature and leaving the oven door cracked open.
I've been told by plenty of friends and family it taste great and I've been offered money too for bags but I say no and give them away with a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year...
This answer does not actually answer the OP's question.
Thank you for the post. I never understand why people are so toxic/"anal" here. Some people just don't want other people to learn.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.845497 | 2011-03-28T23:01:25 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13534",
"authors": [
"Diana",
"Dotted spam",
"G.Rassovsky",
"Jason C",
"Prashanth C",
"Ron",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100645",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5464",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/92007",
"lemontwist",
"pyko"
],
"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
} |
23181 | Will potatoes discolor if I pre-make scalloped potatoes?
I'm planning to make scalloped potatoes with russet potatoes and cream and cheese. If I prepare and assemble the dish in the evening, can I store it (covered in the refrigerator) overnight and bake it the next day? Will the potatoes discolor or soften in the cream?
They should be fine.
We sometimes do it in the morning for dinner and it gives no problem. Just make sure all the potatoes are covered with liquid, or those pieces would discolour.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.845790 | 2012-04-18T17:29:29 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23181",
"authors": [
"Jules",
"K_Dam",
"LiamHarries",
"apat",
"eugen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52421",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52423",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52427",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52695",
"msmolens"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
15342 | Are bay leaves dangerous to (unwittingly) eat?
When I first started working as a cook, I was instructed in no uncertain terms to only use whole bay leaves when cooking so that when the leaves were removed, still whole, one could be sure that no pieces had broken off and remained in the stew (or whatever).
I was told that eating dried bay leaves was akin to eating broken glass in their potential effects on the digestive system.
Yet, just the other day I was eating a rabbit pie and I discovered a whole bay leaf in it. I asked the server, and she said that it was common practice for that restaurant to leave bay leaves in situ.
I guess they can't be that bad for you if restaurants can serve them hidden in the middle of a pie?
Brings to mind the old "swallowing toothbrush bristles causes appendicitis" urban legend. But if you're wolfing down your food fast enough to swallow a whole bay leaf, I imagine they could present a choking hazard...
@Knives : I blame my military school upbringing for the fast eating ... but I've gagged on a bay leaves quite a few times growing up, to the point where for decades I refused to cook with them. Now, I just make sure to keep a count, so I can remove 'em.
There is no reason to worry. The worst thing which can happen is that a piece of bay leaf, being somewhat hard, can lodge somewhere in your digestive system, necessitating a trip to ER. But a medical paper on the topic starts its discussion section with the sentence "Reports discussing ingestion of bay leaves have been exceedingly scant". They only cite 10 references in the period 1950-1990, and most of these are general studies of foreign bodies in the esophagus, not specific studies of bay leaf ingestion.
Given how often bay leafs must find their ways into people's digestive systems (they feature in our food), it is safe to conclude that only a tiny fraction of ingested bay leafes cause problems, else there would be more studies mentioning such cases. The same is true for side effects different from mechanical obstruction: if this had happened, somebody would have published it.
The paper I mentioned is "Bay Leaf Impaction in the Esophagus and Hypopharynx" by Stephen K. Buto, MD; Tat-Kin Tsang, MD; Gerald W. Sielaff, MD; Laurie L. Gutstein, MD; and Mick S. Meiselman, MD. Sadly, it isn't freely available (I could read the full text because my uni has a subscription).
I guess that if you are working as a cook, your workplace may decide that even if the chance for a customer choking on a bay leaf is something like one in a million, they'd rather instill removing bay leaves from dishes as a policy. Probably prudent, although there are more important risks to care about.
"There is no reason to worry. You may have to go to the ER."
@dn3s if you get out of bed in the morning, the worst thing that can happen is that you misstep, fall down and have to go to ER with complicated fractures. In fact, I personally know somebody to whom it happened. And yet, if you ask me "is it dangerous to get out of bed", I will tell you to not worry and just do it.
And staying in bed is also potentially dangerous - bed sores, falling ceilings, stray cannon fire, crashing airplanes...
Bay leaves are definitely edible. I have always heard the same warning, but after seeing flaked bay leaves for sale at the store, I concluded they were safe.
This wiki summarizes it as they are safe (if you can stand the flavor), except they are often still stiff after cooking and could potentially cause choking or scratching. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_leaf#Safety
Having dealt with them in the past, they are no where near as bad as glass would be.
Broken glass is perhaps tipping it a bit strong, but the thick central stem of bay leaves does mean they stay quite rigid even when cooked, so there is potential for scratching the intestinal lining if a whole one was swallowed.
I don't think small fragments would do much damage however - certainly no more than a bit of un-chewed potato chip or boiled sweet. I have several recipes that call for shredded or ground bay leaf (in curry pastes for example) which obviously can't be removed.
Today I ate soup and it had a bay leaf in it. It got stuck in my throat and I couldn't breathe or talk. Lucky my 12 yr old daughter had the sense to ring the ambulance, I believe I have a guardian angel. I barely managed to pull it out. I was told to sip water and eat soft foods only, my esophagus is cut all over and my throat is really sore to swallow. All bay leaves have been removed from my cooking methods starting today. I was told that the bay leaf is like swallowing glass, I'm so so lucky.
I was rushed to the ER after swallowing 2 small pieces of bay leaf that were in a salad served at the Long Beach Diner and lodged in my esophagus cutting me like a rasor blade. It resulted in hours of violent hacking and spitting up blood, xrays, a catscan, and a painful camera probe through my nose and down my throat. Hospital suggested surgery to remove it but I finally managed to dislodge one of the pieces as a result of my violent hacking. Two weeks later the second piece finally passed into my digestive track. Very frightening. Very painful.
My digestive system has been in distress for months as a result of the trauma.
That sure doesn't sound safe to me!
This is probably fake. Doctors don't camera probe via the nose. People eat food with hard bits all the time without issue
@TFD Nasal endoscopy is actually a common procedure, and this would be a perfect example of a reason it would be done.
What really makes this sound fake is that the bay leaf was in a salad.
@Jolenealaska through the mouth is far more common unless the mouth is unavailable (read, blocked). Bigger opening, less chance of things going wrong.
This post was put up for deletion. Whether it is fake or not the symptoms do relate to perfectly valid experiences with eating bay-leaf. Salad's as in the leaf and mixed raw vegetable mixes may not have bay leaf added, I can imagine some chef adding some to boiling new potatoes and not getting all the bits out.
Agreed: I have no intention of deleting this, or the other horror story answer. If they're fake or wrong, we can handle it with voting, but they're still answers.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.845895 | 2011-06-09T18:02:44 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15342",
"authors": [
"A Citizen of The World",
"Andy Bolland",
"Cascabel",
"Davieberg",
"Doug",
"Joanne McCormick",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Shog9",
"TFD",
"Wayne Werner",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133807",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87126",
"jwenting",
"rumtscho",
"user371366"
],
"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
} |
25314 | How can I prevent my ice cream bucket from drying out?
I live in New Mexico which is a dry climate. During the winter I store my ice cream bucket in the garage. While ice cream buckets that are not in use are prone to drying out, storing it in the garage certainly isn't helping. A dried out bucket cannot prevent the salt brine solution from leaking out during the freezing process.
The dryness certainly is not a huge problem as I simply soak the ice cream bucket for a few days which causes the wood to swell up. I'd like to shorten the number of days I must soak the bucket before it is usable again. Is there something I can do to help keep my bucket from drying out over the winter?
You could make and eat ice cream in winter :)
@numtscho now that's a great idea! :)
Well, if it was a boat, you'd swab it every few days ("swab the desk") so it stayed wet and swollen.
You could also treat the bucket with a food-grade mineral oil. You can find it in most kitchenware stores for protecting cutting boards. The oil will evaporate much slower than water will, but it will still evaporate.
You might try putting the whole thing in a large plastic bag or similar container, so whatever moisture evaporates stays in the air surrounding the bucket, slowing further moisture loss ... but moist, stagnant air isn't good for long periods of time, either, as you could end up with mold that would be even more annoying to deal with.
Or, as the bucket's only touching the ice & salt mix, and not coming in direct contact with food, you could always use wood treatments available from any hardware store.
update : I was reading up on walnut oil, and wikipedia linked to a woodworker who recommended a walnut oil & beeswax finish (1:2 blend) for finishing wood that would come in contact w/ food, but that you should re-coat each year. I assume the beeswax would give it longer durability as compared to straight mineral oil sold for cutting boards.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.846429 | 2012-07-28T16:25:38 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25314",
"authors": [
"Anatolij Miloserdov",
"Anya Jenks",
"Bob",
"Crystyn",
"JACK RANGER JackRanger co",
"James brown",
"Ovidiu Dolha",
"Sam Gordon Ganguly",
"Yuriko Hazlett",
"ahsteele",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57926",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57928",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57951",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57952",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57977",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57978",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70298",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/809",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
15801 | How do I scale a recipe that calls for boiling off liquid?
I made a lamb ragu last night, but doubled the quantity for a large group. One of the steps called for 1.5 cups of red wine and then boiled it off. Doubling to 3 cups seemed entirely too much (once I'd already done it) and took quite a while to boil off. The recipe then called for 3 cups of chicken stock, which was again supposed to mostly boil off. 6 cups looked ridiculous, so I ended up using about 4, but it still seemed like too much. The 90 mins suggested wasn't long enough to boil the sauce down to a good consistency, but I had to serve it anyway. It was a bit watery, but tasted good.
So how do I scale quantity and cooking time in a recipe that calls for the liquid to boil away or boil down significantly? A linear scaling didn't seem to work well at all. Are there any good rules of thumb?
At a loss for the appropriate tag for scaling recipes. Suggestions? Does something already exist?
I added an existing tag. Feel free to delete it and/or edit if you know something better.
Thanks @mien. I tried scaling, but it didn't autocomplete. Guess I was too hasty.
you should also consider that the whole idea of ragu is that you put it on the stove and forget about it for at least 3-4 hours (only stir from time to time)...
sometimes, it's easier to take some of the liquid to be reduced, and move it to another pan, so you're getting the benefits of both increased evaporation area, plus the heat from a second burner. (this assumes you don't already have all of your burners occupied)
Agreed, scaling up sauces that require reduction can be tricky, but it actually reduces to a simple physics problem. First I'm going to give you the best solution and then the science behind it.
The solution is to use a larger, shallower pan and apply higher heat, while stirring more frequently. I usually go a quarter step up in heat on the stove; so, from medium-low I go to medium, and from medium to medium-high. Using your stove's ventilation fans may also help. If you're doubling the amount of liquid you reduce, you can assume roughly a 50% increase in time required to reduce it, following this advice. Normally, it would require doubling the time to reduce the sauce.
And no, you cannot reduce the amount of liquid... if you double the recipe you need to double the liquid too. The liquid is reduced to add flavor and body to your sauce. Doubling the spices and other ingredients without doubling wine and stock will yield a sauce that is too spicy, lacking in depth, and does not have enough volume. Alternately, if you double the stock and wine but do not reduce enough, you'll get a watery, bland sauce, because stock adds gelatin, which thickens the sauce.
If there's meat cooking in your reducing sauce: reduce the sauce until it needs only the suggested time to finish reducing, then cut the burner to the suggested power and cook for the suggested time. Using a higher temperature setting will overcook the meat, making it tough. Also, using a partially reduced sauce will impart more flavor to the meat; since the flavors are already somewhat concentrated before adding the meat, more will penetrate the meat. If this is a problem, break your recipe into normal sized batches and cook them on separate burners.
If you're concerned about estimated the right amount of time for a doubled recipe, you can reduce in the specified way before adding meat, then add meat and do it again.
Now the scientific explanation:
The principal problem here is the rate of evaporation. Let's break it down!
Liquid needs a lot of extra energy to transition from liquid to vapor, called the enthalpy of vaporization. For water, the energy required is 6 times what it took to heat it to the boiling point from room temperature. Once it hits the boiling point, it can't get much hotter until the liquid is almost completely gone. This means the rate of evaporation is mainly limited by hot fast you can input heat.
The rate of heat input is limited by the power supplied to the burner, but a second limit comes from the pan; the rate of heat transfer is proportional to surface area, thermal conductivity, and the temperature difference between two surfaces. Turning up the burner gets it hotter, increasing heat transfer, but the pot still needs to transfer that heat to a liquid, so using a broader and more conductive pot exposes more liquid to the heat. It also distributes the heat over a wider area, preventing the liquid from overheating as easily where it touches the pot. Stirring ensures the heat is evenly distributed, maximizing heat transfer (by increasing the temperature differential) and preventing over heating.
Evaporation is also impeded by a pressure and a high concentration of vapor above the surface. This concentration will be higher if there is liquid has less surface area (the same amount of liquid released into a smaller volume). So, the liquid out in a bigger pot increases the evaporation rate. The local concentration will be also higher if humidity is high (more water vapor in the air), and higher if there are no air currents to disperse the vapor boiling off. So, running vent fans and using a shallower pot will make it easier for the vapors to escape. A ventilation fan may also slightly reduce pressure, but that has more to do with weather. In industrial food processing, a vacuum may be used to evaporate liquids at a much lower temperature than normal. For example, this is how powdered and evaporated milk are made.
Finally, in a tall pot, escaping vapor may lose heat to the cooler walls of the pot as it rises, re-condensing and falling back down into the pot. If the pot is lidding, this is even more of a problem. For this reason, it is advisable to use an open, un-lidded pot. This effect can be used to evaporate away alcohol from a sauce while retaining the water content.
So, to double the rate of evaporation and maintain a constant reduction time, double the power supplied to the burner, and increase the surface area of the pot. Of course, you often can't double the burner power without burning the liquid... so you're left with using a larger pot and increasing the heat as much as you think you can get away with. If you stir enough and scrape the pot's sides down, you can get away with quite a bit.
Good explanation, but do I need to double a quantity if it's getting reduced or completely boiled off? And what do I do when I'm already using a bloody big sauce pan, as was the case? Does the extra cooking time effect the dish?
Generally, yes. I've edited the answer to explain more fully, but you do need to double the liquid... unless you want twice the dish with half the sauce, in which case you need to keep all ingredients for the sauce un-doubled. If you're forced to do a big batch of sauce, and can't use more heat or a larger pot then you need to increase the time proportionately. I've seen a restaurant spend literally all day reducing veal stock at a simmer for use in a demi-glace. It's a real pain in the rear, but it's necessary. Exception here: if the sauce is supposed to reduce with the meat in it or such.
In this case, the sauce did have meat in it. I guess timmyp's idea of cooking the wine in half on its own and then adding it is a good one for this case.
If there's meat involved, reduce the sauce part way before adding the meat. This is the sort of thing that would have been worth including in the original question.
I've edited the answer to include more detail about cooking meat in the sauce.
@BobMcgee, I thought it was implied that Lamb Ragu had meat in it. My bad. ;o)
Meat yes, but never having done lamb ragu, I assumed the sauce was prepared before or separately from the meat like with most dishes. Now I know...
I'm reminded of my Fourier Analysis class in college... $u_t = \alpha\Delta u$. A burner and a pot is not unlike a rod with heat applied uniformly to one end (let's assume you have an ideal burner without hotspots... what do you want, I studied math...); in this case it "boils down" to $u_t = \alpha u_{xx}$
Oh come on, cooking.stackexchange.net doesn't get latex markup??
Probably the most correct answer is that you need to scale your boiling speed - so just double all of the ingredients, and double the power of your burner, and you'll boil off double the water. You'd probably also want to double the surface area & burner surface area so that boiling off liquid twice as fast didn't turn into a ridiculously fast rolling boil and/or an explosion at the limit.
Since this may not be feasible - especially on a home stove, and definitely infeasible at large scalings, I'd recommend that you first concentrate the liquid by boiling it alone, and only then add it to the final product and boil for the recommended time.
In order to match the recipe most closely, you don't want to decrease the amount of liquid because then you won't get as richly flavored final product. Additionally, you don't want to scale your boiling time (of the boiled mixture from the recipe) because then in general you will overcook other ingredients.
So what I'd do to double a recipe is take double the amount of liquid, say wine, and boil the wine straight on the stove for the full amount of time that is called for in the recipe, then add the concentrated wine to the recipe in place of wine and again boil it for the full amount of time that is called for in the recipe. This way you'll start with double the liquid, get double the boiling time, and hence double the water boiled off, so the correct amount of water remaining, and the correct concentration of the liquid. You'll also get the correct amount of boiling time for other ingredients as called for in the recipe.
This may not work if you're supposed to simmer though, as it creates a different temperature to biol heavily.
Yeah - you'd have to have basically double the surface area simmering then in order to get a simmer with twice the liquid boiling off. Doing the pre-boil of the liquid should work though with simmering.
My recommendation would be moving the whole operation to a much wider pan with a larger surface area. This will allow things to boil down more quickly, and might help with the time overkill issue. It will also make the larger quantities look a little more manageable.
Another alternative would be to add some wine to the dish, so you can get the solvent qualities of the alcohol, while reducing the rest of the wine in another pan to get the concentrated flavor.
But generally, the rule is that you need to scale up the surface area of the liquid that you're reducing in linearly with the volume to be reduced. (so if you double the volume, you need a vessel about 41% wider).
If a whole multiple of the original recipe is intended, making n recipes on n burners is a reliable way to circumvent the guesswork.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.846748 | 2011-06-27T15:18:21 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15801",
"authors": [
"Barbara Ewart",
"BobMcGee",
"Joe",
"Mien",
"Pancake Girl",
"Ray",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33578",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33595",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33598",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"nico",
"rvalvik",
"spiral",
"timmyp",
"user741630",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
21115 | Is it possible to temper chocolate at home?
I've read that tempering chocolate is the only way to get glossy, 'snappable' results. I've also read that it can be a complicated process involving precise temperatures. Is it possible to temper chocolate at home without lots of special equipment?
Do you consider a thermometer a piece of special equipment?
@Mien, no I wouldn't consider a thermometer "special." Most households have at least one.
I have a sugar thermometer
The thermometer needs to be very accurate in the 90 - 100 degrees (f) range.
Absolutely. I do it all the time, with great results.
The easiest way at home is to 'seed' the chocolate. Get it up to the proper temperature as best you can - 115 °F/46 °C for dark, 110 °F/43 °C for others. A thermometer obviously makes this easier. If you don't have one, it will be just melted.
Doing this in the microwave is more difficult than a double boiler because it's difficult to tell when it happens exactly and you overshoot more easily. Stir on a double boiler till the right temperature, take the chocolate off the heat and stir in additional, finely chopped, high quality unmelted chocolate (not chocolate chips).
Now stir it in as the mixture cools, it should all melt and 'seed' the crystals into the chocolate. You'll want to test before you declare victory. At this point, if it's wrong, just reheat, and reapply with more unmelted chocolate. To test, simply dip a spoon in and let it cool in the fridge for a moment. The thin coating on the spoon should be shiny and snapable.
I did it first time purely by chance. Second time was not so successful though. I plan to get an infra red thermometer.
It is fairly daunting, but not too complex to do, but I think it is well worth it to make chocolate Han Solos frozen in Carbonite.
There are enough videos on the web for this, this is one I've used.
An infra red thermometer won't be much help for chocolate tempering, get a candy thermometer for it. See my comment here: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/19631/4638
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.847565 | 2012-02-07T17:08:10 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21115",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"Jay",
"KatieK",
"Mien",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
32963 | How common are worms in dried mushrooms?
I was excited to try cooking with dried mushrooms until I saw some comments from people who found (many) dried worms mixed in with their dried mushrooms. How common is this?
It must be pretty widespread (at least in morels) as evinced from this pretty extensive list of references to worms in fresh (and dried) morels. From what I've read, the presence of worms seems to indicate that the mushrooms are of lower quality and might have been harvested too late.
Dave Fischer's North American Mushroom Basics - Some fungi have
evolved to take advantage of multiple food sources. For example, the
Oyster Mushrooms you can buy fresh at many grocery stores break down
and digest cellulose, but they have also developed mechanisms for
literally trapping and then eating tiny little "worms" called
nematodes; this gives them access to extra nitrogen...".
Mycological Society of San Francisco - Avoid morels whose caps are
soft or mushy, or become granular when rubbed: they are too old and
wormy. Morels occasionally contain insect larvae that drop out during
the drying process. The mushroom-lovers we know have disregarded this
aspect of morel enjoyment. After all, they are very small worms.
Because of the irregular nature of its surface a morel cannot be
rubbed or brushed. You may find this worrisome, wondering about what
kind of things lurk in the dark pits ready to jump into your b'chamel
sauce...
Sandy’s April Product Report - When purchasing morels, check carefully
for worms and excess sand. The worms should be easy to spot as they
are white, in contrast to the dark mushroom. To clean, gently brush
off any sand or dirt with a soft pastry brush.
I think you're overgeneralizing here. This is mostly about morels, a very particular variety of mushroom. (Also all of the quoted links are dead.) Anecdotally, I've never seen a worm in any kind of mushroom I've bought in a store; I think this is something that mostly happens with mushrooms collected in the wild.
@Jefromi see my edits.
@Jefromi I've definitely found worms in store-bought morels.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.847777 | 2013-03-24T15:01:43 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32963",
"authors": [
"BenAdamson",
"Cascabel",
"Coffeebirder",
"Jeff Axelrod",
"Manswab Habshy",
"Partho Biswas",
"Peg",
"Pointy",
"Theresa",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76250",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76253",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76262",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76287"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
3591 | What is Turkey Bacon?
Is there a standard part of the turkey that they use to process "turkey bacon"? Is it pressed from different sections of the turkey?
Add "turkey" tag?
Excellent title question, considering it's not turkey, and it's not bacon.
The meat for turkey bacon comes from the thigh of the turkey and can be cured or uncured, smoked, chopped, and reformed into strips that resemble traditional pork bacon.
Source: Wikipedia article
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.847993 | 2010-07-28T16:52:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3591",
"authors": [
"2hamed",
"AtlasRN",
"Callithumpian",
"Cat Chen",
"Chris Simmons",
"Don Busher",
"Flimzy",
"Joe Flynn",
"Raj A.N.T. Gounder",
"Sourav",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6500",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6517",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85"
],
"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
} |
614 | Rule of thumb for cooking or baking different quantities?
I often want to cook double quantities from that stated in a recipe - say, twice the quantity of pasta bake or casserole (all in one dish), or two cakes instead of one (in separate tins).
Is there a rule of thumb for extending the cooking time from that stated in the recipe, and should I adjust the oven temperature up or down as well?
This really depends on what you're cooking. Different foods will react very differently to changes in cooking time.
For Baking, to double the quantities, try the following:
Remove 1/3 of the cooking time.
Double the remaining amount.
Add your original third back on.
So If you're doubling something that would take 1 hour to bake.
Remove 1/3 (Leaving 40 minutes)
Double this new amount (Giving 80 minutes)
Add your original 1/3 back on. (100 minutes)
You may need to play around with the temperatures to make sure that you're not burning the outside.
i.e. Just add two thirds of the original cooking time Time + (2xTime/3), or 5xTime/3, which ever fits best in your head. 5xTime/3 fits best in mine :)
The answers that exist are incomplete, somewhat misleading, or too specific.
The amount of time that you will need to bake items depends mostly on the following factors:
Major factors
The shape of the item, especially its thinnest dimension (usually height for a cake or casserole)
The temperature of the oven
Minor factors
The air circulation pattern within the oven
Other items in the oven (due to changes in air circulation, and creating infrared shadows)
Except for cookies which are much more sensitive to local temperature variation within the oven since they are so thin and cook so quickly, the minor factors are very minor indeed.
What happens when you increase food volume?
If you double the volume of an item, you might be changing its dimensions.
If you double a cake recipe, and use two cake pans instead of the one, the dimensions of each pan are going to be the same. The total bake time will be very close to the same as baking one cake.
Now, take a typical brownie recipe designed for an eight inch (20 cm) square brownie pan. If you double it, but bake in a 9 x 13 pan, or quadruple it and bake in an 11 x 17 half sheet, the total area of the pans increase approximately proportionately to the total volume of batter. So the thickness of the batter will remain close to the same. Again, the bake time will not change significantly.
However, if you double the amount of a lasagna recipe, but only use as lightly larger casserole, the 2nd lasagna will be much thicker. It will require more time to bake through. If it will over crisp on top during that time, you might even need to decrease the temperature to compensate, and lengthen the baking time. Or perhaps cover it with foil for part of the cooking, so that it doesn't crisp up and brown early in the baking. There is no set rule.
As you can see, the trick in increasing quantities of a recipe like a cake or casserole is to keep the thickness of the product close to the same, so that you can bake at the same temperature, for close to the same amount of time.
Caveats, exceptions, and stuff
When you add more items or volume of food to the oven, several things happen. The most important of these is that you have more mass of food to heat. Every oven has a total amount of heat it can produce per minute or hour. If there is enough food in the oven that it cannot keep the temperature up because the foods are absorbing the heat faster than it can be produced, you will have a problem. However, this is almost never a factor in practice, because ovens can produce a lot of heat over time. They normally operate in on/off cycles to prevent raising the temperature higher than desired.
Secondly, if there is more than one pan or tray in the oven, they cast shadows on one another, preventing the radiant heat (infrared) from the oven walls, floor, ceiling, and so on from equally reaching all portions of the food equally. The air circulation patterns in the oven also change, creating hotter and cooler spots. This is why when baking two sheets of cookies in the oven at the same time, you want to swap the top and bottom trays, and rotate them from front to back.
Every food item you bake is going to have some natural variation. Because of these variations, you cannot bake to an exact time in any case. You must have a test or indicator to know when the food is done, such as it hitting 200 F internally for a bread (different breads need different internal temperatures), or a casserole being browned and crusty on top, or a cake pulling away from the sides of the pan.
The timing will help you know when to check, and to plan your cooking logistics, but you will still need to test for doneness.
If you have followed the guideline of maintaining the thickness of the food as you adjust the quantity, the doneness test will still tell you when you are finished, and the total time required will be very close to the original single recipe time. The additional baking time will be within the noise, and not something to worry about.
When it matters
Savory casseroles like lasagna, baked ziti, potatoes Anna, gratins, US-style "stuffing", macaroni and cheese, and so on are very tolerant of a wide range of temperatures and times, within reason (lower temperature, longer time, higher temperature, shorter time.)
You generally just need to heat them through, and crisp or brown the top. You can inhibit over browning by covering the casserole for part of the baking period.
For this reason, when scaling these recipes, even if the thickness changes a bit, you can change the temperature (down slightly, perhaps 25 F) or time, and watch until it is done. However, it is difficult to give a set rule. Experience will guide you.
For cakes and other baked goods, the interaction of time and temperature with the chemistry of the recipe (such as gelatizing starches, setting protein networks, triggering chemical leavening, setting crust before collapse) and so on is much more important. It is far trickier to adjust time or temperature successfully. In these cases, you want to maintain thickness by using more than one pan, or increasing the area of the item in proportion to its volume.
Gotta love cooking logistics.
The only advice I can offer is simply:
If you're cooking double the amount in a double sized tin/dish, decrease the temperature by approximately 15 to 25c and increase the cooking time.
If you're cooking double the amount in separate tins/dishes/ whatever, (more volume in the oven) increase the temperature by approximately 25c and increase the cooking time.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.848101 | 2010-07-11T11:16:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/614",
"authors": [
"Binary Worrier",
"Chris",
"Michael Mior",
"Philip Guin",
"Robert Mcclinton",
"beetlefeet",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1329",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20989",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71883",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71884",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73692",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/92",
"pat young",
"rousse101"
],
"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
} |
11675 | Can I cook Foster Farms chicken sous-vide in its original plastic?
Is it safe to cook individually wrapped frozen chicken breast in the original plastic packaging (e.g. from foster farms) using sous-vide?
Also, what is the highest temperature I can cook the plastic-wrapped chicken?
EDIT
I finally got a reply from Foster Farms:
Thank you for taking the time to
contact our Foster Farms Consumer
Affairs Department. The chicken is
not meant to be cooked in the
packaging, it is not safe.
Sincerely,
Vickie Medeiros Consumer Affairs
Representative
Before you or anyone else can asnwer this question reliably, you would need to know exactly what type of "plastic" is used for the packaging. Food safe in the freezer or at room temperature doe not mean food safe at higher temperature, as you of course know.
Sure, it will help keep all the growth hormones and antibiotics locked in for added... um.. freshness?
@Michael: They actually claim not to use growth hormones. Antibiotics, they're considerably more weaselly about...
@aaronut - well, true, I don't know much about Foster Farms in particular, but have a read through Eating Animals (http://amzn.to/hK0Dik) some time. Factory poultry farms are some frightening places in many ways.
I wonder if this means the folks at Foster aren't advocates of sous vide xD
The only way to be completely sure is to contact Foster Farms and ask them what their packaging is made of and whether or not it is a totally airtight seal. Everything else is speculation.
There are, however, two data points on which to speculate, both from their preparation page, and this is more broadly applicable to any company that distributes food this way:
Can I freeze chicken in its original wrapper?
Yes, the original packaging is fine for freezing up to two months. For longer freezing, over-wrap packages with foil, plastic wrap, freezer paper or plastic bags.
Generally something that's been properly vacuum-sealed will last much longer than that. The above would seem to indicate that it is not completely airtight and may even allow a small amount of moisture to get through.
What's the best method for thawing frozen chicken or turkey?
[...] You can also defrost in your microwave following the manufacturer's instructions. Remove chicken from the original package, and place on a microwave safe dish to defrost.
(emphasis mine)
This pretty clearly indicates that it is not microwave-safe, and proper vacuum bags that are safe for sous-vide are generally also microwave safe (even the cheapo FoodSaver products claim that you can boil, steam, or microwave in the bag).
So I am leaning quite heavily toward no - I don't think that the original packaging is safe for sous-vide, given the various other statements made by the company. But again, the best way to know for sure is to contact them directly.
Sous-vide chicken at 60ish C is not going to melt the plastic is it?
@TFD: That really depends on the plastic, and often it's not a case of outright melting but simply leaching into the food. Plastic wrap and many types of plastic bags are safe, but if the plastic isn't explicitly labeled as safe then I'd generally assume it's not (especially if they say flat-out not to use it in the microwave).
@Aaronut I thought the "leaching" into food is mostly an old wives tale? Sure in microwave things get a little intense, but 60C water?
@TFD: I'm more of a skeptic than most, and as I said, the majority of plastic containers and wraps are heatproof. But that doesn't mean you can fire any old plastic straight into a heat source. Plastic doesn't have to melt to be a problem; it deforms at a much lower temperature called the deflection temperature, and several plastics have deflection temperatures around 60° C or so. That could at least cause the seal to be lost and possibly cause leaching because those compounds are lipophilic. (Plus, 60° C is your assumption, that's nowhere stated in the question).
@Aaronut I understand that just above 60 C is the minimum safe temp for chicken, most people seem to cook around the minimum, otherwise what's the point? Reasons for not going in microwave are Mylar (PET) bags because it has an aluminium coating, most other vacuum bags because they may explode if heated (steam pressure). Chicken is often in foam trays with lids or wrap, probably very unsuitable anyway
@TFD: According to the USDA, 165° F or 74° C is the minimum safe internal temperature. Now people may take some liberties with sous-vide because they can hold the temperature steady for a very long time, but this is fundamentally a question about food safety and so the question is not how big is the risk, but is there a risk, and it appears to me that there is. People are free to ignore risks (as I often do in my own kitchen when making food for myself), but we shouldn't advise them to do so.
I have cooked pre-seasoned turkey breast and pork loin from Costco in their original shrink wrap packaging using my immersion circulator at 141F. Make sure you buy meat with the "heavy" plastic wrap that is vacuum packaged by heat sealing. The airtight plastic seal on these packages are made with heat at a much higher temperature than the 141F bath and it is still safe for consumption so sous vide should not cause a problem.
When the meat is finished. You will want to throw it under the broiler for a short additional period to get a bit of "sear" on the meat for flavor from the Maillard reaction. For the Turkey breast, I put additional herbs and spices (Mrs Dash) on the breast skin and broiled about 8-12 minutes per side to put on a slight sear..
Are the turkey breast and pork loin raw? If so, I don't see how they would "heat seal" the plastic around the meat in a high temperature environment without cooking the meat in some manner. @Aaronut discusses some concerns with leaching that I think would apply in this case.
@DolanAntenucci says "I don't see how they would "heat seal" the plastic around the meat in a high temperature environment without cooking the meat in some manner." — Vacuum sealers are specifically designed for sous vide cooking, and they work by melting the plastic in order to seal the bag. The 6 Best Vacuum Sealers of 2024
Good point on vacuum sealing temp. Not sure why I didn't consider this when posting
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.848621 | 2011-01-31T07:35:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11675",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Anon",
"Dacio",
"Dolan Antenucci",
"Francesca",
"Kevin Fegan",
"Michael Natkin",
"Ray Butterworth",
"TFD",
"Turion",
"Walter A. Aprile",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23998",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24002",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78873",
"ina",
"vanessa"
],
"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
} |
21737 | What are examples of spoiled food that is part of a culture's cuisine?
Today my brother-in-law told me that he's going to Iceland for vacation. He also told me that one of the delicacies in Iceland is aged/rotten Greenland Shark.
This then brought up a curious question for me and I think this forum is the perfect place for it...
What are some other foods that are essentially allowed to rot or go bad that some cultures call food. If you can name it and maybe give some background about it, describe the taste/texture and maybe how it is used that would be great.
I'm turning this in to a wiki. So please put one food per answer. This way, people can add to and/or comment on each food. I will add the Icelandic delicacy of the rotten shark as an answer below...
I don't seem to be able to turn this into a wiki...can someone help me do this?
Anyone how they make Casu Marzu?
These types of poll questions were banned over a year ago when Community Wiki was made into a moderator-only feature. Please read the [faq#dontask].
@Aaronut This seems like a good question especially since most of the answers should involve some sort of food preparation info, i.e. how the food is aged/fermented/spoiled/etc. Do you think that this is valuable information for the community? Perhaps I should rephrase so that people will detail out the preparation of the specific food?
The difference between "rot" and "ferment" is extremely thin. The use of bacteria and fungus to partially break down foods is as old as any cultivation process. "Rotten" is just the word we use when the microorganisms have done something we don't like.
Fermented (rotten) foods are incredibly common, from cultured butter, ghee, buttermilk and yogurt to cheese, wine, soy sauce and beer. Not to mention bread, Tabasco, Sriracha, kim chi and sauerkraut, or heck, salami, chorizo, kombucha and fish sauce. Wikipedia has a huge list. We use bacteria like Lactobacillus, yeast like Saccharomyces cerevisiae, mold like Penicillium roqueforti and thousands more. Some are cultured specifically for their task, and others occur naturally and are allowed to do their business without interruption.
A few that come to mind that are less commonly considered and fairly interesting to me:
Bonito - Fish are dried, smoked and inoculated with mold (Aspergillus glaucus). A staple flavoring in Japanese cooking.
Kumis - A carbonated, fermented milk product. Lightly alcoholic, and traditionally made from mare's milk, and fermented with wild yeast and bacteria. Quite the beverage, I hear.
Hákarl
Iceland: Aged Greenland Shark.
According to Bizarre Foods with Andrew Zimmern, basically, the shark is cut into chunks of maybe around 10 lbs or so, put in a wooden box for a week or two, and then taken out of the box and hung for about 6 months in a wooden shack to essentially rot. Average temperatures in Iceland in the summer time only reaches about 50 degrees Fahrenheit.
The reason why the shark is allowed to rot is because if you eat the shark meat fresh, the ammonia in it's body is know to have cause others to spit up blood...basically it can do some major damage. The only way that they know to 'treat' the shark so that it is edible is to allow it to rot and I think let the ammonia leach out of the meat by hanging it to rot.
Kaanga Piro
Kaanga Piro is New Zealand Maori version of fermented corn
It's history is from the Maori wanting to preserve the late Summer/Autumn corn harvest for the winter. Corn from this season was often damp, and could not be stored as dried cord
The corn cobs are packed into kete (hand woven flax baskets), and submerged in fresh flowing streams. It will keep upwards of 6 months while submerged
After a few weeks in water, the corn cobs turn into to a mushy paste, and has a nutty taste and texture not dissimilar to hummus and fermented soybeans
It smells disgusting, but it is very edible
Expect to see it marketed globally in the near future as a novel food flavoring
Century egg
Eggs are coated in alkali clay and burred for a few months. I have to say when I had the opportunity to try them I didn't. The fermented egg white is clear and dark brown, the yolk is a dark blue/green colour. The smell is very strong, mostly as they contain a lot of amonia.
Aging meat is part of everybody's culture. Freshly cut meat goes into 'rigor mortis' after about 24h and becomes tough. Letting it hang in a controlled environment (temperature and humidity) will let the natural occurring enzymes in the meat tenderize it.
Aging can last up to ... 120 days! But apparently that doesn't appeal to everybody.
Wikipedia
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.849259 | 2012-02-26T08:17:19 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21737",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"David - A Guy In The Kitchen",
"Floern",
"Joseph K.",
"Judy",
"Madoqua",
"MiszzM",
"Philip Michael",
"TFD",
"dbn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48292",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63898",
"milesmeow",
"ninjaneer",
"pomber",
"user32220",
"user48297"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
20725 | How to cook squid to get rid of the 'urine' flavor? What causes that flavor?
My brother-in-law and his buddy caught a big squid on a fishing trip awhile ago. They fired up a camp fire and proceeded to cook the squid. Once it was done, the took a bite and to their surprise it tasted horrible. They said it had a flavor like urine(I'm not sure why they would know what urine tastes like but since your sense of taste is connected to your sense of smell, when they tasted it it probably invoked memories of the scent of urine).
My question is, what is inside the squid that is causing this 'flavor' when cooked and how do you prepare squid to get rid of this flavor?
update
The squid was Humboldt Squid (aka jumbo squid) ~5 ft long. They were caught live and cleaned, I.e. guts removed. My brother-in-law confirmed the taste as "tasted like piss". :)
Can you please ask them if they cleaned it and which parts of the squid did they removed? Because I never had a squid that tasted like urine, it had to be something with the cleaning process IMO.
FWIW kidneys are claimed to have a faint taste of urine.
Regarding the "taste of urine", in a high school biology class our teacher covered the topic because there is a specific chemical in urine that is responsible for the foul taste that most but not all of us will have the gene that makes it taste that way. There is a small subset of people to where that chemical has no taste at all. So it would be that chemical that would be responsible for the taste and wouldn't have to actually be urine to cause it.
@ManiacZX: it's mostly ammonia derivatives.
Where's the mandatory Bear Grylls joke?
According to this site and confirmed by several others I found on the internet, the Humboldt Squid produces ammonia chloride as a defense mechanism, or as a side effect of asphixiation, or maybe both.
I couldn't find terribly reliable advice on how to avoid the contamination, but two points were repeatedly suggested on various bulletin boards:
When you catch the humboldt squid, cut its head off, clean and ice it immediately (on the boat).
when cleaning it, be careful not to puncture the swim bladder.
The other suggestion repeatedly offered was to catch some other kind of squid.
Hope that helps. For more 3rd-hand advice, search the internet for "squid ammonia flavor" and you'll see lots of bulletin boards and similar sources.
I've cleaned many a squid in my day and eaten a few less than I've cleaned. In all my time of cleaning, cooking and eating squid, I've never come across any that smelled or tasted like urine.
Now the typical size of the squid I've had experience with have been about 8 inches in body length. I haven't worked with any that are much larger than that so perhaps that might be a factor in the strange taste.
When squid gets old in the fridge it does give off a smell but urine isn't what it reminds me of.
I guess my next question is how did they clean it? Did they clean the gutts out completely? If they had left any of the gutts inside then that could give off a nasty smell and taste, though I've never cooked up a squid with it's gutts still inside so I'm just speculating. Crab when not cleaned propperly, will give off a strong odour so I'm starting to think it might have come down to preparation.
I think a very relevant question here is: was the squid alive when caught?
@EricHu, yes the squid was alive when they caught it.
You should soak it in milk for 4 hours +
Wife a knife scrap off the top layer skin of the squid, like a carrot
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.849696 | 2012-01-24T06:05:13 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20725",
"authors": [
"Eric Hu",
"Jerome Croskery",
"ManiacZX",
"Melissa Madrigal",
"Midhat",
"Peter Taylor",
"SRIPATI KUMAR",
"annabretsko",
"ccalboni",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45577",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45668",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45750",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8847",
"milesmeow",
"nico",
"user1382518",
"user5589985",
"氷野 怜雄"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
6092 | How many times can cheesecloth be reused?
I've only needed to use cheesecloth a few times in the kitchen and was curious to know if it's reusable.
If so, how is it cleaned and how many times can it be reused?
I've not been able to use store bought cheese cloth more than twice and then only if I used it gently. And I'm not gentle on the stuff. I use it for cheese making regularly as well as juicing and random filtering.
I gave up on normal cheese cloth because it is too fragile and way too expensive for what it was.
I now use instead a tightly woven polyester mesh fabric. I found a yard of it in the scraps section of the fabric store for $1. A yard is about 3 times more than I will ever need. I cut it into smaller pieces and hemmed it. It is strong enough to be rung out full of grapes as well as laundered and a tight enough weave to filter small particles out of beef stock.
I was surprised how often I end up using these cloths and highly recommend them.
Great answer! I have been struggling with normal cheese cloth for a while for the exact reasons you describe, and never considered woven polyester. Once you start using cheese cloth regularly, you find a million uses for it (besides the ones you mentioned, it makes a great satchel for herbs that you don't want in your meal - my wife hates the texture of rosemary, for example, but likes the flavor). Very excited to hit the fabric store this weekend, thanks for the answer!
I've never used polyester, but I have used muslin before, because I had it on hand.
Of course, many forms of polyester will not take boiling.
@derobert- this is true. I had never thought of using these for herbs. Mine wouldn't handle the heat.
Cloth sold for clothing use is not food safe. Even undyed cloth can be treated with chemicals, for example to make it less wrinkle-prone. There are some stores (mostly online) which sell untreated organic cloth from natural fibers intended for the all-natural demographic, but this cloth tends to be expensive too. I would not trust a craft store cloth selection to be food safe.
It looks like "nut milk bags" are made of food-grade woven nylon. Here's one for $9 on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Pro-Quality-Nut-Milk-Bag/dp/B00KLT6X9W
My wife is a gourmet cook (lucky me), and she uses cheesecloth for a lot of her creations. She used to complain about having to throw it away after one use, because the mesh would fall apart if she tried to wash it, even by hand. Then she found a Grade 60 unbleached cheesecloth on Amazon that she swears by. She can wash it a bunch of times by tucking it inside of a tee-shirt and tossing it in the washer. Here's a link, if you're interested:
http://www.amazon.com/Cheesecloth-Unbleached-Strainers-Satisfied-Guarantee/dp/B00H9HZQAG/ref=sr_1_11?s=home-garden&ie=UTF8&qid=1395996475&sr=1-11&keywords=cheesecloth
Her fresh, hot, homemade blueberry syrup is one of my favorites.
I save my dishcloths and washcloths that become thin and worn down to just the threads to use as "re-usable" infusion pouches, and for other typical things where cheesecloth is used.
Honestly, we use cheesecloth constantly in my household (making yogurt, making cheese). In my experience there isn't really a golden number of times it can be reused - it is much more heavily dependent on the quality of the original cheesecloth, and that varies. I have some that has been used 10+ times (stuff purchased from a brewer shop specifically for cheese making). I have other brands (stuff from the craft section at walmart) which barely survived after a single use. So, try a brand, see if it can be cleaned, and if it can try using it again. You'll know when it can't be used anymore (it will fray apart, become stretched thin, etc).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.850031 | 2010-08-26T21:13:05 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6092",
"authors": [
"Chiku",
"Joe",
"Sm10",
"Sobachatina",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100876",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24402",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57523",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83125",
"mpoisot",
"rumtscho",
"stephennmcdonald",
"user7938238"
],
"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
} |
1692 | Milk alternative in pancake batter
What could I use in place of milk in pancake batter? Would rice milk or soya milk work? What about in scotch pancakes?
Soy milk works great in pancakes. My basic recipe for pancakes is about a cup of flour, about a cup of soy milk, a tablespoon or two of sugar and veg oil, and a few teaspoons of baking powder. Works great, makes nice, fluffy pancakes. (I know, not a "recipe" so much as list of ingredients with approximate proportions, but that's how I tend to cook, experimenting and learning from experience as I go...)
Edit: I don't know about scotch pancakes; I've never made them, but upon looking up a couple recipes, I don't see why it wouldn't... Soy milk behaves much like milk in these kinds of recipes, the only difference being that soya adds a bit of binding that dairy milk doesn't (and perhaps a smidge of a taste difference?)
Edit2: Haha, ok, so my "pancakes" are much more like your "scotch pancakes" -- there is such a wide spectrum of "pancakes", from crepe-y types to big, fluffy types... So then, yes, I'd say soya'd certainly work fine for scotch pancakes; for your "pancakes", I still suspect it'd be alright. With crepes mainly you just need liquid (hence the mixing with water in your posted recipe) -- the milk is mainly for some added flavour; I'd conjure that soya would work just fine.
I often use coconut milk or cream in my pancakes and it's delicious. Sometimes rice milk, but it does have a bit of a tendancy to stick. Ok if you're using teflon I suppose.
Just use water... it's that simple.
This only works if you are prepared to take large differences in taste and texture from traditional pancakes, and if you use a backing-powder-only recipe
This would work if making pancakes from a boxed mix, actually. But since the OP linked to a from-scratch pancake recipe, this wouldn't work for their application.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.850611 | 2010-07-18T08:56:52 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1692",
"authors": [
"David d C e Freitas",
"Erica",
"Gideon S",
"Justin",
"Kelvyn Chapman",
"alex",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81578",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
28042 | Is Sous Vide Oil Infusion with fresh herbs or garlic a practical technique to avoid botulism risk?
I've been experimenting with flavoring olive oil using dried herbs. So far, I've only used dried herbs in my home infusions because I have read a number of articles which claim there is a botulism risk to leaving fresh garlic or fresh herbs such as whole rosemary sprigs in olive oil.
I had an idea since I have a chamber vacuum sealer and an immersion circulator to put the olive and herbs in a vacuum sealed bag and infuse them at a pasteurizing temperature sous vide.
Has anyone heard of sous vide oil infusion techniques? Is it feasible? Are there any best practices (time / temperature) to get optimal flavor results?
Thanks in advance for any help, suggestions or references.
Pasteurization will not do anything to reduce botulism risk. Botulinum spores are very hardy, requiring high temperatures (250f) to destroy them. If you use the method you describe, any spores that may exist will still be there, and a nonacidified, oxygen-free environment would be ideal for them to become active. So my recommendation would be to not take this approach.
It's oil, not vinegar. The organic matter (herbs, garlic, whatever) that you put into the oil needs to be exceptionally clean and the infused oil should be used quickly, not stored, because stuff can grow in it. I would wash the fresh herbs or garlic very well and let them completely dry. Then, put into a pouch with the oil and vac seal.
Cook at 147F to 150F and infuse for 1 to 2 hours and then strain into a bottle for use. I would plan to use within a few days to no longer than a week or to keep the oil in the refrigerator, which then means having to let it come to room temp for pouring.
Hope this helps!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.850798 | 2012-10-26T22:43:20 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28042",
"authors": [
"Drux",
"Jon Gunter",
"Kewpie Chiu",
"Roger L Jones",
"Samantha Paul",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64480",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64574",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64575",
"mycholatez",
"wx672"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
85556 | Can dry roasted squash be used effectively for gnocchi?
I roasted an entire pumpkin (specifically, a triamble variety). It was cut into large pieces and roasted with oil in an oven. I ended up leaving it to cool in the oven which I guess was a mistake because the pumpkin dried out considerably. I'd say it resembles in texture roasted chestnut: dense, a little chewy, and definitely flour-y.
That said, it has great flavor and a vibrant color. It's just that it can't be used in many recipes that expect a squash with more moisture.
I was thinking of perhaps using it to make gnocchi but most recipes I've found for squash gnocchi assume that it will be providing most of the moisture for the dough.
I've already used it successfully in chunks over a salad but would like to incorporate it into gnocchi.
"What can I do with X ingredient" questions are off topic for Seasoned Advice. To avoid having your question closed, you could alter it to ask specifically about the gnocchi issue.
it should be possible to simply add moisture, either to the squash directly (by wetting/soaking) or to a dish the squash would be used in. Will work best with smaller sized squash pieces, to enlist the aid of the square-cube rule in re-hydrating them. Water will change the flavor the least, though using milk, broth, or other flavored liquids may enhance a recipe.
@moscafj Thanks for letting me know. I've helpfully flagged your off-topic question accordingly.
Some ideas:
I like to do do pumpkin gnocchi. The dryer the pumpkin, the better, since you will need to add less flour and get a lighter result. It has a lovely sweet taste compared to potato gnocchi and goes really well with sage and butter or blue cheese sauce. The recipe in the link is just suggestive. My approach is to add an egg yolk and to keep adding flour just to the point where the mix gets together. The reason is because the less flour, the better the final result (however flour is important, otherwise you get a sticky mess that you won't manage to roll and cut).
Also on the pasta side, you can make ravioli filled with pumpkin and again serve with sage and butter sauce.
Pumpkin bread. You could incorporate your pumpkin puree in a bread dough and proceed as usual for bread (you can do sourdough, tin bread, etc). The sweetness of the pumpkin works great when serving the bread with cheese, and the pumpkin gives a nice orange colour.
If you have not salted it, pumpkin sponge cake or pudding.
Pumpkin soufflé, goes well sweet or savoury.
Curry pumpkin (or squash) soup would work well. Just in time for colder weather!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.850978 | 2017-11-10T17:30:27 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85556",
"authors": [
"Jordan Reiter",
"Megha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4966",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
13080 | Why buy ground cinnamon instead of cinnamon sticks?
Ground cinnamon is less expensive then cinnamon sticks. I've read that it is also more flavorful. However, cinnamon sticks last a lot longer. Also, ground cinnamon is likely to have mystery ingredients. Will I (a cinnamon nut) be disappointed if I stock up on cinnamon sticks instead of ground cinnamon?
Different applications, sticks are mainly used when you wish to infuse a cinnamon flavour in a dish, where the spices are removed at the end, a biryani is a good example. Ground cinnamon is used when the spice is to be left in, or be present throughout a substance, like in cakes for instance.
Ground cinnamon will leave a stronger flavour partly because it is left in and possibly due to the flavour extracting easier due to higher surface area and broken structure.
Cinnamon is notoriously hard to grind smoothly, so people tend to buy both for their respective uses.
I've never found cinnamon hard to grind; are you using a spice grinder or a mortal and pestle?
@Aaronut: Depends how fine you want it, tends to go to shards and I meant with a mortar and pestle, if you have decent equipment, anything is easy. I do not attempt it personally.
@Aaronut: I have a spice grinder and discovered that even after many minutes of grinding cinnamon there were still small "splinters" which are coarse and hard, and definitely not good in the end product. This problem doesn't occur with other spices I grind such as cloves or coriander seed.
@JYelton: Aye, shards, splinters, it's a right pain to grind.
Grinding cinnamon into bits for spiced tea mixtures is easily accomplished with a corn mill: http://www.amazon.com/Grizzly-H7775-Cast-Iron-Grain/dp/B000E34C5M The pieces, a few mm in diameter, would probably make a good starting material for powdering with a spice grinder,
@JYelton - sifting the cinnamon usually helps, it gives powder for leave-in applications and the shards can either be reground or used in applications it doesn't matter (for something that will be strained, or with a spice ball/teabag, etc).
Orbling brings up an excellent point about the difficulty of grinding cinnamon to a smooth powder. There are two main different types of cinnamon sticks: Ceylon and cassia. Cassia sticks are thicker and more stiff. Ceylon or "true" cinnamon resembles more of a rolled up parchment and has more delicate, sweet taste to it.
One reason to purchase sticks would be to roast cinnamon (easy to do in a cast iron pan)then grind it. Ceylon is easier to grind because it's a thinner stick.
I purchase both because each serves different purposes.
I highly doubt that ground cinnamon is "likely to have mystery ingredients". Ground spices are just the whole spices, ground up.
In fact there's nothing particularly unique about cinnamon in this respect. The reason to buy ground spices is the same reason to buy ground meat: Because you don't have a reliable spice grinder, or just for general convenience.
Cinnamon sticks don't last forever, though. I would still try to use them up within a year or two.
Spot-check time: We have two bottles of ground cinnamon in our spice closet, and one, Stop-n-Shop Taste Makers Ground Cinnamon, has no ingredients listed, leading me to believe there's just cinnamon in there; Penzy's Cinnamon lists four ingredients: China cinnamon, Vietnamese cinnamon, Korintke cinnamon, and Ceylon cinnamon. So I'm seeing no mystery ingredients, although that's a valid concern. Perhaps very inexpensive cinnamon has preservatives or desiccants in it?
Neil: I'm sure that's possible in theory, but I've never seen it, not even in the cheapest spices I've bought in grocery stores (the ones that come in plastic bags).
The only additives I've known in spices like cinnamon are colourings. Cinnamon is not often coloured, no need. Chilli powder is the exception, quite often has other spices added.
Chili powder is by design a spice blend, much like curry powder, five-spice powder, or herbes de provence. It doesn't make sense to talk about "other spices added".
Adulteration of powdered spices has been a problem in the past: 1994, Lead Oxide used as a colorant in Hungarian Paprika http://www.lead.org.au/lanv3n3/lanv3n3-6.html It made the cheap stuff look expensive. I expect current ground spice purity is at least as good as that of herbal supplements: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/05/science/herbal-supplements-are-often-not-what-they-seem.html?_r=0
There is a distinct difference between Ceylon (true cinnamon) and Cassia cinnamon which is what is primarily sold in North America. Cassia cinnamon has large amounts of coumarin.
This and other things are mentioned in this blog post.
Also, Ceylon will grind up quite nicely in a spice grinder, the Cassia does not.
I do the same ... break the cassia into bits, chuck it in the grinder, wiz it up for a bit, continue grinding while shaking the container ... the sound will change after a bit. You can sift if you want to, but I haven't had any problems w/ the tiny shards in baked goods.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.851221 | 2011-03-13T14:31:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13080",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Bryan",
"Dave Griffith",
"Egydio Pacheco",
"Goodbye Stack Exchange",
"JYelton",
"Joe",
"Julio Bastida",
"KirkF",
"Lalit Vijay",
"Megha",
"Orbling",
"Regina",
"Simon",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27099",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27119",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3819",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91940",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91941",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91942",
"myermian",
"user27099"
],
"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
} |
103329 | On a naked chicken (skin on, but no coating, batter) is there any benefit of double frying?
So I have stumbled upon a recipe on seriouseats about double frying chicken wings in this case to get it to the most crispy buffalo wings possible. It makes me think will it helps with getting “ayam goreng” chicken legs and breast, which is traditionally cooked without any coating or batter (just marinated beforehand) to be the most crispy and juicy possible. Seriouseats mentioned to “confit” it first for 225-250F for 20 minutes and then letting it cool before final frying it at 375-400F for about 10 minutes.
When you said naked I was thinking about chicken without the skin, for which it would probably not work well. But with skin on it's probably what's on Sneftel's answer.
Naked chicken??
Caution! Authentic Buffalo wings are not crispy. You've been warned.
@JimmyJames For someone not in the know, what does this mean?
@Onyz Could you be more specific as to what you are asking?
@JimmyJames Why are authentic buffalo wings not crispy?
@Onyz Because they aren't made that way? It sounds a little disgusting, honestly. Like something you'd get at KFC.
@JimmyJames I'm not sure what you mean still. I did a quick google search for 'authentic buffalo wings' and the "original recipe" in the first link explicitly specifies that the wings are deep fried until crispy.
@Onyz There could be a little big of crispiness around the edges but it's not the main attraction. If you are going through extra effort to make the whole thing crispy like a fried chicken leg, I think you are missing the point.
I believe you are referring to this article? https://www.seriouseats.com/2012/01/the-food-lab-how-to-make-best-buffalo-wings-fry-again-ultimate-crispy-deep-fried-buffalo-wings.html
Funny enough, I was reading this yesterday. And if you go through the end, Kenji gives a very scientific explanation on how double-frying your wings can make them more crispy.
Basically, frying first in a 250°F will melt the colagen in the skin, transforming into a gelatin and adding a ton of moisture and juiciness. Then, frying into a 400ºF oil will dehydrate the skin, making it crispy.
It does help, yes. The first frying acts to partially dehydrate the skin, while partially hydrolysing the collagen into gelatin. The second frying then completes the dehydration and "puffing up". If you didn't have the first frying, there would be less time for those effects before the food burned.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.851723 | 2019-11-07T07:23:59 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103329",
"authors": [
"JimmyJames",
"Luciano",
"Onyz",
"Strawberry",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70763"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
42532 | Is the SS Stovetop Espresso Maker from CafeCoffeeDay a Moka pot?
Is the SS Stovetop Espresso Maker what's called a Moka pot? They haven't named it explicitly a Moka pot, hence the question.
If not, can a Moka pot style coffee be prepared in that instrument?
@Aaronut The link I posted above has that "name" is all caps, that's why I wrote here the same.
Yes, It's a Moka Pot.
Despite the name, you can't prepare espresso coffee in that pot.
The coffee that you can prepare with the Moka pot is not even close to an Espresso. The pressure is key to extract the coffe aroma and to produce the cream. The Espresso requires 7 grams of coffee powder and high pressure 90°C water to produce 25ml coffe (cream included). There's no way to do such a thing with a Moka pot.
With a Moka pot, you will get a coffee, which is not Expresso but is also a coffe which is widely drink in Italy (at home, usually). It's different from Espresso but, in my opinion, good. It has it's own taste. The closest thing to an Espresso you can get, if you woUld like to go that way, is a small amount of coffee, but you won't get the same flavour, nor the density.
why can't i prepare expreso coffee in it if it is a moka pot?
Because the "official" definition for espresso states that you need at least 9 bar of pressure, which is higher than the moka pot can produce.
@user5561 do you mean to say that we can prepare expresso in moka pot but it won't be of highest quality?
No. I mean that the coffee that you can prepare with the moka pot is not even close to an espresso. The pressure is key to extract the coffe aroma and to produce the cream. The espresso requires 7 grams of coffee powder and high pressure 90°C water to produce 25ml coffe (cream included). There's no way to do such a thing with a moka pot.
@loscuropresagio then what best can we do with a moka pot?
With a moka pot, you will get a coffee, which is not expresso but is also a coffe which is widely drink in Italy (at home, usually). It's different from espresso but, in my opinion, good. It has it's own taste. The closest thing to an espresso you can get, if you wold like to go that way, is a small amount of coffee, but you won't get the same flavour, nor the density.
thanks for the explanation. I can't taste it here because no one has a moka pot at home. Question: Can you feel the difference between a french press coffee and the moka pot coffee assuming they are from the same bean? also, I request you to put all the explanation you gave in comments in your answer to make it complete.
@TheRebelAquarius It would be best to open a new question asking about the difference in taste.
@rumtscho don't you think that that question will get closed on the grounds of being subjective?
@TheRebelAquarius If you asked which coffee is better, or if you personally can taste the difference, it would be closed, yes. If you ask if people in general can taste a difference, then it is not subjective. The proportion of people who can taste the difference is a fact, not a personal belief or a preference, so it is not subjective. Of course, there is the risk that people will offer the anecdotal "I personally can taste it", but this is OK. Case studies are valid in science too, they just don't allow for generalization, but the information is still useful.
@TheRebelAquarius or better yet, you could ask how the prepared coffee is different and what to expect in terms of taste.
Yes, the term "Stovetop Espresso Maker" and "Moka Pot" are interchangeable. The "Stainless Steel Stovetop Espresso Maker" shown at the link you have provided functions exactly like Moka pots from any number of manufacturers.
As others have discussed, the coffee that you can prepare with the Moka pot is not, technically, espresso because this type of coffee pot cannot produce the required pressure for espresso style extraction. By definition, espresso requires 9 bar of pressure and 90˚C water. A Moka pot produces only about 1.5 bar of pressure with water just above 100˚C.
Moka pots are used in Italy and throughout Latin America to will to produce a concentrated coffee at home. This type of coffee has it's own flavor, aroma, and density. They make a full-bodied but bitter coffee, often mixed with milk. Depending on the bean type, roast, and grind they may also produce some crema. It is one of the closest coffees to an espresso you can get at home without spending a lot of money for an actual espresso machine.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.851958 | 2014-03-05T15:04:02 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42532",
"authors": [
"ACURA ENGINEERING.",
"Aaronut",
"Allen",
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Avery Yang",
"Lowggy",
"Spammer",
"Stephanie Dawn Nelson",
"Suman Plastic Corporation",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101878",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8956",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99361",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99362",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99363",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99366",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99598",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99883",
"loscuropresagio",
"muri",
"rumtscho",
"user5561",
"xxyboy"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
114301 | Is a corroded copper teapot safe?
I bought what I thought was a rusted teapot recently, treated it with an environmentally friendly rust remover, cleaned it thoroughly, and only then realized the bottom says "chrome on copper". The inside surface is pretty rough copper (not patina), so I'm just wondering whether that's a reason not to use it for tea.
Please post a picture (if possible)
Conventional wisdom would suggest to throw/recycle the corroded/rusty teapot.
Copper is no problem, but that missing chrome is a huge red flag. Don't ingest heavy metals, or the salts of heavy metals. You have a decoration, not a utensil.
@dandavis You could use the same argument for an iron or aluminium pot. Please provide references rather than alarmist statements.
Sorry, what alarmist statement? Your body needs copper. If the chrome was all on the outside, then you don't have to worry about ingesting it...
You were implying that by using this teapot I'm "ingest[ing] heavy metals, or the salts of heavy metals," and that the teapot is unusable.
It is currently a matter of opinion, not science, whether or not cooking hot foods in an unlined copper vessel leads to unheathy amounts of copper in the diet. Many health authorities caution against the use of pure copper even for cold drinks. However, it is demonstrably true that many, many people use pure copper vessels for cooking various foods and have done so for centuries, and Ayurvedic practitioners even consider water from copper pots to be healthier. And most of us have copper pipes, at least for hot water, and don't worry about it even though copper leaching from acidic water in pipes is a widespread health problem.
I was able to find lots of opinions on whether or not to use unlined copper vessels and kettles. This Fine Cooking article is typical of all of them. What a literature search does not turn up is any kind of actual science. National and regional health authorities seem to take it for granted that copper kettles leach toxic amounts of copper, and don't bother to test it, and everyone else seems to ignore them.
As such, as long as there's no history of Wilson's Disease in your family, I'd leave it up you. If you really like the kettle, use it. If you don't, then use something with no doubts attached -- and much easier to clean -- like stainless steel or ceramic.
Since this is a teapot and not a kettle (per comment), you do need to be careful of the acidity level of the teas you brew in it. Strongly acid teas will cause the kettle to corrode, and whether or not that results in unhealthy copper leaching (again, no science on this yet) it will discolor the pot and make it impossible to clean.
(And yes, copper is a nutrient in very small amounts. However, like many minerals, what's beneficial in tiny amounts is poisonous in larger ones. For example, as a ceramic artist I have to be careful with copper glazes in their raw form.)
Excellent answer! Basically, opinions are divided. Since this is a pot for brewing and not cooking it should be plenty safe in that case.
Oh! I didn't pick that up; I assumed you were talking about a kettle. If tea is going inside, you need to be careful of acidity levels. Will add to answer.
I would recommend not to use it as it might be toxic https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper_toxicity.
It should however not be too difficult to get copper cleaned up nicely again, the following article gives some good recommendations on how to accomplish this https://www.popsci.com/story/diy/best-way-clean-copper/
The Wikipedia article doesn't seem to agree - "Excepting for acute or chronic conditions, exposure to copper in cooking is generally considered harmless." And the other article is about cleaning away the patina. As I explained, there was no patina (the original pot was rust-colored, not green), and I've already given it a thorough clean.
They put copper in vitamins: https://www.centrum.com/content/dam/cf-consumer-healthcare/bp-wellness-centrum/en_US/pdf/lbl-00000767-web-ready-centrum-adults-(version-2).pdf
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.852289 | 2021-02-15T03:14:37 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114301",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Max",
"dandavis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"l0b0"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
112253 | Can I substitute granulated sugar for caster sugar in Marzipan?
I'd like to make marzipan, but I don't have caster/superfine sugar, only "regular" white sugar. Will it work, or are there any tricks to make it work without a grinding implement?
I just finished a batch after using a blender to grind up the sugar (the almond was already in powder form). The consistency might be a bit coarser, but I'm not sure I can tell the difference.
No, you can't do it. Marzipan has a smooth paste consistency. Granulated sugar is not suitable, you'd end up with a preferred mixture of sugar and ... almond crumbs? Without a grinding implement, you couldn't reduce the almonds to the needed consistency either.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.852607 | 2020-10-23T06:49:49 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112253",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.