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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
45032 | Canning Hot Peppers
This is my recipe for canning peppers.
I bring 3 gal vinegar, 1 gal water and 1 lb canning salt to a boil.
Let cool down a bit then pour into 1 qrt large mouth with peppers, garlic and pickling spices.
Seal lid and let sit for 2 weeks before eating.
I have been doing it this way for more than 10 yrs now and never had a problem. But I've been doing some reading and I'm a little concerned about my process. All kinds of recipes say I should put my filled jars into a tub of water and boil for 15 minutes. I just want to be safe and not get anyone sick. Any advice would be appreciated.
That's a greater than 10% salt brine with plenty of vinegar. You should be safe, but if worried, buy an inexpensive pH meter (about $10) and make sure your pH is below 4.6.
The right way to know if your recipe is safe is to use a recipe from a trusted source. What you're doing is pickling, so just search for pickled pepper recipes. For example, I quickly found this one:
http://nchfp.uga.edu/how/can_06/pickled_hot_peppers.html
The NCHFP is one of the big authorities on canning in the US, so you can certainly trust that. You can add spices, and if desired add more salt or vinegar, but you don't want to use less - it might become unsafe.
And follow their process - there are reasons for everything. For example, all the boiling and details about how to fill the jars help guarantee that you get a good seal, so your jars will stay safe long-term. What you're doing is really prone to bad safety issues. For example, things could get colonized by bacteria while you let them cool, then you'd seal it in the jar and let it go to town. Or your seals could fail. You may get lucky for a long time, but not everyone will every time.
You should be able to find plenty of similar things from other universities, if you need, or you can buy an authoritative cookbook/reference.
@Tim Since these pickles are generally being kept for a relatively short period of time (2 weeks) you could alleviate some of the safety concerns by keeping them in the refrigerator. If you're planning on laying any down for a month or more, you'll want to include the final boil to sterilize.
@logophobe I'm not sure if they're only being kept that long - it wasn't clear if the OP is eating them all then or not.
I remember my grandmother telling me the last boiling when making jam was to get a better seal. The resources I found seem to indicate that the last boiling also serves to remove some bacteria or parasites, but is primarily for sealing. In general I would think that if your process otherwise is clean enough it the additional boiling would only serve to give the peppers a longer shelf life (due to fewer bacteria that can develop as quickly and change the taste, and obviously better sealing = less air, which adds to the effect).
I don't think there are any health problems as long as you don't cater to people of very poor health, sell commercially, and the taste doesn't seem off. However, if you are experiencing a number of not properly sealed jars by the end of your process, it might be worth giving the after-boiling to try and see if it reduces the number and doesn't affect taste.
However, I am not a professional, and especially not at health, so take this with a grain of salt. The resources that I found and mentioned above:
Is the double boiling canning procedure really necessary?
foodinjars.com/2013/07/new-to-canning-start-here-boiling-water-bath-canning/
southernfood.about.com/od/canning/qt/canning-jars.htm
localkitchenblog.com/2009/02/15/canning-in-a-boiling-water-bath/
(With pictures):
www.gov.mb.ca/ana/pdf/nhfi_basics_canning.pdf
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.917657 | 2014-06-21T02:41:43 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45032",
"authors": [
"CKEng617",
"Cascabel",
"Ercilio Costa",
"Hager Khan",
"Ruth Owens",
"Spammer",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Zahidali Mithani",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107099",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107671",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"jlwixom ",
"logophobe",
"naiithink",
"tec nalco"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
78952 | How should I cut cookie dough when in tube?
I have rolled my cookie dough (eggless recipe) into a tube and put into the fridge overnight (in clingfilm). When I come to cut it the next day, it crumbles half way through the cut. I have tried a thin knife, a serrated knife, even tried the floss method. I just end up with half the cookie intact and the other half in crumbs. What am I doing wrong to such a simple process?
Welcome to Seasoned Advice. Could you include the ingredient list (and quantities) in the question? That way it may be easier for someone to spot the problem
If you slice it, is it always the same part of the log that crumbles? In other words, if you turn the log/tube, is it always the part facing towards the board (or away) that crumbles?
It sounds a bit dry to me, you could try to add bit of water and see if it binds.
The ingredients are as follows: 500g butter, 500ml icing sugar, 675g flour, 10ml baking powder and a pinch of salt.With regard to the crumbling, even if we turn the "tube" it crumbles almost half way down to the board, so yes it is always the same part that crumbles. When working with the dough it is not at all crumbly, but will try anything at this point. thank you for the feedback
There is no liquid at all in you formula? (except whats in the butter.) Seems it would be very dry and crumbly. Did you take a formula and omit the eggs, or is it formulated this way on purpose. where did this formula come from, can post the source.
What would be the OPs preferred solution, a dough that is more robust when cutting, or advice on cutting technique?
well, I would assume it would be cutting technique or it could be the dough. Once baked it is a nice biscuit, just cant cut a perfect round, half the circle crumbles when cutting. so am not sure if it is the technique or the dough.
@TDConfectionery You use the word biscuit in your comment but cookie in your question. Biscuits are rolled out like pie dough and cut with a biscuit or cookie cutter and then placed on a sheet pan with a spatula. Cookie or Biscuit ???
Have you already tried greasing the thin knife?
thank you, yes tried greasing our thin knife. even tried a cold knife. still no clean cut. but thank you
When you say you have tree the dental floss method, how did you hold the floss? I have had really good results by putting the floss under the roll of the dough and crossing the tails over the top of the roll and pulling the tails until the dough disc is cut off the roll. That way there is no downward pressure to crumble the sides of the roll.
right will give that one a bash and get back to you. thank you
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.917965 | 2017-03-07T11:10:14 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78952",
"authors": [
"Alaska Man",
"GdD",
"Stephie",
"TD Confectionery",
"canardgras",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55120",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
89972 | Melted butter or not for pancake batter?
I was making pancakes that called for melted butter in the recipe and when I added cold milk the butter re-solidified. How did that mess up the pancakes? Was the texture more dense and less fluffy? So I presume this batter could not be made ahead of time and refrigerated?
If you combine your dry ingredients with near room temperature milk, and add melted butter only afterwards, it works out well. Otherwise use oil in the butter and then butter the pan a little more heavily to get that rich flavour.
The butter needs to be melted so it will emulsify with the eggs and milk. This makes a better pancake texture but your pancakes will still be recognizable and tasty if the butter did not fully emulsify.
As Max suggested in a comment, you can make your milk warmer. You can also make your butter warmer- short of burning it- to give yourself more time. You can replace some of the melted butter with oil.
Once the batter is assembled at room temperature there is less risk of the butter separating. Therefore, mixing the wet and dry ingredients before the butter can solidify is useful. In this case the flour would slightly warm the milk.
However you do it, making pancake batter ahead of time is generally a bad idea because the chemical leavening in the batter will activate and be expended. You might get a second lift from double acting baking powder but it still won't be as fluffy.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.918212 | 2018-05-24T18:23:02 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89972",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64764",
"soup4life"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
92817 | Is it bad to refrigerate cut up onions?
Can we store cut up onions in the fridge or do onions go bad in the fridge? Do they become poisonous? Can onions be safely stored in the refrigerator after peeling? Also how can you tell if an onion is bad?
Related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7707/how-long-should-i-keep-a-cut-onion
Restaurants store cut onions refrigerated all the time. They will try to use them in one shift but they can last longer if needed.
They will go soft after time and lose flavor and crispness. As far as going bad it would take over a week. It will be too soft before it actually goes bad.
At home I try and cut on demand. I will halve and make the vertical and horizontal cuts but only finish the dice on demand. My experience is vertical and horizontal cuts on demand causes more damage. Most of the damage is on the exposed surface, which stays the same either way. This assumes proper technique, good knife skills, and a sharp knife.
If you want slices then easy. Just take a slice on demand.
Store them cut side down in a sealed container.
The general rule is, it is safe to keep in the fridge (in a sealed container) for about a week. However, I strongly advise against it, as the taste and flavor will suffer. Cut onions will get more and more pungent as they wait.
Even the direction of the cuts contribute to how pungent it gets after being cut.
A *well-*sealed container as they stink out the fridge otherwise. Cling film on the cut face as well can help. This is mainly a technique to use when cooking for one, and you only need 1/2 an onion.
Some more tips here on storage (not related to safety): https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6658/how-can-i-store-chopped-onions-in-the-fridge-without-the-smell and https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24618/storing-unused-portion-of-red-onion
@ChrisH I've never had a problem leaving half an onion in a sealed-but-not-remotely-hermetic container for 24 hours.
@DavidRicherby 24 hours might be OK most of the time, but not if you've got desserts chilling loosely covered in there. The cream on a trifle can pick up the scent of onion very easily
@ChrisH Clearly there's not enough trifle in my life. :-(
Not sure about safety here but wrapping the leftover half an onion in aluminium foil has also worked for me at times when i couldn't find a perfectly-sized well sealed container.
@DavidRicherby You never only need half an onion. If you like onions, more is always better. If you don't like them, don't use them at all.
The reason I have always heard is that it is not bad for the onions but that they smell up your whole fridge.
The way around that might be to enclose them in an air tight container.
Someone mentioned to me that they (onion)are highly risky to contain bacteria and wasn't safe to put them in the fridge. This is a question all answers are referred
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.918358 | 2018-10-11T09:37:10 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92817",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"David Richerby",
"Ess Kay",
"alephzero",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69382"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
67395 | Heavy smoke taste
I have a masterbilt electric smoker and my wife tells me it has too much smoke taste to it. What am I doing wrong? The instructions say not to soak the wood chips.
Using it too long for the amount of food in it? Slicing too thin before smoking? Too much wood? More details please: What are you smoking in it, how hot, hot long etc.
No need to soak wood chips or chunks, that is true. Is it getting hot enough? The smoke should be blue, as opposed to white. A white smoke (cooler) will leave a much more astringent flavor.
@ChrisH It sounds like you know a lot of the reasons this could happen, and it might be helpful to just write an answer mentioning them all. That way the OP gets an answer right away, and it's useful to future readers, whether or not their issue was exactly the same as the OP's.
@moscafj same might go for you!
@Jefromi...on fire!
@jefromi I've done plenty of reading but my experience of smoking is limited to garlic and chillies in a home made cool smoker (that's still a work in progress because of the opposite problem). I was just first to suggest how the OP might clarify the question.
Knowing what you do actually helps others pinpoint what you could do better - details, please! As it stands, this is very vague and answering can mean either listing lots of potential causes (most if them probably not the culprit here) or trying a wild guess.
Have you considered trying different types of hardwood for your smoking? Some people dislike the flavors of particular hardwoods (e.g. I'm not a big fan of mesquite, but I think that cherry, oak, and hickory are delicious).
Also, consider this: What are you smoking? In this case, size matters. Depending on how large the portions you're smoking are, you may be able to reduce smoking time.
It's better to wait for more info from the OP, particularly if you have questions, as you seem to.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.918593 | 2016-03-13T21:06:16 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67395",
"authors": [
"Carol Canada",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Chris H",
"Heidi Sesay",
"Humble Bunk",
"Marian Grossi",
"Marlene Cooksey",
"Pamela Jenkins",
"Rebecca Durante",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161696",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161799",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
43803 | Can citrus be squeezed too much?
I've seen bartenders stack squeezed lime halves and resqueeze them all together. I think that squeezing the peel would yield very bitter juice, but am I wrong?
Yes, you can squeeze citrus too much.
That bitterness you sometimes taste in citrus fruit comes from limonin, a compound that most people can detect at concentrations as small as a few parts per million. In many citrus fruits the limonin is created once the acids of the juice vesicles interact with LARL, a tasteless substance in the fruit's tissues (Hasegawa, 1991). In the juice of a squeezed lime the reaction from LARL to limonin takes a few hours to complete, so if it is very fresh it will not be as bitter.
Over-squeezing, as in using a pestle, will expose more of the tissue (and therefore LARL) resulting in more bitterness later on. If the peels are in the mix, it will also extract some of the oils (mainly limonene) from the peel, which is very bitter. So bitter, that industrial squeezing machines are designed so that the juice extracts never touch the peel.
During summer, guests often ask for caipirinhas at our house. I like to imagine that it is because I peel my limes, remove most of the white pith including stem, and try to mash the limes just before mixing the drink. This way it requires less sugar allowing those great citrus flavors to stand out.
Limonin, not to be confused with limonene: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limonin vs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limonene
While the pith of citrus fruits can be very bitter, there is no juice in it. To extract any liquid from pith would require much more pressure than any squeezing-based juicing equipment at a bar is likely to generate. A centrifugal juicer is more likely to produce a bitter flavor if the pith is included with the fruit, as small bits of pith will end up in the juice.
It's definitely possible to get some oil out of the peel/zest, possibly what the OP is referring to, and I think that's a lot easier than squeezing anything out of the pith, but it still takes some effort. And though that oil is a bit bitter, it's not going to turn the juice bitter any more than putting a bit of zest in your drink will.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.918797 | 2014-04-30T21:02:05 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43803",
"authors": [
"Adarsh Adu",
"Cascabel",
"Douglas Lise",
"Mato.PK spam",
"Mhairi",
"Pratik Panchal",
"Shellharbour Security Systems",
"Spammer",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102749",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102750",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102751",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102760",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102784",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106529",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
44864 | What is the effect of adding sugar to the water when poaching eggs?
I'm doing a food tech assignment and I need to know how adding sugar to the water effects the coagulation of protein when poaching eggs.
That's a bit of an odd question because sugar isn't generally used in the poaching of eggs. A lot of people use vinegar in the water, but not sugar. Even a Google search didn't show any examples of recipes calling for sugar in egg poaching water. That doesn't mean your question as written isn't answerable, it's just odd.
I can't help with the sugar question, but you might find this helpful anyway, even though there is no mention of sugar. http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57/how-does-a-splash-of-vinegar-help-when-poaching-eggs?rq=1
Does this mean we've finally reached the level of StackOverflow when people start asking homework questions here?
@Jolenealaska just because it is not commonly added, it doesn't mean it won't have an effect if it is added. So, it makes sense to ask what will happen if we were to add it.
Sugar stabilizes proteins and reduces foaming (salting in).
I'm not sure how much sugar you'd need to add to your egg water to reduce dissipation and strand formation, but some protein structures are affected positively by sucrose concentrations below 30 grams per liter.
The source you linked tells us about foams in liquid protein. When we poach eggs, they don't foam. So, while I accept that sugar has an effect in modifying the protein unfolding behavior, I am not sure this is connected to poaching, where the proteins aren't unfolding anyway.
The proteins in the egg are unfolding/denaturing when you put them in boiling water. That's a normal part of the cooking process. Under those conditions, sugars will still form nice hydrogen bonds to amino acids at the surface of the egg blob, stabilizing it a bit whilst the middle starts cooking/denaturing and gelling up. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denaturation_%28biochemistry%29 which includes a series of nice pictures of egg albumin denaturing as it is cooked.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.919013 | 2014-06-14T07:15:05 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44864",
"authors": [
"Catherine Mcnair",
"Concrete Repair spam",
"Jim Davies",
"Jockey Trading spam",
"Jolenealaska",
"Sobachatina",
"Von Kruger",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"bixo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106637",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106671",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
44762 | Is there an alternative to spreading flour when rolling the dough?
Today, when I was rolling the dough for my Podpłomyk, I noticed that I actually need to use quite a lot of flour to prevent the dough from sticking to the rolling pin and the board. Is there a way around that, for example some substitute for flour that would work?
Sorry for the wording, didn't know that these are the synonyms, I reworded it to rolling. Podpłomyk is kind of a flat bread.
What's wrong with using flour?
You could roll it between sheets of plastic wrap or parchment paper, if you have those.
This is the best "no mess" approach but, in my experience, if you work your chilled dough too much, if it you let it warm up, or if it is particularly wet to begin with it will stick even to parchment paper.
@Air I usually still lightly flour dough, even when working between parchment. It's not perfect, but if someone has no flour at all, I think it's their best option.
I actually have had better luck with plastic wrap - against my gut intuition! - in similar situations. I think perhaps because of its greater stretch and flexibility.
@Air I'm the opposite, I find the stretch tends to work against me, but I'd imagine a lot of it has to do with rolling technique. Whichever works best for how you roll is best!
Traditionally one could use a rolling pin cover and pastry cloth that have been floured or dusted with powdered starch like cornstarch. For sweet pastries you can combine cornstarch and confectioners sugar. You can also lightly oil your rolling pin and rolling board.
Other alternative rolling surfaces that are commonly used for pastry doughs include using a marble slab, a silpat mat, or plastic bag as your rolling surface
I tried the plastic bag trick, but I had problems making it stay in place. Thanks for the oil tip, it worked great!
Another alternative, but not really is to sprinkle the dough with flour rather than your rolling surface. If the dough seems to indicate it needs a little more, flour the dough again and flip it over.
You don't need flour to roll pastry, I just use kitchen roll paper placed on the top surface of the pastry, then just roll the rolling pin over the paper. It works really well and saves the mess of getting flour everywhere.
As you're making a dessert, you could use confectioner's sugar, but you might want to reduce the sugar in the filling slightly. Superfine sugar can also work, but you'll end up adding more sugar to the crust in the process.
Another alternative is to grate the crust using the largest set of holes on your box grater (you may need to re-freeze it for this), and then pack the shaved bits into the bottom of the pie pan, similar to how you would handle a cookie crumb crust.
I've grated frozen butter in while making the dough, but never heard of grating the dough into the pan. What is the effect on the finished product? It sounds like it could create an interesting and unique texture, but I imagine if you tried to press it back together to restore it to "normal" that you'd end up with an overworked crust.
For pizza, tart, pie and even bread, if I don't want ot use flour for whatever reason I use instead semolina on the kitchen counter.
The semolina give a crustier crust but tends not to interfere with the taste of what you're cooking and stays more on the outside of the mix. It doesn't mix in so much with the dough as would flour.
For a few small pieces, if it's not a too wet or too hard dough, you can use two pieces of plastic wrap/ cling film on top and bottom and roll on it directly.
Cornstarch or fine cornmeal would work fine. You could use bisquick or something similar in a pinch, though that may have consequences.
All you're really doing is trying to keep it from sticking as you roll it out.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.919326 | 2014-06-10T16:25:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44762",
"authors": [
"Air",
"Cathy Narduzzi",
"Dave White",
"Escoce",
"Gareth Cole",
"GdD",
"Joe Kerr",
"Kiki",
"Lisa Lightyear",
"LizzieNM",
"Luke Sculley",
"Math.StatsGal21",
"Medi Infotech",
"Melanie Bell",
"Sally",
"Scott Cohen",
"SourDoh",
"alan stein",
"d33tah",
"elzilrac",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106337",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106408",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106410",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157448",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157480",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157566",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"rettgerst",
"spam174443",
"spammer"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
45242 | How to stop icing from running off iced buns?
Recently I've attempted to make iced buns and as a first attempt, they went well. However, after one night my icing began to slide off the top of the buns, leaving me with either bare or patch-worked buns and a pool of dried icing. Can anyone tell me why it happens and/or how to stop it?
Were the buns floury on top before you iced them? Also, what icing recipe are you using?
... piling on, were the buns warm (versus fully cooled) when you iced them? Was it warm or humid in your kitchen? Did you keep them in the refrigerator or "out"? Heat and humidity can be fatal...
I think you can find your answer here. Basically, when the ambient temperature of the surroundings is on the higher side, the icing melts since the butter cannot remain in a solid state. However, what can be done according to the link that I posted, you can add 2 tablespoons of cornstarch per 3 cups of icing to make the icing sturdier. Or you can use other ingredients like gelatin, or meringue powder which does the same as well.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.919681 | 2014-07-01T19:19:24 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45242",
"authors": [
"Anne Oneida",
"Azendale",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Gayle",
"Job Evers",
"Kerrick Staley",
"hoc_age",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107698",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107700",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107705",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107719",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107735",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"ijoseph",
"san"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
40770 | Can I freeze cranberry sauce?
I made delicious cranberry sauce with fresh berries, sugar and brandy. Can I freeze it?
One of the lazy (and energy saving) ways I employ to mush up vegetables and fruits is by freezing them first. Freezing breaks down their fibres.
Be aware that alcohol has a lower freezing point than water, so if you end up not freezing it completely, then the ice will have a lower percentage of alcohol than the unfrozen portion.
It will certainly be safe to eat if you freeze it, but cranberry pectin is not freeze stable, so you will probably get a more watery product when it is thawed out.
You might be able to avoid this (known as syneresis) somewhat with guar gum, locust bean gum or xanthan gum
Its cranberry sauce, one of the most pectin rich natural fruits. There is something vaguely offputting about entertaining putting in different gums or thickeners.
Yes, this will be fine to freeze. I've never had any problems in the past
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.919828 | 2014-01-01T14:57:36 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40770",
"authors": [
"Aaron Altman",
"Cynthia",
"Dan Mangiarelli",
"Dawood ibn Kareem",
"Dpeif",
"Greg Bowyer",
"Jo21",
"Katja Debroux",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"bret hartline",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94907",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94908",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94911",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94926"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
40516 | Adding too much flour to bread dough in Kitchenaid Stand Mixer?
I own a Kitchenaid Artisan Stand Mixer and everytime I try to use the dough hooks to make bread, I always end up using WAYY more flour than the recipe calls for.
For example, I was trying to make bread using this recipe that calls for:
1 cup water
1/2 tbsp sugar
1/2 tbsp yeast
1/2 tbsp salt
2 1/8 cups all purpose flour
After mixing all the ingredients together using the paddle attachment and everything is clumping together, I switch to the dough hook. After a bit of kneading, I probably add close to 1/2 more cup of flour because I see a bunch of dough sticking to the bottom of the bowl. Even when I lift my attachment up, I can see the dough drooping down. I just keep adding more flour until it doesn't stick to the bottom, at which point I feel like I added close to a cup extra of All purpose flour (Robin hood flour). I'm worried that this will make my dough too dense and I don't know what to do. I knead it on speed 3 for about 10 mins and then for another 15 until I can see the dough hold its shape. Am I doing something wrong?
Pre-measure ingredients. Start mixing with liquids first, when adding the flour, pause adding at about equal water to flour until fully incorporated, then add from your remaining flour a little at a time. Watching its development. The answer below is very good, learn bread baking a little at a time, with experience you can modify recipes.
Don't use cups to measure your flour -- they're very inaccurate, as packing density can vary a lot. Weigh it.
I agree with rumtscho that your dough is probably way too wet, but I'd like to make a few other points as well:
You don't necessarily need to add extra flour just because your dough is sticking to the bottom of your bowl. And definitely don't add any flour until your dough is fairly smooth (unless you already have a feel for the recipe). The flour will absorb a lot of water as you work the dough, so dough that seems way too wet after one minute of kneading may be fine after six.
Also, I've found that with the hook design in the Kitchenaid, dough frequently sticks to the bottom even with proper hydration. Just use a scraper to turn your dough out of your bowl and give it a fold to make sure that there isn't an underworked spot on the bottom.
The problem is your recipe. It is for a very wet dough, 94% hydration (I am calculating with 120 g per cup of flour here). I wouldn't do this even with bread flour, much less all purpose. Even if you somehow manage to get it into a bakeable shape (with lots of stretch-and-fold hand kneading in oil, it may manage to hold its shape long enough to be transferred into a pan without dripping on the way), it will bake into an unpleasant rubbery bread.
Don't add more flour to a bad recipe, as your yeast and salt amount will not be optimal for the amount of flour. Generally, you can adjust the water a bit, but if the recipe is so wildly off as this one, I wouldn't trust the other ratios to fit well either.
My suggestion is to pick a better recipe. Bread hydration basically means the ratio of water to flour by weight, so if you want to use all purpose flur, look for a ratio between 60% and 75%. For example, a recipe for 500 g flour (4 cups) will need somewhere between 300 and 375 ml of water (300/500 = 0.6, or 60%).
There are good breads made with very high hydration, for example certain ciabattas. Some even go above 100% hydration (so more water than flour). I wouldn't recommend starting with them until you are a fairly advanced bread baker. Make a range of breads using different hydrations, enrichments and kneading techniques before moving on to those. Most home bakers will never need it anyway and will be happy to stay with the tasty, easily made recipes.
I agree with the others in that sticking to the bottom isn't necessarily a problem
... but you're almost always going to want to add extra flour to dough being made in a mixer.
It's probably not a 1/2 c for smaller batches, but more like 1/8 to 1/4 cup.
The issue is that if you had been kneading this by hand, you'd have floured the bench as you went, and slowly work in more flour than in the recipe. If you're doing this by machine, you won't end up doing that, so I'll add some extra to compensate ... but I stop when it's pulling away from the sides of the bowl. If it's still sticking a lot to the bottom, I'll take a dough scraper, loosen it from the bottom, then restart the mixer to see how it behaves and if it needs more flour.
And make sure to read any notes in the recipe about what consistency you're looking for -- I have a couple of breads that go into loaf pans, unkneaded, and are closer to a batter than a dough.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.919967 | 2013-12-23T15:42:32 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40516",
"authors": [
"Lee Kang",
"Lynne",
"Mike Scott",
"Optionparty",
"Peter G.",
"Shaunte Nunn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94410",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9607",
"ismaouste",
"rosemary Holland",
"web88thailands"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
39721 | Can you add alcohol to chocolate being tempered?
I want to make a tempered white chocolate coating with brandy flavour. Will adding the alcohol ruin the tempering process, or is there another way of going about this.
There are two issues, both of which make this a bad idea:
You temper chocolate to give it a hard, snappy texture. Adding any liquid would be counter-productive to this goal.
All normal alcohol has some percentage of water in it (as much as 60%, for example, for a typical vodka). Small quantities of water will make chocolate seize turning into a grainy, paste-like mess.
If you really want to flavor chocolate that is to be tempered, you should use a pure essential oil. These have no water, and are used in very small quantities.
Still, the better bet is to flavor the filling or other ingredients in whatever you are making.
Saj already mentioned seizing. To expand: chocolate is a mix of starch and fat. If you add any liquid capable of hydrating the starch, you have to add enough to hydrate all the starch,. Else the starch clumps. The minimum amount of water you can add is 27% for milk chocolate and 39% for dark chocolate. I couldn't find numbers for white chocolate, it is very special as it only has cocoa fat and the remainder as fillers. If you add that much liquid, you end up with a thick ganache, not temperable chocolate.
I don't know what you want to cost. If you want to make chocolates, the standard is to put the alcohol in the filling . Even if it is a chocolate based filing, it can have liquid, as these filling s tend to be soft anyway. Of it is a cake, it is standard to coat in ganache not tempered chocolate. In both cases, you can add brandy.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.920329 | 2013-11-25T00:05:36 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39721",
"authors": [
"Moritz Raguschat",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94811"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
39878 | I saved the geletinious material from roasting the turkey. Is this appropriate for use in turkey soup?
I saved the gelatinous material from roasting a turkey. Is it appropriate to use this when making turkey soup?
Yes it is appropriate, and should be used within five days for freshness.
The gelatinous material from roasting the turkey is often used to make homemade bone broth soup.
Yep, assuming that it has been properly refrigerated, it should make fine soup.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.920475 | 2013-11-29T16:07:37 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39878",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
39892 | Why does my cake have to be inverted? Why a 2-layer appearance?
I am a late starter in baking. I am trying to make yam cake, which we call "ube cake" here.
Some recipes suggest that after baking, immediately invert the pan over a wire rack. Why is it so? Doing so results in vertical parallel lines appearing across the face of the cake. How do I remedy that?
The recipe also calls for cake flour. I use a substitute of all-purpose flour + cornstarch. What will be the result if I will just use all-purpose flour?
I did two trials:
1st trial:
I mixed the dry ingredients (substitute cake flour, baking soda, salt, sugar) and then poured the wet ingredients (unmixed - yam, oil, milk, egg yolk, color) over the flour mixture. Then I combined dry & wet ingredients but they were rather tough to mix, because it became thickened. The egg white was mixed separately with cream of tartar & a tbsp of sugar, and folded in. The baked result turned out okay though the surface was strangely brownish.
2nd trial:
The sugar in the dry mixture was decreased from 4 tbsp to 3 tbsp). I increased the yam portion a little, (from 3-1/2 tbsp to 4 tbsp). Then I mixed (using egg beater) the yam along with the other wet ingredients (oil, milk, egg yolk, color). After that, I poured the flour mixture into the wet mixture in 2 batches, using an egg beater to mix the combined ingredients. I did not experience the dough-like consistency as I did in the first trial. The sugar in the egg white mixture was increased from 1 tbsp to 3 tbsp.
The second trial resulted in a two tiered appearance. The upper portion is fluffy, while the lower portion was dense. Why was it like that?
Was it due to mixing all the wet ingredients to included the mashed yam?
Was it due to increased portion of the yam from 3-1/2 tbsp to 4 tbsp?
Was it due to over mixture of the egg white?
Was it due to increase of the sugar in the egg white mixture?
Was it due to putting dry ingredients over wet ingredients?
Was it due to using 2 batches of the dry ingredients to pour into the wet ingredients?
Was it due to overall over mixing?
Should the yam not undergo beating anymore?
Also, how do I prevent the surface from being brown? The inside was purple though. I hope you will bear with my numerous questions.
You're asking about 20 questions here, you could and should split this up into at least 3.
These are all good questions, but as has been pointed out to you, you really need to ask one at a time. Not only does it help future visitors, who will have an easier time searching for an issue that's relevant to them, but it also helps you, because most people are willing to answer a short and focused question but won't even make an attempt to answer one this long.
I'm just going to answer the inverting question. The rest should be moved out into another question.
When you bake a cake or anything that rises, it tends to form a dome. If you turn it upside down while it is warm, the weight of the cake itself will fix that dome at least somewhat. If you put it on a flat plate, water may condense there and the surface may stick to the plate, hence the wire rack.
Most people cover the wire indentations with icing or other toppings. Others cut the dome off with a breadknife and then present the side that was the bottom, which has not got the wire lines, as the top surface. Still others decide that a bit of a rounded top is not a problem and let it cool dome side up and then either ice it or not as they wish.
And some of us ice the cake upside down, so the dome is hidden and you have a nice clean corner at the top of the cake.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.920547 | 2013-11-30T04:55:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39892",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"ElendilTheTall",
"G M",
"Joe",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93693",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93694"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
40677 | Should bubbles be forming only in center of pot when simmering? (Dutch oven on gas burner)
I'm cooking Marcella Hazan's bolognese/ragu recipe using a brand new Le Creuset 7-quart round dutch oven. For the long simmering stage, the recipe says to keep the heat very low, which is what I'm doing. I'm noticing that the bubbles are appearing only at the very center of the pot (presumably because the flame is so small). Around the edges, I'm able to dip my finger in the sauce and keep it submerged without burning, and I can touch the handles and sides of the pot, too. Is this temperature variation typical and/or acceptable? (I am stirring occasionally, so I guess that might help give everything a turn in the center.)
It tastes OK so far, but I'm just wondering if I should do something differently next time (e.g., using a pot with a smaller diameter or better conductivity, or even trying to simmer in the oven.)
The reason is almost certainly, as you suspected, because the flame is small. Neither the ceramic coating nor the cast iron body of a Le Creuset dutch oven are going to conduct the heat around the pot very much; it will go into the food basically right above the flame.
The temperature differential in the pot from right over the flame to at the perimeter is doing neither the quality nor safety of your sauce any good.
You want the entire contents of the dutch oven at a safe temperature (at least 140 F, 60 C) as it stews, simmers, braises, or whatever. It sounds like this is certainly not true for you right now.
I find the best way to do this sort of cookery is not to use the cook top (hob), but rather place the Dutch oven in a slow oven (about 300 F, 150 C). This will envelope the entire pot with heat, and transmit to the food inside all around. It will cook more evenly, without much risk of burning, and is very low maintenance.
That's what I suspected, thanks. I might try throwing it in the oven for the final stretch. I am wondering, though, why the recipe would suggest using a pot like this (it recommends enameled cast iron). I'm assuming it might work better with an electric range?
@craw Yep, electric stoves heat more evenly, assuming the burner and pot bottom are similar sizes. I suppose the recipe author probably has a stove where the cast iron works out - either electric or just gas with a burner that can produce a large flame even on low power.
Another thing you might consider is a heat diffuser. Using something like this will cause a small flame to behave more like an electric burner on low heat. Diffuser
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.921147 | 2013-12-29T21:16:19 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40677",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"ColleenDurham",
"Hieu",
"Kem Mason",
"Rosco",
"cartloot",
"craw",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94694",
"justinli500"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
40779 | eggnog doubling the ingredients, what is the new cook time?
I am attempting to make homemade eggnog. My recipe requires you to cook your mixture (which is good, as I am pregnant and can't have raw eggs but would love to taste my end result). I do however need to double all the ingredients as I am making a large quanity. How do I determine how long to cook it on the stove top? The original cook time is an hour. This is my recipe if this helps anyone.
As two answers already say, your thermometer is a much more important tool here than your timer.
The goal is not to cook the eggnog for a particular time, but to a particular outcome, in this case to hit a temperature of 160°F, which will thicken the custard (eggnog is a very thin custard).
The exact amount of time this will take depends on the size and shape of your pot, and the heat output of your element or burner, and is hard to predict.
You can use roughly double as a very rough estimate, but you will want to monitor the temperature, and remove it when it is actually done.
It is the temperature which is critical not the time. Just heat to 160°F as in the recipe.
It will take longer to reach the required temperature
Making it in two batches may be easier.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.921381 | 2014-01-01T21:24:33 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40779",
"authors": [
"AlaskaBob",
"Beep",
"Heather W",
"Ichorholic",
"Jolenealaska",
"Lløyd Phyßï Khæl",
"SemogEnaz",
"Tamara CClardy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94934",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94954",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94957",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94981",
"i am bad at coding",
"kippford",
"nhooyr"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
44376 | How to bake a cake in a microwave oven
I wanted to bake a cake and I have a microwave oven. Can someone please let me know if I can bake a cake in it and how?
possible duplicate of Baking cakes in the Microwave ovens as compared to Electric ovens
You are much better off looking for recipes that require no baking at all, or so-called "refrigerator pies".
+1 for refrigerator or "icebox" pies. My grandmother makes a mean lemon icebox pie. You can buy a pre-cooked crust and just pour in the goodness.
I don't think this is a duplicate. The older question discusses microwaves with connection mode, this one is about normal microwaving. As far as I can remember, we have answered this for pizza, not for cake. But if you remember a different question about cake and standard microwave, please cast a close vote and a flag, we can close and merge.
How about a brownie?
You certainly can prepare cake-like foodstuff in the microwave. One such application is a sponge cake. These are quick and easy, though you'll be hard-pressed to make something that's not just a poor substitute for the real thing.
That being said, cook one of these up and drop it on a plate with some fresh fruit and maybe some whipped cream and you'll have an instant dessert.
This LifeHacker article suggests:
1/4 cup melted butter (50 g)
1/4 cup sugar (50 g)
1/2 cup flour (50g)
1/2 teaspoon baking powder
1 egg
2 tablespoons milk
Cool! Let us know how it goes.
I realise this was asked and answered a while ago, but I'm new here, I won't add this as an answer, but I do a microwave upside down cake using jam or tinned fruits, similar to this recipie http://www.food.com/recipe/microwave-pineapple-upside-down-cake-382103
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.921542 | 2014-05-24T12:43:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44376",
"authors": [
"Deborah Fournier",
"JW.",
"Martin Jevon",
"Mat",
"Preston",
"Skinny Toni",
"Spammer",
"Wholeherd ",
"a23",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10161",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10353",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104284",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104335",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105075",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"kiosnonton spam",
"lemonpiewriter",
"logophobe",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
45247 | How do they Prepare Steak so fast in Restaurants?
I've been wondering how restaurants are able to serve food so fast. How are they able to serve thick steaks in 20 - 30 minutes?
Here's the process that I know of:
Bring the steak to room temperature (20 minutes)
Pan sear it for around 2.5 minutes on each side
Put it in the oven 15 minutes.
Rest it for 10 minutes.
That's like 50 minutes.
Another question is how do they manage the steaks? Do they have several in freezer ready and when the stock goes down, they start to thaw the one that's frozen? Or they don't even have frozen steaks? How are they able to keep the steak for a long period of time without it going bad (let's say it's a slow week for the restaurant)? When I buy a steak and put it my freezer, it only last 3 days before it turns gray.
Subtract the 20 minutes for bringing the steak to room temp and you have what? 30 minutes. So even if they do nothing else to speed things along -- and I'm sure they do -- all they need to do is know their volume and have that many steaks ready to go.
I suspect restaurants often buy vacuum-packed meat. But managing your supplies and having sufficient turnover is certainly very important for quality (I have often read warnings against restaurants having too many things on offer).
You can cook a perfect steak straight from the fridge, into a hot pan (just adjust cooking time slightly). No oven time required. And only 3 to 5 minutes resting. This assumes you have a responsible diet and therefore your steak is 100 to 200 g, and therefore only 15 to 20 mm thick
You can also use the "reverse searing techinque", i.e. you first put it in the oven and only then you pan it, this reduces drastically servings time. To get an idea:
http://www.weber.com/weber-nation/blog/grilled-steaks-the-reverse-sear
The steaks (in a regular steakhouse with good turn over) will be stored for immediate usage closer to "room" temperature than what you will usually have at home; and they will cook it on a higher temperature grill or broiler than what you have at home (and will not go to the oven)
A recent video from America's Test Kitchen showed they actually preferred steaks cooked straight from frozen, although it took a few minutes more than fridge-temp (~25min total vs. 20 min) ... although they had to make some modifications so they didn't cause a grease fire in the process; make sure to watch the whole video.
When I worked the wheel at a local restaurant, we served 4oz medallions of filet mignon that went from fridge directly to grill. Only took about 5 minutes on each side, then the steak was plated and sent to the table. There was no "wait until room temp", oven or rest stage. The rest stage wasn't necessary because we weren't pre-slicing the steak before sending it out. By the time the steak leaves the grill and makes it to the table, it has hit a satisfactory rest period.
Larger cuts would require the oven, but those too, would not require waiting until room temperature nor the rest period.
Another question is how do they manage the steaks? Do they have several in freezer ready and when the stock goes down, they start to thaw the one that's frozen?
I can't speak for chain restaurants. The restaurant I worked in would order and prepare the fresh protein twice a week (Thursdays and Mondays). The protein was held in the walk-in cooler. When rush comes, the chef that works the wheel uses several 6" pans that separately contains all the proteins in a smaller fridge nearby.
Of course this is only my experience. Like I said, I can't speak for larger restaurants.
My experience is similar to @Nick Williams. The restaurants I worked at had meat deliveries almost every morning and I was one who would break them down into final steaks/portions. I also worked the entire line - the meat was held in refrigeration (drawers) and went from there directly to the grill. If someone ordered a well done steak, the wait staff advised the customer that it would 'take a while,' or we'd butterfly it to speed it up (with customer ok). If we ran out of a particular cut, then we were out until the next day. Meat older than one day was tossed.
One could also cook the steak "low temp" or "sous vide" to the desired doneness, then chill. In this case a high heat sear on a grill or flat top would only take a minute per side, to brown or form crust...greatly decreasing the time it takes from order to plate.
As far as I have experienced steaks are rarely brought to room temperature before cooking except for steaks cooked 'bleu' or 'blue'. You also have to consider that kitchen equipment deliver much more heat than your regular domestic stove. Furthermore the cooking equipment eg chargrills, stoves, flat grills, etc... are always on, hot and ready to cook. In addition, chefs are skilled and thus fast – in larger brigade, it is the more experienced chefs who operate the 'grill' section.
Once the steak is cooked it has to be kept warm until the meals for the order the steak is part of are ready to go. Depending on how busy the kitchen is, the steak, particularly if cooked, rare to medium, will be taken away from the grill/stove/oven before a few minutes before it is fully cooked. It will finish cooking while resting.
So skills, equipment and a good sense of timing all contribute to make cooking steaks in a restaurant kitchen much faster then in a domestic environment.
As for 'managing' steaks that should be an other question.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.921840 | 2014-07-02T03:26:26 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45247",
"authors": [
"Angeli",
"Burnt Hotdog",
"Carey Gregory",
"DavidCh0",
"Giovanni De Gaetano",
"Joe",
"Man Laserclinic",
"Manoj Krishnan",
"Max",
"Michael E.",
"Nibav Lifts Showroom UAE",
"Noble",
"Relaxed",
"TFD",
"hardkoded",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107711",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107712",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107722",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107723",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107724",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107743",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25658",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"naptienfun88ct"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
45273 | How to make canollis without a deep frier?
I absolutely love cannolis but every recipe I see requires a deep frier. Is it possible to make them without one?
The very nature of cannolis is that they are deep fried, but you don't need a fryer for that, a large pot, a half liter or so of neutral oil and a thermometer are all that you need. Like doughnuts, fried is the way to go, but they can be baked (if you must). Here's a sample recipe: Baked Cannolis.
You can take a wok and put in significant amount of oil and let it heat sufficiently. You can test whether the oil is sufficiently high in temperature by dropping a little bit of salt in it. If you see an instant reaction then the oil is hot enough. After which you can drop in your canollis one at a time but don't put in too many canollis in a single batch as it could significantly reduce the tempeerature of oil and the canollis may come out to be undercooked and soggy.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.922314 | 2014-07-02T22:27:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45273",
"authors": [
"Carl Söderberg",
"Extreme Services",
"JTETZ",
"Joyland Roofing spam",
"Kosmetikstudio Timeless Cosmet",
"Matthew Hale",
"Perfect Solution",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107798",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107799",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107800",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107973"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
39989 | When should I press garlic and when should I chop it?
I just found out they make fancy devices for pressing garlic. However, I'm unsure of when I should use this. When do chefs press garlic and when do they chop it? Is there a rule of thumb that needs to be followed? Also, why does only Garlic and Ginger get pressed?
I'd say for home cooking, nobody you'll ever serve the food to including yourself will tell the difference between crushed and "finely minced", you'll just save yourself a significant amount of time if your knife skills aren't at a pro chef level.
Who enjoys cleaning a garlic press? I say skip the press. You can make garlic any texture you like with a knife.
That is actually quite controversial in its own way. If you are going to use a garlic press, you should cut the root end off the clove (you can do that a bulb at a time if desired) and give the individual cloves a bit of a crush with the side of a big knife before you press them. If you do that and you have a good garlic press, you can then just pluck the paper from the press to be ready for the next clove. That's fine, if pressed garlic is actually what you want.
Garlic is funny this way. It all depends upon how fussy you want to be. Pressing is about the least "perfect" way to prepare garlic for anything, but it pretty much works for everything. Many people find pressing to be the most convenient way to deal with garlic. If you press garlic you get fresh garlic juice and smudged garlic paste. For almost anything that is adequate.
If you desire for more than adequate, the kind of superlative awesomeness that Michelin Star judges look for and your little brother would never notice, then you need to break out the knife skills. Slicing, mincing, smearing, crushing, and even pressing give different results, even if those differences are barely apparent to us mere mortals.
I don't think ginger should ever be pressed, and I would not say that pressing is an always adequate technique like I would say for garlic. The best methods for ginger are to grate with a microplane or a ginger grater, to finely dice, to do it in volume with a food processor and then keep in the fridge or freeze in single use aliquots, or to roast and use in big chunks. You might find it helpful to know that you can freeze the whole hand of ginger. Frozen, you can use a microplane and the paper will just drift out of your way.
I'm not aware of anything else for which a press of the garlic press type could be of any use.
I do press ginger sometimes for convenience, but due to the fibrous texture what you get is more like ginger juice.
@sourd'oh Have you ever microplaned it frozen? It's pretty nifty.
While answering a related question this popped up as related. Trying to press even coarsely pre-chopped ginger was how I broke my (metal) garlic press. I normally dice ginger by slicing finely across the grain first, then if the other cuts are less fine it doesn't matter too much
There are three factors to consider in deciding whether to chop or mince garlic versus using a garlic press:
Texture. If you want a sauce or dressing to be completely smooth, the texture of pressed garlic is suitable as it is essentially pureed.
Flavor. As a general rule of thumb, within limits, the more finely you chop garlic, the more strongly its flavor will permeate a dish. Crushing or using a press maximizes this.
Convenience. For a small number of cloves, a garlic press can be used without peeling the gloves. Of course, the press must then be cleaned, but some people find that easier than manually peeling.
In practice, professionals almost never use an actual garlic press because:
They know the tricks to efficiently peel small or large quantities of garlic.
For small quantities, with good knife skills, a press isn't necessary to get pureed garlic. It is fast and simple to get pureed garlic with nothing but a knife by smashing a clove or two with the flat of the blade, then mincing with salt, and smearing with the flat of the blade. This method does not require stopping occasionally to clean out the press.
If larger quantities are required, a food processor will chop the garlic as finely as desired.
Garlic in various forms can be purchased ready to use, from whole peeled cloves, to chopped, to pureed. Depending on the type of professional kitchen, and the results desired, one of these convenience products may be used to make things easier.
Garlic presses are convenient mostly for home cooks doing small quantities, who like the pureed quality of garlic it creates, or who hate peeling garlic. There is no circumstance in which they are essential.
As to other herbs suitable for a press, garlic is unique in its size and texture, making it uniquely suitable to a press.
Slight niggle on flavour. If you chop garlic, you will cut through cells, releasing more flavour. If you crush, you will leave more cells intact, resulting in a milder flavour.
@slim: I'm sure its the opposite, actually. Crushing produces a soggy mass and all the cells are ruptured, whereas cutting leaves more cells intact. I can't speak to whether the flavour is milder if crushed, but certainly all cells will be ruptured.
@bamboo "Crushing" as a culinary term regarding garlic can mean every thing from barely breaking up the clove with the side of the knife to creating a puree. It kind of depends upon who you're talking to.
@Jolenealaska. Crikey, nothing's easy is it - I use my garlic crusher when I want to crush it and its almost puree, so I assumed other garlic crushers would do the same job. When I 'crush' with a knife blade, I call that 'squashed' rather than crushed and usually slice/chop it after ten minutes, long enough for the chemical changes to take place. Guess it's all down to the language...
There was an article on this on Serious Eats last year. The cutting method can give a different flavor depending on how much the cells are ruptured.
The takeaway was:
Knife-Minced: Once again mild, with little bits of chewable garlic that are tender and sweet.
Garlic Press: Stronger overall flavor than the knife minced, with a medium burn in the throat. It's a little sweet but also a little harsh.
Mortar and Pestle: Quite sweet with tender mashed chunks. Pretty tasty, with a very mild burn that sets in late in the back of the mouth.
Knife Pureed: The baby bear—neither too sweet nor too harsh, too mild nor too strong.
Microplane: The burn sets in faster than the others, with a slightly acrid taste, but not nearly as bad as raw. Unpleasant bitter aftertaste hangs in the mouth, but it's not severe.
However, in long cooking, the differences disappeared.
I've done both, more mincing than pressing. Just from my experience, mincing is preferable for flavor, plus I watch MANY chefs on TV and rarely do I see them using a press, which speaks to me. Also, when you press, you have to go through all the steps unless you are willing to scrape the peel out of the press between cloves. If you press after peeling, you still will get residue you have to clean out between cloves. All in all, I think you get more flavor and less hassle by mincing.
P.S. To previous post: I never press ginger, I always use a microplane. If I somehow needed finer than that, I would just buy ginger paste in a tube and make it easier for myself.
Pressed garlic is 4 times as strong as minced! So adjust your recipe accordingly if your going to use pressed garlic.
[Citation needed]
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.922456 | 2013-12-05T07:08:11 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39989",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Chris H",
"Jolenealaska",
"SourDoh",
"bamboo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93685",
"millimoose",
"moscafj",
"newbie",
"siliconrockstar",
"slim",
"user46128"
],
"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
} |
40117 | How long is the cooking time for pork roast?
How long should I cook 2 three pound bipork sirloin roasts for? I tried cooking one before for 3 hours at 400° but it came out real tough.
See also: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12250/how-to-cook-a-pork-sirloin-roast
Do you have a thermometer? That's a better way to measure when your meat is done.
Amazon has 'quick read themometers' that are good for this type of thing as well as 'In Oven' thermometers which are even better for the type of application you are suggesting.
As in all meat cookery, it is not possible to give an exact time, as that depends on too many idiosyncratic variables: the size of your roast, the temperature it starts at, the temperature of your oven, and so on.
Instead, you want to cook it to a particular temperature as measured with an instant read thermometer in the thickest part of the roast.
A lean roast like this should be cooked approximately to mediumish, which is 150 F or 66 C. This will probably take about an hour, to an hour and quarter at 350 F / 180 C.
When you suspect the roast is close to being done, insert your instant read thermometer in the thickest part of the roast, as near to the center as you can. When the temperature stop rising, that is your reading. You should check several spots, and assume the lowest of them is the temperature to watch.
When the roast is uniformly cooked to the target temperature, it is done.
Pork roasts should cook for about 20 minutes per pound. However, a pork shoulder may need to cook for 30 minutes per pound depending on its size. This means for a pork roast that is 5 pounds, cooking time will be around 2 1/2 hours, as opposed to the normal cooking time of 90 minutes for other cuts of pork.
Bones in a roast will speed up the cooking time. A bone acts as a heat conductor which helps to cook the meat from the inside.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.923035 | 2013-12-10T00:47:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40117",
"authors": [
"AnnaKendrick",
"BaffledCook",
"Carla is my name",
"Kyle B.",
"Mritunjay Kumar",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Samy",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"aryaan khan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93165",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93166",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93253",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93687",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93688",
"vijay",
"Максим Мартяков"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
32753 | How to get rid of the raw tomato smell from tomato sauce?
I'm making marinara sauce with crushed tomatoes, and no matter how much seasoning I add or however long I cook it down, the smell of raw tomato is still in the sauce. Does anyone know how to get rid of that smell? I don't smell it in the sauces I buy at the store.
Do you use tomato paste in your sauce as well? Starting your sauce by cooking tomato paste down (by itself) will give the sauce a more "cooked" smell because the sugars in the paste will begin to caramelize.
This guy references the technique. I picked it up from Mario Batali, but I can't find a reference for it. http://forums.egullet.org/topic/140049-frying-tomato-paste/
Marinara is traditionally the fishermen's meal (the mariners hence the name). The simplicity and speed of making is part of the tradition.
The main difference in the sauce is parsly instead of basil. It changes from region to region, but here is a typical setup:
Chop the tomatoes and garlic finely. Place it in a hot sauce pan or medium pot over high heat for 5-8 minutes. You should see the sauce getting glossy. Add the chopped parsly near the end and you can add some extra virgin olive oil after you're finished heating the sauce. At this point you sprinkle some dried pepper and oregano.
You can use a blender in the beginning to blend the tomatoes if you like. Or a food mill at the to catch the skin and seeds.
I suspect the issue you're experiencing is related to the burner not being high enough. Many of the southern recipes call for fierce heat for short time.
The method above is also present in Maxine Clark's book.
if you want to be sure there is no trace of "fresh" tomato smell, you could start with tomato paste instead of raw tomato.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.923248 | 2013-03-16T23:05:55 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32753",
"authors": [
"Imtissal Hussain",
"Johnny Gough",
"LSng S",
"Muhammad Abbass",
"Robert",
"Sam F.",
"Victoria Vorwork",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75705",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75706",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76364",
"noamyg",
"user23139"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
40931 | How to store blanched garlic?
I've gone through the process of immersing my garlic in boiled water 3 times to remove that bitter taste. But how do I store it? I've blanched close to 5 heads of garlic (40-ish cloves). I would rather not pickle it. Any advice?
Once you blanch garlic it needs to be treated as cooked, so if you don't want to pickle it then your options are to refrigerate it or freeze it.
And refrigerating will work for a similar amount of time as any other cooking vegetable, so 3-5 days.
Neither option is that great for that amount of blanched garlic really, refrigeration doesn't preserve it long enough to use it all, and freezing is going to destroy part of the flavor. @codeninja is better off not blanching that much in the first place.
how should i refrigerate it? Suspend in oil? Water? As is?
Just put it into an airtight container, oil or water isn't going to do much.
And in fact, putting it in oil is positively dangerous, as it provides a nice anoxic environment for botulinum to grow in.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.923441 | 2014-01-07T13:55:08 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40931",
"authors": [
"AryaSpam Engineering",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Farrah DAddio",
"GdD",
"Gregory Johnson",
"Ogre",
"codeninja",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106433",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106434",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14311",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95323",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95326",
"rumtscho",
"user399540",
"user8358234"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
28587 | Double key lime pie filling and increase from 9" to 10" shell, new baking time?
I want to double the key lime pie recipe and put it in a 10 inch pie crust instead of a 9 inch pie crust. How much do I have to increase the baking time? The pie has a graham crust.
Since you increased the thickness, you likely need to reduce the baking temperature somewhat (perhaps 25 degrees?) and bake longer. My best guess would be 25-50% longer, but you'll want to just start checking for doneness sometime around the original baking time. It should be mostly set but still a bit jiggly. If the crust is cooking too fast you can also cover the edges with foil to keep it from browning too much or burning.
The amount of time the filling needs is determined by the thickness of the filling. Going from 9 inch to 10 inch increases the area with (10/9)^2-1 = 0.23 = 23% .
I would therefore suggest to make 25% more filling (this will result in the same thickness of the filling) and use the same baking time as you normally use for your 9 inch pan.
unfortunately I doubled the recipe and it filled the 10 pie shell to the top, so now I don't know how long to bake it?
The thing about recipes with baking times, whether they are for pies, cookies, poultry, or whatever is that the predicted time is only a best estimate on the part of the author. They are a guideline to get you started--but there should be a test or indicator to let you know when the item is truly done.
In the case of the pie, the recipe author cannot know what type of pie dish you are using, how thick your crust is, what temperature oven is exactly, or what temperature the ingredients were when they went into the oven. All of these things may affect the actual time it takes your pie to finish.
Key lime pies are essentially custard pies. Most custard pies should be cooked to 180 degrees Fahrenheit, at which time the filling will appear mostly set, but still quite jiggly in the center. Martha Stewart's recipe, for example, says "bake until the center is set but still quivers when the pan is nudged."
You should be fine if you use these tests to determine when your pie is really done. Since your pie is quite full, you can probably start checking around the original guideline time.
Good luck and enjoy.
I just made the same pie--10" with double key lime filling--and I had the same question you posed. I baked mine 15 min at 350, then reduced the temp to 325 and baked it til the internal temperature was 145°F, which is what I read it should be on another site. (I think that took about 10 more minutes of baking.) The crust was browing a bit too much and covering the crust edges with tinfoil was a challenge to do without nicking the custard, so next time I make this pie, I'll bake it the whole time at 325 and use the internal temp as a measure of when it's done.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.923579 | 2012-11-22T18:46:36 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28587",
"authors": [
"Aynur Garrant",
"FQA.VN spam",
"John",
"Minors Republic",
"Mona Vine",
"Rollo",
"Yuriy Panfyorov",
"dianne",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106484",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66057",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66058",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66071",
"user66071",
"uwu spam bad boy uwu"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
43000 | Coverting grilling time to oven time
My recipe calls for grilling a pork loin for 25-30 minutes over medium high heat with the lid closed. How do I convert this to oven cooking time?
Cooking meat by time is ill-advised, whether it is on the grill or in the oven.
Instead, you should cook by desired outcome, which is the final internal temperature. Pork is done around 155 F / 68 C, so you should roast it in an oven until it is just a few degrees below the target temperature, as measured by an instant read or probe thermometer inserted into the thickets part of the loin.
With a 400 F / 200 C oven, that is likely to take somewhat less than an hour depending on the size and shape of the particular loin you have, but the internal temperature is what will tell you it is truly done.
Note: you may want to remove it from the oven when it is a few degrees shy of the target temperature, and allow so-called carry over cooking to bring it up the rest of the way as you let it rest. Personally, I like my pork a little more done so I stop roasting when it registers 155 F, and let it carry over a few more degrees.
Additionally, if the recipe calls for the meat to be over the coals, you may want to employ the broiler at the end of the cook.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.923850 | 2014-03-25T14:25:19 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43000",
"authors": [
"Daniel",
"RamenHotep",
"Sue",
"Sylvain",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100547",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100548",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18159",
"john3103"
],
"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
} |
41903 | What might be a flavor substitution for someone with an onion allergy?
I can't eat onions of any kind, from shallots, green onions, red, white, yellow, or purple. What might I use as a subtitute for flavor?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.924083 | 2014-02-10T01:38:21 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41903",
"authors": [
"ALYSSA ATKISON",
"After Burner",
"Amanda Dawson",
"CookingMena",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97780",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97815",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97854",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97855",
"marcor92",
"user97854"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
41948 | How do I make a pot of coffee on a bbq grill?
I am going camping and love to drink coffee. How do I make a pot of coffee on a campstove bbq grill? I am a klutz. I think you can boil water in a pan once you light the fire but what do you use as a coffee pot? A thermos coffee pot?
Camping! That was the first impression when seeing your question title... ;-)
What sort of coffe do you want? Turkish coffe gets boiled in the pan and poured into the mug through a sieve.
You have two 'convenient' options:
Get a Campfire Coffee Pot, similar to what you have (almost certainly) seen in "old westerns". If you plan to do much camping, this is probably a good option. I have linked to one available at Amazon, but almost any camping supply/sporting goods store will carry something similar. (McDonald's disclaimer: Hey, this is going to be HOT, handle with care)
Army Coffee, A trick I learned from an mess sergeant when I was in the service, this is a great technique for making LOTS (5-20 gallons) of coffee. Over an open fire get a large pot of water boiling, pour in loose ground coffee directly into the boiling water. Allow to boil for 5 minutes and remove (carefully) the pot from the water. Once the boiling stops wait one more minute and "whack" the side of the pot on the outside with a large metal spoon, this will cause all (ok "almost all") the grounds to sink to the bottom. Gently ladle the coffee from the pot to your cups. This may not be "Bigbucks Coffee Approved" but it will it will get you going.
I've made cowboy coffee where you do the same process but then swirl a beaten egg into it to capture and loose grounds. Apparently doesn't affect the flavor.
@GdD: http://scandinavianfood.about.com/od/beverages/r/eggcoffee.htm
I'd look for one of the following:
Aeropress, French Press, Vietnamese Coffee Filter or a Moka Pot (goes right on the heat source) or a pourover.
With the exception of the Moka pot, they will require you to boil the water in a pot. The Moka Pot will go right on the heat source.
Or... if you're really into "roughing it". You could just make the coffee right in your pot and strain it out with your teeth. :-) (or a filter of some sort over your cup).
Note, I'd recommend if possible you find a propane stove of some sort as it's easier & more efficient to boil water on one, rather than on a bbq.
I used to carry a french press, but decided I didn't want to risk breaking it. Today, my personal choice for whenever I go camping I is an Aeropress and a Hand grinder.
If your french-press is made of glass I wouldn't take it camping.
If your moka pot has plastic you'll need to set up some kind of flat surface over the fire to keep it out of direct flame. Aeropress is my personal favorite travel option.
Also possible to use instant coffee, which I would never reccomend under normal circumstances but its just so much easier when you're camping.
There's tons of gear for exactly this. Aeropresses are getting big for campers and backpackers. I'm personally taking one with me next time. Also, I see those french press travel mugs a lot.
One of the main benefits of the aeropress is that the water doesn't have to be boiling, in fact 175F seems to be the recommended temperature for brewing. It's much easier to get water to 175F on a campfire than to boil it.
Great to know! Boiling is a very lengthy process and for many wastes a lot of fuel from their stove which is heavy and bulky to carry.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.924162 | 2014-02-12T03:21:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41948",
"authors": [
"David Edwards",
"GdD",
"KatyM",
"Nuvitru Wellness spam",
"Sahil Thummar",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Scott Kelly",
"Snaw",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"alex-e-leon",
"bonCodigo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19346",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97924",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97926",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97978",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97987",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98006",
"rumtscho",
"skodret solutions",
"tsturzl"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
43419 | How to deal with mold on pickle?
I made a pickle by placing cucumber in a solution of water+vinegar+salt, and left it for 3 weeks. When I opened it, it was covered with white mold all over the solution.
Can I skim the mold from the solution and use the pickle? Does it go inside the solution and cucumbers?
What is the reason for the formation of mold, and how can I avoid it in the future?
Can it be kahm yeast? If yes, how can I tell it from mold?
If your solution grew mold, it would indicate that either the container wasn't sufficiently sterilized before sealing or (probably and) the solution wasn't sufficiently acidic. This can usually be ensured by following a recipe that is known to be good, which should have factors like acidity and water activity accounted for.
As for kahm yeast, it seems that this occurs more frequently on cultured vegetables which would spend some of their time in a less acidic environment (while the culture develops and acidifies). I suppose you could culture it and test it, but when in doubt I'd just toss it.
As for 3, Kahm yeast appears as a mostly uniform white film on the solution. It's mostly harmless.
Check out this link for fermented veggie troubleshooting.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.924469 | 2014-04-10T18:31:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43419",
"authors": [
"Garry Kantor",
"Jea Kim",
"Leanna Franklin",
"Morgage Tek spam",
"Shirley Martin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101689",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106585",
"jossefaz"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
3737 | Are there culinary applications for carrot tops/greens?
The family members who taught me to cook have always tossed carrot tops/greens into the compost pile or the trash (and my regular grocery store carries carrots without tops), so I've never really thought about cooking with them before. Today, however, I bought some carrots with fresh, green tops, and it seems a shame to waste them. Can I safely cook with them, and if so, how?
I love to cook with carrot greens, either as a substitute for parsely or in addition to...celery leaves are equally great (and can be substituted for cilantro for those who do not care for the taste). It is a waste just to throw them in the compost pile!
I've never had them, but they are indeed edible. Due to the high amount of potassium in them they can be bitter. The World Carrot Museum (lol) even has an entire page for carrot greens, including several recipes.
Excerpt:
They ARE edible and are highly nutritive, rich in protein, minerals and vitamins. The tops of the carrots are loaded with potassium which can make them bitter, so the use of them in food is limited, but there some ideas and recipes below. The tops are antiseptic and can be juiced and used as a mouthwash.
However, it is edible, so you may mix some in with a mixed lettuce salad. You may also use it for garnish. Combine your common sense and your creative skills, and invent something! That's what makes cooking fun. It is a form of art. Carrot greens are high in vitamin K, which is lacking in the carrot itself.
Carrot tops are an outstanding source of chlorophyll, the green pigment that studies have shown to combat the growth of tumours. Chlorophyll contains cleansing properties that purify the blood, lymph nodes, and adrenal glands. Scientists have been unable to synthesize chlorophyll in the laboratory, but green plant foods contain sufficient quantities to protect the human body.
I like hobodave's answer, but I'll put my .02 bucks on a negative answer: I tend to throw cooking debris in the stock pot. Onion skins, garlic peels, anything I might otherwise throw away. It's stock, right? Stock and stuffing exist to make use of leftovers.
But don't do this with carrot tops, it'll make your stock taste wonky. Had to make thanksgiving gravy with store broth that year. Blech.
It is a bitter herb - you normally wouldn't throw parsley or cilantro in the stock pot but garnish the soup with it instead :)
I have used them to make a type of pesto. You blanch them first, shock, squeeze out the water, then proceed similarly to how you would with basil. Delicious on carrots that have themselves been blanched and shocked.
Carrot greens are a great substitute for flat-leaf parsley in many dishes, especially ones that will be cooked, as the carrot greens tend to handle heat better than parsley. I use them in Beet Burgers along with the carrots themselves, with terrific results. You can also throw them in to seasoned breadcrumbs for a great topping for casseroles, etc.
We tried diced carrot tops in some salmon patties, as a substitute for parsley, and it was fine. We sauteed them along with onions before adding to the mix.
I love making a dry stir fry with carrot greens and coconut. It tastes similar to a kale stir-fry. This is one thing I miss back in my home country because here we dont get carrot greens when we buy carrots.
I just used them in my chicken noodle soup - some cooked, some at the very last minute - and it was delicious! So much better than spending money on fresh parsley, which usually goes bad in my fridge before I can use all of it.
They are definitely edible, with a more herbal carrot taste. Cooking with "produce offal" has become fairly popular, which means you can find a number of recipes designed to use carrot tops and other "garbage" parts of your produce if you don't feel up to experimentation, but would like to explore the idea of generating less food waste.
The ferny leaves on the top are nicely delicate and can be used anywhere you might use other leafy greens, for a slightly different taste. I have personally used them to create a non-basil pesto, and they can make a lovely edible garnish with your meal or an addition to mixed raw greens.
The tops as a full unit tend to be better when cooked; I've found them particularly good when sauteed quickly so the stems soften and the leaves get a bit crisp. If you prefer a more uniform texture (I like the variation), you can remove the leaves to toss in at the end so they only soften; they'll cook much faster than the stems. Any combination of seasonings you might use for sauteed or roasted carrots would serve well here, too, as the flavor is very similar.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.924617 | 2010-07-29T23:23:49 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3737",
"authors": [
"Balázs Pozsár",
"Elan Hasson",
"James Rustin",
"Jenn",
"Solanacea",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10585",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1769",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6821",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6824",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6832",
"moonglum",
"rackandboneman",
"user68999"
],
"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
} |
40714 | my chest freezer is going out.
Thermometer says 30 degrees and has for about a week. The corn on the bottom shelf looked terrible and was pitched. Most of the meat was thawed but looks ok, which I plan to cook and refreeze. Green chili's, some were partially thawed some completely thawed. Should we refreeze? Are they ok to eat? Color is good on them.
30 degrees on what scale? Farenheit?
@SAJ14SAJ Yes, I'd assume 30F. 30C wouldn't make much sense, and it'd be a lot worse than just "mostly thawed". (Plus the OP's from the US.)
At 30F, it's not going. It's gone. You're holding around freezing as the ice decrystallizes. Once it finishes melting, it'll continue climbing to room temperature.
Derobert's inference that your freezer is fully broken is almost certainly correct. 30 F would be about the temperature you would expect inside as the frozen food thaws.
So for some period of time, what you have had, in effect, is a refrigerator, not a freezer.
The question is, for each individual food in the freezer, would it still be safe if held at refrigerator temperatures for a full week.
You can get good estimates for many foods from these sites:
Still Tasty
Eat by Date
I would discard foods that are beyond their good life, or foods that would not be palatable when frozen, thawed, and then refrozen.
In the specific case of the green chilis (I am guessing whole), Still Tasty says about one week, so you are on the border. You should use or re-freeze them quite quickly. On the other hand, they have already sat for a week, and suffered the degradation from one freezing cycle. As chilis are not normally terribly expensive, it may not be worth keeping them.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.925005 | 2013-12-30T22:35:51 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40714",
"authors": [
"Bev K",
"Carina",
"Cascabel",
"Justinas J.",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"cobbal",
"cosmos",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94764",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94822",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94824",
"witch-of-winter"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
43323 | Identify this iron cooking piece for me
My dad gave me this - what is it? How would I season it? What would you cook on it?
It is a stove top griddle. You set it across two burners (hobs for Brits), and heat it up.
You can use it for any griddled foods: pancakes, hash browns, grilled sandwiches, hamburgers, steak, and so on.
The little track around the edge is to capture any juice or fat that run off the surface without making a mess.
You season it like any other cast iron pan. It is probably easiest to do so in the oven. You only need to season the cooking surface.
See also:
What's the best way to season a cast iron skillet?
How to clean and maintain cast iron lids
What oil is best for seasoning a cast-iron skillet
Yes to the griddle ... no on only seasoning the cooking surface -- you should season the whole thing to prevent it rusting. Maybe not 4 layers of seasoning, but one or preferably two to seal it well.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.925173 | 2014-04-06T23:58:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43323",
"authors": [
"Bplan spam",
"Joe",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"cora",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101433",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101434",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101435",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101436",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
34804 | For how long should I cook onion paste?
I followed a recipe the other day that involved cooking "Onion Paste" till Golden Brown. There were no details on how to make it so I assumed it was just "Take the onions and make a puree".
I cooked it for like 10 minutes but it did not change color. I continued on with the recipe as I was afraid that if I cook it longer, it may turn bitter. Usually when I cook chopped onions, they become golden brown in 10 minutes.
I am wondering if I did something wrong? Please note that I also added some water in the mixer while making the puree.
Pureeing onions makes them release a lot more of their water than just chopping them, and if you added extra water on top of that, you probably had a very wet paste. That makes it take a lot longer to cook - while you're just boiling away water, it's not hot enough to brown much.
So cook it as long as it takes - it's not going to become bitter. (If anything, it'll get sweeter!) And if you want it to cook faster, don't add extra water. If you watch carefully, you can also turn the stove up hotter at the beginning to boil off water faster, then reduce the heat once it's drying out enough to avoid burning it.
If whatever you used to make the puree doesn't work well without the extra water, you can still use it; just know that it'll make it take longer to cook. Otherwise, you could try grating the whole onion on a cheese grater, which does a surprisingly good job - it'll still be really juicy though!
thank you for the answer. I have never used Cheese Grater for onions so i will give it a try.
Do be aware that if you're normally prone to watery eyes when chopping onion, grating it makes this a thousand times worse.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.925290 | 2013-06-19T19:55:32 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34804",
"authors": [
"7mike7",
"Asdfg",
"Hws",
"John",
"Lars Kristensen",
"Paulina Kleber",
"Perkins",
"Wyllow Wulf",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15667",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18831",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81161",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81165",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81166",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81173",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81421",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81422",
"jam",
"love spammer",
"robin boywonder"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
17465 | Speeding up soaking of cashews for a recipe
I am trying to follow a Sri Lankan recipe that asks me to soak cashews overnight. Since I can't really wait that long, is there a way to speed up this process? Would putting it in hot water help the process?
what are you soaking the cashews in?
i am soaking it in water
7 years later, what's the recipe?
The use of a pressure cooker would rapidly accelerate the absorption of water. It risks over doing it and also 'cooks' the cashews so this may not be the best solution for your recipe but the pressure vessel would force the moisture inward to the nut.
The pressure cooker is the best option for you, you'll cook them fast. But if the recipe asks you to soak up the cashews all night is for 2 reasons:
Get them softer so they'll cook faster
To remove the heaviness of the cashews, by throwing away the soaking water
If you put your cashews in a crock-pot, that would speed up the process. Whether this would turn your cashews into something similar to boiled peanuts, I am not sure, but worth a shot.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.925483 | 2011-09-04T11:41:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17465",
"authors": [
"Cos Callis",
"Joseph Vernice",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37645",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37724",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7287",
"kitukwfyer",
"liya",
"moorecats",
"user37724"
],
"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
} |
45114 | Have strawberries changed or have I?
Strawberries used to be one of my favorite fruits. I am continually disappointed when I bite into them lately and they have little flavor unless it's that slightly fermented taste. I am sure that large fruit distributors supply all the local grocers with bright-red, bruise-resistant product without any concern for flavor. However, even when I go picking in the short northeastern season, it's hit or miss. It's almost picking season and I want to know what varieties I should be looking for at the local farms. Any advice for finding a sweet but tart berry like I remember?
Hmm...I'm not surprised that you're finding strawberries from large distributors lacking, but I find it a bit distressing that you're seeing a similar phenomenon at local farms. Have you discussed it with any of the farmers?
Is this a recent and sudden phenomenon? Or are these the first strawberries you've sought out and eaten in a few years? Taste being so subjective, I'm almost wondering if there's a psychological aspect at work here.
Is this just this year or in previous years? It's a bit early for strawberries in some areas, a few weeks can make a huge difference
My first thought is to try finding other foodies near you, and ask them. You might try local farmer's markets for recommendations on where to find exceptional strawberries.
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/23788/67
Psychological? Well, my wife thinks I'm crazy. Maybe I'm looking for some reassurance. :) She buys the grocery store strawberries all the time. Last year we went picking and the had some variety called "sparklers" or something. They weren't that great either. I plan to go picking soon and I want to know what to look for. I also want to prove to her that I'm not crazy and she can't settle for those grocery store berries.
There are quite a few different strawberry cultivars. It'd be surprising if farmers didn't change which ones they plant in response to changing climatic and economic factors. Size and taste changes when they do that.
An excellent point -- in many fruits, the cultivars that have been selected to give maximum yield don't have as much flavor as their less productive cousins.
I just had a thought -- strawberries are perrenials. It's unlikely that local, established farmers changed them out, unless they planted new fields. It's possible that the weather is affecting their flavor, though. (too much rain, too little rain, too much heat, etc.)
Perrenials yes, but they aren't the sturdiest of plants, and picky about soil conditions over time, so you get yield reduction http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/ORstrawberries.pdf if you don't replant every few years. That gives opportunity to change cultivars.
That link for the cultivars is very helpful. Thanks.
Some local farmers changed cultivars over here in Sweden many years ago and my family managed to get a few of the old plants. They taste much better than certain recent cultivars...
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.925620 | 2014-06-24T18:47:36 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45114",
"authors": [
"Bjoy7 spam",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"L. Walter",
"Max",
"Nimra Haider",
"Robert Marini",
"RomanTenger",
"Shamsher Ali",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Yamikuronue",
"gmdavisUX",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107371",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107404",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107491",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
100556 | Why do my fried eggs start browning very fast?
I've seen people mention how eggs shouldn't become white after they are dropped in the pan. This keeps happening to me even though I use the "water test" and my eggs keep sticking to the pan (I add oil after the pan heats enough). The eggs are already brown around the edges while the top is still liquid. Any ideas what I'm doing wrong?
As a filthy heathen, I'd like to say nothing. Seriously though. Use a good amount of butter, brown it, fry your egg so the white has lots of crispy bits and the yolk is still molten, then use a piece of toast to soak up all the brown stuff. Magic. And if you've got a piece of cheddar? Fry that too. Then you can soak up the cheese juice too! XD
A funny moment in the UK Hell’s Kitchen (series 3 ep 1) has Marco Pierre White criticizing model Abbey Clancy on a similar problem with her eggs, space under the yolk was crunchy on the bottom. He looked at her very intensely and in all this intimidating demeanor said “Your pan is too hot. The secret to frying an egg is basically to poach it in butter. Never forget that!” I remember laughing hysterically because that is ultimately really lighthearted advice in a really tense context.
A few comments, not sure I want to post an "answer" yet ... 1. Yes the conventional wisdom is that perfect fired egg has NO crunchy or brown bits (type A); but IMNSHO giving the egg a "frilly brown petticoat" (I think it was Denis Norden coined that phrase) can every good indeed, its a matter of taste not rules (type B); 2. depending on answer to that, the techniques etc will differ. In you specific case pan is too hot. 3. Olive oil, at a low-medium temperature gives excellent type A results. 4. "proper" bacon fat at medium+ heat for type B eggs.
Your pan is too hot. To perfectly fry an egg--without browning--you want medium to medium-low heat; what you want is the heat at which butter will juuuust sizzle. And don't use oil.
The easiest way to ensure that the residual white is cooked on top (assuming you want sunny side up) is to put a lid over the egg when it's almost cooked. Optionally splash a tablespoon of water into the pan (but not on the egg) immediately before putting the lid on.
What about the water test (water should move around like mercury)?If that test passes then how is the pan too hot?What are the advantages of using butter over oil?
@user3711671 What do you mean by "how is the pan too hot"? The pan is so hot that it's making your fried eggs start browning very fast. That's how the pan is too hot.
@user3711671 A droplet of water will roll around the pan on a layer of vapour once the pan is at or above a certain temperature, according to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leidenfrost_effect - so your "water test" will pass on a 200°C pan (reasonable) just the same as it does on a 400°C pan (way too hot).
Butter versus oil is a matter of preference. In the USA butter is much more common, but using oil is perfectly acceptable and common in many places.
Eggs tend to acquire some of the flavours of the oil they're cooked in too; I find eggs cooked in olive oil are something of an acquired taste..
@MartinEpsz one advantage of using butter is that it is really obvious when the pan is too hot as the butter burns. As expensive as butter is, that’s something you quickly learn to avoid.
@MartinEpsz: I was about to comment on that. In Spain for instance they often uses the oil to cook the upper side of the egg (by pouring it on the white)
@Martin I don't think anyone was suggesting using olive oil, things shouldn't be fried in olive oil because it has a low smoke point compared to rapeseed/veg oil. In the UK it's most common to fry eggs in veg oil. I tend to spoon the oil over the egg at the end just to ensure the whites are cooked through
@Bee There’s nothing wrong with frying in olive oil. You (generally) don’t want to deep fry in it (or stir frying, i.e. at extremely hot temperatures). Normal pan-frying in olive oil is fine, and often desirable; Mediterranean cooking is defined around it. On the topic of eggs, frying in (any) oil, and especially spooning it over the eggs, while common, gives eggs a greasy, oily, and generally unappealing texture. I urge you to try butter instead, it might just change your life (or it might not, if you’ve gotten used to the oily texture).
@Konrad in general though it's not worth it because you can't fry at higher temperatures. I was only suggesting that eggs in olive oil are an aquired taste, but generally it's not what's done due to the flavour it imparts on the eggs. Plus it's a waste of the more expensive oil
@Bee “in general though it's not worth it” — On the contrary: the vastly superior flavour definitely makes it worth it (but, again, for eggs specifically somebody already commented that it’s an acquired taste; just use butter). And high temperatures are relative: a steak is only proper when fried in a mix of olive oil and butter (the latter being added later as to not burn it). Accept no substitutes.
@Konrad Also, I don't actually eat fried eggs. I make them for my boyfriend and he likes the way I do them. I used to chef in France and made full english every morning and the way I did them was enjoyed. I put them from the pan onto a paper towel which stops them being greasy. In general though it's not worth it... to fry with. Absolutely cooking with it in general is better, but you need to want that very specific flavour it has in the dish
@Bee The lower smoke point is exactly the reason some who are having trouble with too high of a temp choose to move to olive oil for frying eggs. It forces you to stay below the smoke point and to a lower temp that still does a for them their preferred cooking temp.
@dlb I think the point of my post has been missed! Martin said that he doesn't fry in oil becasue of the taste, I was just pointing out that most people I know would fry in veg oil which doesn't make the egg taste funny
@TannerSwett I thought that water test is a sign that the pan is hot enough.Looks like I was wrong.I have tried with lower heat, while there were were no brown edges, sticking is still a problem.
I fry eggs in olive oil all the time and really like the flavor. I usually add a bunch of seasonings to the oil while it's heating up (steak seasoning, curry powder, garlic powder etc) and it turns out great every time
@user3711671 Where did you get an idea that "the water test" is appropriate for eggs? Sautee, sure. Pancakes, maybe. Fried eggs? Sizzling/dancing water means the pan's too hot. Heck - drop the egg into a COLD oiled pan and turn the heat on after. When the bottom of the egg starts turning white, that's when the pan is hot enough to fry an egg. While the egg is cooking, if you can hear it at all, the pan is too hot.
Egg in a cold pan is a recipe for both sticking and overcooking. Bad idea.
It depends on the pan, @Sebastien. I wouldn't do it on stainless, but any nonstick pan including well seasoned cast-iron will be fine. Also, I should say that by "cold" I didn't really mean completely unheated, I should spell out that what I mean is a warmed pan which might not necessarily be hot "enough" yet. I've done many thousands of eggs this way with no sticking.
As @Sebastien has pointed out, your pan is too hot. His advice is spot on. While you can achieve the results you are looking for this way, you would increase your chances quite a bit by using a non-stick pan.
Cooking is about controlling heat. The "water test" you describe might be good for some applications, but it is not always necessary, and it isn't what creates a non-stick surface. In this case, especially, it is causing you to brown your eggs before they are cooked to your liking.
You might be interested in the very low heat method for cooking what the authors describe as an "emoji" egg.
The pan was definitely too hot.Lower heat worked better but sticking is still unavoidable.
@user3711671 get a non-stick pan...even an inexpensive one can be useful. Check discount stores. You will not be sorry.
Just to add: if you're squeamish about Teflon pans, try carbon steel. A well-seasoned carbon steel pan is nearly as non-stick as Teflon with just a little fat, and I find it easier to maintain than cast iron.
The honest answer to this is what you are lacking is experience.
Cooking fried eggs, especially on a stainless pan, takes a lot of experience to get right. You need to try different combinations of things on your cooktop in order to figure out the right combination. "Medium low" means a lot of different things depending on the pan and the cooktop, and it takes a lot of eggs to get to where you can get it right.
So my suggestion: make a lot of eggs. Make a dozen, one or two at a time, and adjust things each time. Then make another dozen. Get to where you know what a little more or less heat will do, or a little more or less oil/butter.
I can make great fried eggs on my pans at home on my own burner, but if I go on vacation, I'll probably make six eggs before I have one yolk stay together. Especially when they have an electric burner, it's nearly inevitable I'll get it wrong for a few times, because I'm not used to the kind of heat they put out versus my (nearly professional quality) gas burner.
Pay attention to which egg you usually make "best" also - if your first egg is best, then you're probably overheating. If your second or third egg is better, then you might not be preheating enough. Ideally all of your eggs will come out the same consistently, but in my experience that takes a long time to get to the point that all of the eggs are consistent.
The water test isn't appropriate for eggs.
To be on the safe side, crack the egg into the oiled pan when you know that it's not hot enough. Then let the heat rise under the egg until it starts cooking. And then turn it down so that it doesn't just keep getting hotter and hotter.
If you can hear the egg frying, the pan is too hot.
I too had problems with the egg sticking - I found that I had to wait longer before flipping the egg. It seems like when more egg gets cooked, it prefers to stick to itself instead of the pan.
This will require a cooler cooing temperature. So you can almost judge what the temperature by how quickly it cooks. Pay attention by looking carefully.
When I flip the egg, it should be almost done. After flipping, I let the top cook for maybe 10 or 20 seconds to have a well done egg for my son.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.925919 | 2019-08-03T18:41:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100556",
"authors": [
"Beanluc",
"Bloodgain",
"CR Drost",
"Caius Jard",
"Gamora",
"Konrad Rudolph",
"Martin Epsz",
"RFlack",
"RJHunter",
"Sebastien",
"Sophie Swett",
"Spagirl",
"WoJ",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34741",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36702",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57548",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69408",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76762",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76877",
"kitukwfyer",
"moscafj",
"reggaeguitar",
"user3711671"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
49957 | How large does an oven need to be to fit a 18 lbs turkey?
Can anyone tell me the interior oven dimensions needed to comfortably fit an 18 lbs turkey?
I've searched around on the internet, but seeing as Thanksgiving is an American holiday, where most people have large, built-in ovens, I haven't had much luck pinning down an answer.
I don't know much of anything about cooking or turkeys or ovens, and I am living in China where ovens are rare and the sand-alone ones you can purchase tend to be small (more of a large toaster oven than what we're used to in the states).
Bigger than a toaster oven, put it that way.
It also depends on how you want to prepare the turkey - if you butterfly it or break it down, you'll end up with something considerably smaller / easier to cook. You only really need a large oven if you want to roast it.
Even if you can get your turkey in a small oven, like a toaster oven, there still needs to be room for air flow so that the turkey cooks evenly. Wall ovens, at least in the states, are usually 24" or 27" or 30" (as measured by exterior width - that is NOT the diameter of the cooking space). Last Thanksgiving, I cooked a 23 lb. turkey in my 24" oven with great results - they don't sell turkeys much larger than that.
The oven in a standard 20" kitchen stove will accommodate a bird even as large as 20 lbs (9 kg).
The very detailed chart here, the pertinent details of which are replicated in the chart below, establish the standard dimensions of such an oven as 18 X 16 X 14.5 inches (46 x 41 x 37 cm).
In their downloadable Thanksgiving pdf, for a turkey as large as 20 lbs (9 kg) Williams-Sonoma recommends a 16 X 13 X 3 inch (40 x 33 x 7.5 cm) roasting pan. A pan of this sort is available with a rack which rises just above the bottom of the pan, as here and pictured below.
This kind of pan keeps height requirements down to roughly the height of the bird plus 3" (7.5 cm) above the bird, plus the standard 2.5" (6.5 cm) below the bottom rack. With 14.5" (37 cm) worth of oven height to work with and about a half inch space between the bird and the pan, that still leaves room for a bird 8" (20 cm) tall. (We won't expect the bird to be half as tall as the pan is long.) Meanwhile, an 18" (46 cm) oven depth accommodates a 16" (41 cm) long pan, and a 16" (41 cm) oven width a 13" (33 cm) pan width. Also, as seen here and below, the pan's handles fold down.
Now, none of this is to say that there's anything the slightest bit convenient about roasting so large a bird in so small a space. But it can be done. It should just be done with every whit of safety in mind.
You're welcome, nrser. I'm glad I was able to apprehend your meaning.
MetroKitchens suggests that for a 17-20 lb bird, you need a roasting pan that is 16 x 13 x 3 inches (about 41 x 33 x 8cm). The oven will need to be taller than the pan, because a turkey sticks out above a roasting pan, but you can reduce that considerably by spatchcocking the bird. I'm bad at estimating visually, but I think it'd be around 6-10 inches (15-25cm) tall when spatchcocked. You also will want some headroom to avoid having the heating element too close to the bird if you have a heating element on top, or else to avoid having the bird brush up against the oven if your heating element is located elsewhere.
So this large-capacity toaster oven might barely work, as it is 10.35 H x 18.19 W x 15.39 D, but I wouldn't go much smaller.
General Electric (http://products.geappliances.com/appliance/gea-support-search-content?contentId=18680) says:
• A 30" Freestanding Range will hold a turkey about 24-26 lbs.
• A 30" Freestanding Double Oven Range (lower oven) will hold a turkey about 20 lbs. Note: The turkeys we test are normally in the 20-25lb range, and in those cases we use the lower oven of the double oven. We do not have any information on turkey sizes for the upper oven, nor do we recommend cooking whole turkeys/chickens/hams in the upper oven.
• A 30" wall oven (convection or conventional) will hold up to a 35 lb. turkey. Note: For 30" Single/Double Wall Ovens, it is recommended to go by turkey size rather than weight. Check oven interior dimensions by model.
• 27" and 24" built-in ovens will hold a turkey approximately 22-23 lbs. A larger bird may be accommodated depending on the shape of the bird.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.926829 | 2014-11-21T11:17:14 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49957",
"authors": [
"Brenda Welcome",
"Brenda Winebright",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Joshua Hinton",
"Kogitsune",
"Maria F",
"Robert Prestandrea",
"Sandra Mathews",
"Soner Isik",
"Stephen Eure",
"Thomas Raywood",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119371",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119372",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119420",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119434",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28723",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"umayr"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
37613 | Will a Dutch oven be a good investment in a motor home with a butane gas burner?
I live in a Motorhome and only have a butane gas burner. Cooking over a butane gas burner is all I have and is limiting using just a pan for recipes. Does anyone have experience investing in and using a Dutch oven on this type of little butane gas stove? Any suggestions on recommend cookware is welcomed.
I don't think that it is a good investment. Without a real oven, you won't be able to bake or roast in the Dutch oven. Unlike historic applications, where the Dutch oven was buried in embers and could warm the food inside from all directions, a Dutch oven on a gas burner functions pretty much like a thick-walled pot.
Using it will let you make stews, soups, and some sauces. If you want to make sweet things, you will able to make cremes and syrups in it, but without an oven, you are limited to only combining these with fried dough and griddle/flatpan items like crepes. Many classic types of pastry require baking in an oven. And for both sweet and savory, there is not that much difference between a Dutch oven and a normal pot. It will give you a more even heating, but it will respond sluggishly to temperature changes in the burner. An advanced cook can use this property well, but if you are limited to a very small selection of cookware, there is no need to get both a pot and a Dutch oven, and out of the two, the pot is cheaper and easier to handle. So, my recommendation: get a pot instead.
If you want to cook more and your budget allows it, consider buying a toaster oven with a 30x30cm cavity. These take up very little space, and are cheap (mine was 50 Eur). They are good for baking practically everything - pizza, cakes, roasts, etc. I have never had a regular oven since I left my parents' home 11 years ago, and have made some pretty advanced stuff in the toaster oven. It is definitely a good investment.
Hmm...My initial reaction was to poo-poo, even downvote this answer. Then I read it. That should be worth two upvotes.
I'm more often than not, living off the grid, so would you recommend a thick base pot made from copper or something else oh with a lid and even heat distribution
@Michelle - Ah! Then what you need is a portable propane oven designed for camping: http://www.campchef.com/stoves/portable-ovens.html
If you have access to electricity, an inexpensive slow cooker from any discount retailer would be more economical than heating a cast-iron pot with butane, and can easily handle the stews and braises typically associated with the dutch oven. I'd save the butane stove for a small skillet... the local restaurant supply store will have inexpensive models of excellent quality... and use that to sauté and sear the ingredients as required before putting them in the slow cooker.
Maybe.
It is possible to bake on the stovetop, if that's what you're looking for. A cast iron dutch oven, which will take a while to heat up and cool down, will likely be pretty helpful in this kind of baking - with the caveat that you would treat it like an actual oven not a pot, and you would be setting your food in a smaller pan or tin, on top of a rack or trivet (very important, so the heat is indirect), inside the preheated dutch oven - so the direct heat doesn't burn the bottom of your food. Ovens are usually directionally heated anyway, with the food suspended in the middle so it cooks by radiated heat and doesn't burn from direct contact.
You might also want to look at indirect heat or residual heat baking methods, where you preheat your oven, or dutch oven in this case, and when it is hot, turn it off before adding the food (small, individual items; something flat and quick-cooking [like pizza]; or a one person serving of something precooked), and let the residual heat warm up your food - I've used the technique in the oven with a baking stone, but once the heat is off I don't imagine it will be much different from a preheated heavy dutch oven, with the heat off.
And finally, you might have some luck with recipes for campfire baking or other dutch oven recipes - rumstcho is correct that you can't do the kind of campfire cooking that requires surrounding the pot with embers, but there should be plenty of recipes for people that rely on portable gas burners and dutch ovens (I found this post on baking with a dutch oven on a gas burner, with emphasis on upside down cakes, cobblers, and other wet on the bottom foods).
You might consider, alternatively, looking into tagines (with something solid to use as a diffuser, since it looks like you're cooking on a flame). It will let you do slow cooking, you can roast (generally roasting chunks, not whole ingredients, but the possibility is there), you can make stews, you can bake in it, maybe not full loaves of bread but at least flatter or smaller things like foccacia or stuffed breads, pastries, things like that. I've had success with focaccia and stuffed breads up to an inch thick, which will give a nice texture more like loaf bread than flat-breads or fry-breads, and can be split for sandwiches. I will say that tagines are supposed to heat and cool slowly, and so it takes a while to cook in one - that suits me just fine, I can have something cooking in mine while I read, or do other things, and only need to check it occasionally - but you will want a regular pot and pan for when you're looking for quick food.
Perhaps the “Wonder Pot” is what you're looking for. I have no personal experience, but it is described on Wikipedia:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wonder_Pot
It was popular in eastern Europe, Germany, and Israel during periods of austerity when most people couldn't afford ovens. It is described other places as working well on gas cooktops on camping stoves and in RVs. There is a heat diffuser, which apparently comes in different sizes to match the burner, and which funnels heat up through a cooking/baking chamber that looks a little like a bundt pan, and a lid. According to Wikipedia, “A Wonder Pot can be used to bake cakes, casseroles, rice, potatoes, apples, meat, and chicken.” It's available online.
If you love braised, stewed, pot-roasted applications, a good Dutch oven might be the best $30 you'll ever spend (that's Lodge, not Le Creuset). However, if you want more variety, rumtscho's recommendation of a toaster oven is good advice. If I were going to run off in a motor home, I'd hope to take a Dutch Oven (Lodge), a toaster oven, a small non-stick skillet and a large, professional type (all-clad or similar) saute pan. Forks would be optional.
Very clever,,,maybe I'll just bring a chef with me, honestly I wouldn't know what or how to use all of the above mentioned. But I do like he apron fashion now a days LOL and thanks
HeeHee The funny thing here is I was being dead serious. I usually get in trouble for joking....I wasn't joking here...If I had to choose 4 pieces of cookware to take with me in a motor home, the four pieces I listed would be my choice. (I realize that your question didn't allow for four, but I just kind of ran with it)
No a dutch oven won't allow you to try any and all baking recipes like a real oven will, but there are a few things that it can bake with just a gas burner, like bannock and flat breads. If you come up with one or more good recipes that you make all the time that become staples in your personal cuisine then hell yeah it's very definitely a good thing to have. Bedouins make the same kind of flat bread all the time and don't seem to mind ;) It's also awesome for deep frying. I keep a small dutch oven in my VW van and fry plantains and sweet potatoes all the time. I'm going to start making more bannock again with it and even try to do somethings with sourdough, just simple stuff like the bannock or a flat bread, nothing like croissants or a boule loaf. Fry bread is another option. I hope to try to make deep fried calzone with it if I get the sourdough working. Ham and ricotta, yum! And yeah I eat a relatively high fat diet and have lost like 50 lbs since I started 3 or 4 years ago, so don't give me any guff about the frying :) On the other hand I wouldn't use it for an acidic stew since that would leach a lot of iron into your food. I suppose that's not so bad if you give blood regularly though....
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.927227 | 2013-10-15T05:02:19 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37613",
"authors": [
"Guy Martinez",
"Jolenealaska",
"Michelle",
"RI Swamp Yankee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20745",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93934",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93935",
"jpmorris"
],
"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
} |
71384 | How to neutralize the flavor of vanilla?
Out of curiosity, is there any flavour that neutralizes or balances out with vanilla?
In what? How would this be used?
I had candies in mind. I personally don't like a strong vanilla flavor in chocolate based candies and caramels. this could be used if you accidentally put in too much for your own flavor ideas or you used a new brand and didn't check to see it's strength etc.
Maybe I've not seen the same recipes you have but the chocolate candy recipes I see don't generally call for vanilla at all. Seems like you're trying to solve a hypothetical that can be easily avoided.
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it seems to be looking for flavor pairings, which is off topic.
@Catija Maybe take that to meta? While flavor pairing ("what tastes good with X?") is generally off-topic, I believe we've taken a decent number of "how do I cover up this taste?" questions in the past. So I don't think this question is an obvious application of that off-topic policy.
Not at all "just a flavor pairing" question - there are ingredients that have an inherent but annoying vanilla element (eg some brands of soy yoghurt. Not the vanilla flavoured type, but inherent.), and masking it can be very significant when making savory dishes with these...
I think it depends on how much is too much vanilla. If your recipe called for a teaspoon of vanilla and you added a tablespoon, it probably won't be too big a deal. I often use more vanilla than is called for in recipes.
If you are looking for something to "balance" the flavor a little bit, you could maybe try salt or lemon juice/extract.
If you just prefer that vanilla not be the dominant flavor, there are plenty of things that go nicely with vanilla that would result in a more complex flavor. Personally, I love combining vanilla with the flavors of fruit or almonds.
OK, so I bought some Vanilla Porter beer that was WAY too strong.
I took a couple of tbs of the beer added about 1/3 rd tsp of unsweetened baking chocolate, microwaved it to get it hot so I could mix them, and it did the trick. It cut the vanila way back and didn't really add much choc flavor at all.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.928084 | 2016-07-12T21:17:25 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71384",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Nir Glazer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47928",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
68462 | How many standard cake boxes will i need if i'm baking 3 or 4 9 inch round cakes?
I am baking an ombre cake for my sister's birthday party. I want to use white cake mix as I don't have much time to make it from scratch and I am planning on dyeing my batter. Since I want three or four layers, how many cake mixes will I need?
If you are in the US, a standard box of cake mix makes two round layers. So you will need 2 boxes to make 4 layers. Outside the US, I think the same applies, just read the box.
I recommend 3 layers if this is among the first few cakes you have made. Bake the two boxes (4 rounds) then choose the best three of the four rounds out of the oven.
One standard box of cake mix (approximately 15-19 oz.) will make two 9" layers. They will be on the thin side. Which ever cake mix you are looking at should tell you what size layers and how many it will make.
In a 9 1/2 inch pan one box with an extra egg was perfect for one pan. I would get 4 or 5 to be safe, better than having to go back to the store.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.928285 | 2016-04-22T02:07:05 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68462",
"authors": [],
"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
} |
40448 | Cooking with kefir
I cooked with kefir, I poured it on eggplant sauteed in a pan with some water, I used to use yogurt for a similar dish. And the liquid in the cooked dish seems stringy, sort of like okra in gumbo. However, the taste seems fine. What is happening? Did I do something wrong? How can I avoid the stringiness when cooking with kefir?
Sounds like it "broke", as can happen with any dairy product. The protein in the kefir coagulated into the strings you are seeing. If you decide to try it again, try the highest fat kefir you can find, minimize acid in the dish, and incorporate the kefir at a relatively low temperature.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.928402 | 2013-12-20T22:14:13 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40448",
"authors": [
"Bad Boys Bail Bonds",
"Christine",
"Liz",
"Spammer",
"V Chapman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94110",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95177"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
41066 | Cooking raw chicken beside heating quesadillas
In a kitchen that has only a flat top to cook with, is it safe to cook raw chicken on it and at the same time heat a quesadillas on the same surface but on opposite side of the flat top?
I'm not sure I see the point, since cooking raw chicken takes several minutes (at least) and heating a quesadilla takes maybe 20 seconds. Why not just cook the chicken first?
Of course you can. The question is whether it is a good idea or not in terms of food safety.
What you don't want to have happen is for raw chicken juices to splatter onto the quesadilla, especially after it has been flipped so that the side where the juices splatter will not be cooked again.
In actual practice, you have to assess the risks:
How much juice will splatter, and how far?
Will the quesadilla still be hot enough (or be turned) to kill any pathogens anyway?
Will enough settle on the quesadilla to have any significant chance of being a real risk? (The risk of infection increases with the quantity of pathogens present.)
In practice, unless you are serving at-risk populations like the immune-compromised, elderly, or very young children, the risk is probably quite low as long as the foods are far enough apart that the juice is not flowing from the chicken to the quesadilla.
In a professional food service environment, you probably should not do this; at home, you must assess your own tolerance for risk.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.928498 | 2014-01-11T19:35:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41066",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Ben",
"Jenalll",
"Pawel",
"Whitepants",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95645",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95646",
"mpitsiali",
"steve v",
"waffelhaus"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
41226 | How to cook roast potatoes at low temperatures?
Is there a sane way of roasting potatoes at low temperatures?
I ask because I am pot roasting a silver-side joint and would like some roast spuds to go with it. However, the pot roast is to be done at 140c and the spuds need roasting at around 200c. 60 degrees is a big difference, if it was 10, maybe 20 I'd just throw them in regardless.
If the potatoes roasted in say 20 minutes, I'd just roast them as the joint rests, which is how I do my Yorkshire puddings. Sadly, the potatoes end up taking to an hour or so, and I really don't like reheating just rested joints of meat.
How can I go about doing this?
it would seem a lot of people like to pre-cook the potatoes then spend 20 minutes finishing them.
it's a method I totally forgot about. I think this is probably the best route. pre-cook, do my pot-roast, then do my Yorkshire's and roast potatoes at the same time.
Yes. What you can do is throw the potatoes in with the meat - anything above 85C will eventually cook the potatoes through. Then when you pull the meat out to rest, raise the oven temperature to say 190 - 200 C and possibly add a little fat. They won't take long to finish roasting to a nice golden brown.
didn't really consider that, I just assumed they wouldn't cook. Next time I'll do that. To be fair, they turned out really well by cooking them in two parts. A little crispier than I'd personally like although that's my fault as I couldn't open the door due to the puddings.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.928652 | 2014-01-17T11:48:35 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41226",
"authors": [
"Captain Scott vintner",
"MessyMason",
"Skai",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106406",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96052",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96054",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96065",
"monkeySeeMonkeyDo",
"trisha dizon"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
55476 | Is there any substitute for vital wheat gluten?
There's pizza dough recipe which calls for vital wheat gluten and I can't find it anywhere in India. Is there any substitute for it? Can I use seitan as a substitute?
I have no experience but I found a couple of links that might help: http://www.ehow.com/list_6533668_vital-wheat-gluten-substitutes.html http://www.livestrong.com/article/295867-substitutes-for-vital-wheat-gluten/
none of the substitutes are available in India as shown in the links...
What type of flour does the recipe call for? One place said if it calls for AP flour, replace with bread flour, as it has more gluten.
And as a last resort, could you just find a different recipe? There are hundreds of recipes for pizza dough out there.
in order to make it not complicated i m trying to copy dominos pizza dough..
can i use seitan???
Commercial pizza doughs are usually more complicated than traditional ones. They are much more likely to use unusual chemicals.
I don't know but I would doubt it. Seitan is not a dry, flour-like product. That's what vital wheat gluten is.
what if i dont cook it and then put in a deep freeze until becomes hard and then ground it???
No, there is no substitute for gluten, at all.
The gluten + soft flour combination is itself a substitute for bread flour, so if you can get bread flour, as Catija suggested, use it. If you can't, you need another recipe. Especially if your goal is to "not make it complicated", don't use substitutes. Substitutes are always complicated. The easy thing is to follow a recipe without making changes, and there are thousands of good recipes, so if you can't make one, choosing a different one is easier than looking for substitutes.
Seitan is not a substitute for gluten, even if you grind it up. In seitan, the gluten is already set, but you want it "raw" for making dough.
In some countries, products like "Seitan Fix" are sold which are pure powdered wheat gluten... and the original poster might be referring to such a product.
If you can use xanthan gum for baking bread there is no problem for pizza dough. I use it in my vegan meat products to get a stretchy texture. It works just like gluten. I use 1 tsp per 200gr flour. Collin.
Just use regular all purpose flour. Bread flour does produce a somewhat better rise but I made bread for years without it and it still rises well and tastes delicious.
"Regular all purpose flour" isn't a substitute for vital wheat gluten, which is meant to be added to the flour already being used.
Try Xanthan Gum, but you will need to play with the quantity. 1/2 to 1 tsp should be good, depending on how thick you like your pizza crust. My friend has Celiac, and I find this works well in place of Vital Wheat Gluten.
This makes no sense. Xanthan gum is used to create a bread in gluten-free baking, but gives worse results than gluten in terms of texture. The OP is using a recipe which recommends adding vital wheat gluten to the dough, so he's definitely not baking gluten-free. And he is in a place where it's hard to get any additives. So why would he bother with xanthan?
General purpose flour contains about the lowest amount of protein where you bring out the gluten through the process of keading. I start with a small amount of flour mix and add water slowly until it flows like pancake batter. Whip this quickly for several minutes to bring out the gluten and form long stretchy bands within the mix, then add small quantities at a time the remaining flour mix. Resting the dough also helps form the gluten.
Semolina flour contains a good quantity of protein, is good tasting, and firm. A combination of semolina and general purpose flour will provide the protein/gluten needed.
Are you refering to "All-Purpose" flour?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.928928 | 2015-03-07T07:11:54 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55476",
"authors": [
"Allison C",
"Catija",
"Jay",
"Jonny Wright",
"Louise Lindsay McMurray",
"Manhattan Gastroenterology",
"Megh Gandhi",
"Nigel Overton",
"dbradac",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131827",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131828",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131829",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131848",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134372",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
55678 | Making a 2 ramekin recipe into an 8 ramekin recipe: Do I change the cooking time?
I've read answers about doubling a casserole recipe in a larger container, or putting two cake pans in the oven instead of one. But what about a recipe that asks you to put your ramekins into a shallow pan with an inch of water in it, and you want to do that with 8 ramekins instead of the two that the recipe is intended for? Do you have to add time? Reduce the temperature? Both?
Can you post the recipe? Or at least the type of food? It can affect the answer.
Oven type kinda matters too. Convection seems to deal with scaling much better.
Should be exactly the same - what you are cooking is the same size, how many you are cooking makes no difference. One cupcake or 50 would take the same amount of time to cook, if that's easier to think of. A pan of boiling water in the oven does not care how many ramekins are in it, so long as there's some space between them
Thanks! I followed your advice, and it went well. Sorry to take so long to answer, but I'm new here, and I am just getting the hang of it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.929233 | 2015-03-13T23:03:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55678",
"authors": [
"Ann Colbourne",
"Beth",
"Catija",
"Crocheting Momma",
"Derpy",
"Peace",
"Yvonne Dunigan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132311",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34202"
],
"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
} |
68022 | Moisture of the product
I noticed that after some time the gummy bears are really sticky after eating one of the packets of gummy bears and having them glued to my hands. Where does that moisture comes from and what is the cause? What changes can be implemented in the recipe to avoid higher humidity in the final product?
You did not mention there is a sugar/acid coating. That changes things a bit. See linked question http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/60302/making-super-sour-sweets-issues-with-stickiness/60414#60414
Its likely that :
(1)the packet you ate had a small hole in it
(2) before the product was packet the manufacturer made the mistake
of leaving the product in a humid area before packing.
Most candy needs to be properly sealed, just because of the same reason you are pointing out that you experienced. Remember gummy bears are made of sugar and all sugar has moisture in. And sugar attracts moisture. Not sealing the product would allow the candy to attract the moisture that is in the air all around us. Some areas more than others if course.
As for how the manufacturer could improve this from not happening:
(1) Having the correct balance of ingredients is a must
(2) Cooking to the correct temperature see link see link on the
different temperatures and results.
http://whatscookingamerica.net/Candy/candytemp.htm
(3) Producing/Packing in a low humid environment
(4) Sealing the product properly in bag.
thanks for your respond. The problem is that the 2,3,4th point are carefully carried and these points can be easly excluded. The problems lies in the recipe- and mostly with the product coated wit sugar/acid mixture. The question is if maybe changing proportion of its or replacing the ingredients with others could prolong the shel-time( the same time lead to lower moisture)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.929364 | 2016-04-05T06:53:29 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68022",
"authors": [
"Pork Chop",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44788",
"karoll"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
68214 | How can I cook cod without lemons?
I have cod and every recipe that I can find says to use lemon juice, but I personally hate lemons. What can I cook the cod with, other than lemons? I don't want it to be dry and I want to bake the cod.
I know you said you want to bake it, but Cod poaches nicely, which should keep it from drying out. I use the lemons just to keep it elevated a bit to prevent overcooking on the bottom. For that role, oranges or limes would do just as well. Maybe even some halved leeks or cherry tomatoes for something totally different. Poaching is a healthy way to cook, too.
I am not familiar with poaching, is anything special needed for that?
Nope! It's especially easy to do if you have an electric skillet, but I just use a traditional 12" skillet on medium-low heat.
Lemon used at the beginning of a recipe helps reduce how flaky fish can get. It's not required as answers have indicated, but it does have a slight difference in outcome beyond just flavor.
Lemon is used as a flavoring, not as a cooking liquid, it's not going to keep the fish moist. The secret of having moist fish is the same as having moist beef, chicken or any meat or poultry: don't overcook it. Cooking releases moisture from the flesh, so cooking it well is all about timing - getting it cooked enough to have the internal temperature and consistency you want and no more as every extra second means more moisture lost. Fish is especially sensitive to timing, but with a bit of practice anyone can cook fish well.
Fish, meat or poultry will have a juicy mouth feel when there is enough moisture stored in the flesh after cooking. Overcooked fish in a pool of sauce will still have a dry mouth feel, whereas perfectly cooked fish with no sauce at all will have a moist mouth feel.
As for what to cook cod with as a replacement for lemon the answer is nothing. Fish has enough moisture to begin with, and when baking you don't need to assist heat transfer. Lemon is simply a flavoring, so replace it with flavoring you like. This could be browned butter (or just a bit of butter) if you want richness, or herbs if you like, or you could just season it with salt and pepper.
If you want to get more fancy you could seal it up in parchment paper or foil (oil the foil so it doesn't stick) with a tiny bit of water or butter and some herbs and bake it that way, it seals in the moisture and creates a sauce - delicious!
Thank you, I think I will try the wax paper idea you suggested, I really like that!
Do you mean wax paper or parchment paper? I did not think that wax paper could be used in the oven because the wax will melt and affect the food being cooked.
Good point @ElmerCat, I mean parchment paper. I'll edit accordingly
+1: Do nothing is always a possibility! (Not only in cooking!) ;-)
Are you sure it is irrelevant texture wise - I know nothing about fish cuisine, but do not most foods cook differently when acid is added?
The time it takes for the fish to cook the lemon won't make much difference @rackandboneman. Lemon makes much more of a difference if you use it before you cook the fish, for instance lemon and salt on fish will firm up the flesh.
You could bake it in an orange sauce with orange juice, thyme and orange zest
1⁄2 cup fresh orange juice
1⁄2 tablespoon dried thyme or 1 teaspoon fresh thyme
chopped 1⁄2 tablespoon orange zest
There's certainly no requirement to use lemons if you don't care for them or simply don't have any. Here's a batch of cod that I just baked tonight:
Placed on a baking sheet lined with parchment paper, drizzled with some olive oil and seasoned with salt, pepper, garlic powder and Old Bay seasoning — but use what ever appeals to you.
Bake in a moderate oven (385F) for about ten minutes, until the thickest part of the fish flakes apart easily like you can see in the picture. Don't overcook the cod and it won't get dried out.
Baking on parchment paper also makes cleanup very easy!
Does fish stick to parchment paper? Or does it come off easily?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.929544 | 2016-04-12T01:50:57 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68214",
"authors": [
"Chris Bergin",
"ElmerCat",
"Escoce",
"Fabby",
"GdD",
"Renee Blake",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44969",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
83025 | Can canned food (like tuna) be refridgerated for months then put back in the pantry?
I forgot about the tuna I left in the fridge.
If you are talking about putting a still sealed can into the refrigerator and then after a few months moving it into the place where you normally store canned foods. All this without opening the can... Yes that is fine. As long as the seal of the can isn't compromised, the contents of the can won't spoil.
However, if the can is open it should be discarded.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.929864 | 2017-07-16T23:20:25 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83025",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
92282 | Dehydrated Fish Bone Broth
I'm trying to determine conversion for US. - dry teaspoons to ounces and grams, namely 1 tsp, 1-1/2 tsp, and 2 tsp. Every conversion table I've seen shows different values. The one I often found was: 3t, 1/2 oz, 14.3 g. If there is consensus, I'll just work it backward, but I really want this to be right!
It's there a reason you can't weigh your ingredients?
@bruglesco Not everyone has a kitchen scale, particularly in the US where recipe standard measurements are in teaspoons or cups. (And while having a kitchen scale IS nice, it's not necessarily the only answer to this dilemma!)
@Erica I live and work in the US where scales are in fact the de facto way of measuring weights. And yes a scale is the best solution to difficulties with weight measurement conversions.
Measuring solids by volume is a gigantic error. Try and measure a cup of shifted or packed flour and then compare its weight. There'll be a huge difference.
@bruglesco I'm just saying that sometimes conversion is more convenient. I own a kitchen scale, and I understand its improved accuracy for cooking — and I still almost always measure by teaspoon rather than weight.
@bruglesco - It seems what I really needed was a little perspective here. Thank you. Yes, I do have a scale. 1 tsp = .4 oz. I got it - I appreciate all the valuable input here. Thank you!!
@JudeGilford glad to be of help. Just remember that weight to volume won't always be the same. Think packed flour yo loose as someone says earlier.
Part of your problem, as stated, is attempting to convert volume measurements to mass measurements. You cannot do that without knowing the bulk density of the materials and tossing that factor into the equation ie. a tablespoom of cornstarch (UK corn flour) does not have the same mass as a tablespoon of fine salt. (In the USA, think weight instead of mass though it is technically incorrect)
One great little program I use for conversions is found at https://joshmadison.com/convert-for-windows/. It is free!
If working with a Roolander's recipe, try to remember that their tablespoons have 20ml volume not 15ml as is common in much of the rest of the world.
Yes one the problems seems to be mixing volume and mass.
3t = 1T = 1/2 oz as volume where 8oz=1 cup etc. As mass (ie converting to kg) 16 oz= 1 lb. The oz weight and oz volume coincide for water I believe but other than that no means of converting without other information.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.929951 | 2018-09-15T23:29:36 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92282",
"authors": [
"Erica",
"JudeGilford",
"NBF",
"Summer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69265",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69293",
"roetnig"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
40112 | Frozen onions in root cellar
My root cellar froze while I was away as we had extended single digit temperatures, which was not normal at all and we broke all temperature records. Now I have a whole basket of frozen onions and squash.
Should I go ahead and process them (I really don't have the time or the inclination as they are COLD!) or will they be fine just letting them thaw. Can I just throw them in freezer whole?
Normally, when you freeze onions or winter squash, you'd first at least chop them. Makes them much more convenient to use.
When you thaw them out, they will not be firm anymore. The quicker you freeze something, the less damage it takes in the process—I suspect your freeze was, unfortunately, pretty slow. Each freeze does more damage. So, you don't want to thaw then re-freeze.
You can't thaw and store; the damage from freezing will lead to quick spoiling if you try.
I'd suggest you transfer them to a freezer, to make sure they stay frozen. That'll give you some time to figure out what to do with them. You may want to defrost an onion and a squash (just one) to see if they're still usable or not—if it turns out they're too mushy to be usable, then no point in spending time on the others. Defrosting in the fridge is probably going to be easiest on them. Put them in a bowl; they will probably leak juice.
If you decide to store them long-term in the freezer, you'll want to properly wrap them (or use zip bags).
The first point: You cannot defrost and store them open again. The problem is that freezing destroys the cell walls and when they thaw, they will be wide open for all kinds of bacteria and mold to colonize them. There is no chance to keep them in the root cellar again.
You could certainly defreeze and cook them right away, but if you have lots of them, you will have to use a canning-suitable recipe and go through a complete canning process. Your post sounds like you are not inclined to do it now, and you can always do it later if you freeze them now. Besides, after the canning they will not be usable in the same way as fresh or frozen onions would. Any cannable recipes will add lots of acid, totally changing the taste and texture of the onions.
You can thaw them, slightly fry the puree, then freeze in cube trays. (Or puree from frozen if you have a high-powered blender). Store the cubes in bags. They work great in soups and purees, but less so in e.g. roasts.
Putting them whole into the freezer is safe. But when you take out whole bulbs for cooking, you will have to wait for the onion to thaw enough to be able to cut it, so it won't be convenient at all. So I won't go that way.
Thawing them now, cutting, then freezing, will work. But the thaw-refreeze cycle will break up their structure, so the thawed onions will be like mush. All the single pieces will also stick together during refreeze, giving you a big lump of onion. These two points make me think that pureeing is the better treatment.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.930164 | 2013-12-09T21:58:43 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40112",
"authors": [
"Bob Estes",
"KaousFaust DesIncarnus",
"Sandi Hammond",
"Spammer",
"V.G",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93155",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93691",
"msgs",
"w88lives48 spam"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
40761 | Replacing whole milk with sweetened condensed milk for cheescake
I am making a no bake cheesecake. It calls for milk but I just ran out. Can I substitute with sweetened condensed milk?
I use powdered whole milk, where I could control the thickness. I use Nestle Nido found in Walmart's hispanic foods section, rather than the flaky stuff that comes in a paper carton,as it gives a more authentic milky taste. Whereas, the flaky stuff tastes like detergent. A $13.88 can would make me an equiv of 10 gallons of fresh milk. With the economic crunch, more non-hispanics are using this to replace fresh milk that it disappears of the shelves fast.
Sweetened condensed milk is approximately 40% sugar, so you would need not quite double the sweetened condensed milk, and you would have to deduct the additional sugar from the recipe.
You would need to multiply the amount of milk by about 1.7 to get the amount of sweetened condensed milk, and then deduct 40% of that (by weight) from the sugar in your recipe (you can assume that sugar is 7 ounces to the cup).
The thing is, sweetened condensed milk may have a cooked down taste, so you may not get the same pure creamy flavor that you would from fresh milk.
If you have additional cream or half and half in excess of what is called from in the recipe,while it may make the cake somewhat richer, you may have a better outcome using that in lieu of the milk. You also will not have to adjust the sugar if you go that route.
Many no bake cheesecake recipes call for sweetened condensed milk. May I suggest finding one of those instead of attempting a substitution?
Sweetened condensed milk (SCM) is a milk reduction. If you add water to it (1:1 ratio) it can then be used as a replacement for whole milk.
Keep in mind that it has close to half a cup of sugar added per cup of SCM so if you are mixing it with water for a recipe you should reduce the sugar you add by 1/4 cup per cup of milk needed.
I tried to use the percentages (almost doubling the condensed milk and reducing the sugar) for no-bake cocoa/oatmeal cookies. They came out okay--they held together and tasted good. I could have reduced the sugar even further.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.930442 | 2014-01-01T02:38:41 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40761",
"authors": [
"Cynthia",
"Nesco Resource spam",
"Noone AtAll",
"Sarah",
"Spammer",
"Thomas Fisher",
"barclayb0y",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94872",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94876",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94897",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94898",
"user94873"
],
"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
} |
42295 | Oven Spring when first stage of recipe includes a ten hour first rise
I am baking Swedish Limpa Bread. The recipe calls for mixing rye flour with a molasses/ anise seed, salt and water mixture and letting rise overnight or nine to ten hours. Does this exhaust the sourdough starter, leading to little rise in the bread? How can I rectify this problem?
Generally when you have issues regarding oven spring at home, the problem is heat and steam in your oven rather than yeast activity. In commercial bakeries, sourdoughs are frequently fermented for overnight or longer, so that shouldn't be a problem. A lot of the expansion you see in the oven is from the moisture in your dough converting to steam before the crust has set. In a bakery, we can achieve this by using steam injected ovens which allow the crust to remain elastic longer. Bakeries also use hearth and convection ovens which transfer heat into the loaf more efficiently causing it to create steam faster.
To recreate this at home, you can try moistening the crust of your bread before baking it or trying to create steam in your oven. You can encourage steam by starting your oven at a higher temperature and turning it down after a few minutes, or by baking on a pizza stone to simulate a hearth. It's important to get the steam down first though, as the heat transfer without steam will cause a lot of crust cracking and weird rising.
It's also important to note that if your dough has a high proportion of rye flour, rye traps bubbles via gums called pentosans rather than via a gluten network like wheat dough. It generally won't rise in the same way that wheat doughs will.
I'm assuming you're not getting much oven spring from the sound of it.
Sourdough starters don't have as much oumph (its a technical term ;) ) as a commercial yeast. Even in the best case, they just don't typically spring as much in the oven (nor do they rise as rapidly otherwise). Without seeing the exact ingredients, the temperature of the environment, and some massive luck (due to the variability of sourdough starters) - its not really possible to tell you if its exhausting...but its incredibly unlikely. You're also dealing with rye which has far less elasticity than gluten.
Your options to rectify are basically either to try adding vital wheat gluten, a bit of wheat flour, or a commercial yeast. Its very common with sourdough bread these days to also add a bit of commercial yeast.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.930657 | 2014-02-24T20:28:16 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42295",
"authors": [
"AMBON 4D spam",
"Eph",
"Jason McLaren",
"Mike White",
"Spammer",
"david jarvis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98749",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98750",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98751",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98753"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
64777 | My split pea soup is bland
I have never cooked for myself and have just tried to cook split pea soup in a slow cooker. I tasted it after 3 hours and it had no taste at all. I simply put dry peas (pre split) in with water and a little salt.
What can I do to enhance the flavour?
Bacon, jalapeños, and/or black pepper to taste.
Look for recipes and add in the things your attempt is missing.
The common denominator will probably be meat (ham bones are common), more salt, and pepper to taste. If you want to take a shortcut, you could use bouillon cubes or paste to provide both meaty flavor and salt, though pork is a lot harder to find than chicken or beef.
Salt and pepper you can just stir in. Same goes for bouillion cubes/paste, though you'll want to mix them into a small amount of soup first to get them to dissolve well and then stir that into the rest of the soup. If you want to add real meat, you'll want to cook it a while longer to get the flavor into the soup. Additional herbs and spices you'd also want some additional cooking time - the simplest rule of thumb would be to just look at the recipe and see how long it cooked the soup after adding those ingredients and do the same with yours.
Monosodium glutamate (MSG) can also be used to kick the flavor up a notch if you're dead set against meat.
Add chopped up chunky vegetables like Earth's potatoes celery. I even put in spinach, chopped up and some fresh spices. Salt pepper, handsome chicken brostock or vegetable stock. I like my soup chunky. So the vegetables are soft but chunky
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.930872 | 2015-12-25T04:54:27 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64777",
"authors": [
"Ashley Kerschen",
"Brock Adams",
"Dana Paquette",
"Fazal Mehmood",
"Helen Bragg",
"Laura McNaboe",
"Marti Beard",
"Maryanne Pecaut",
"Sue Southern",
"Tracy Newkirk",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154631",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154634",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154639",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
33991 | What should I use to build a parrilla?
Basically, I just need the grate. From what material should it be made, to make it food safe?
Any idea how I can obtain it in a reasonable price?
Per Wikipedia (emphasis added):
Asado (Spanish: [aˈsaðo], Brazilian Portuguese: [assado]) is a term used both for a range of barbecue techniques and the social event of having or attending a barbecue[1] in Argentina (where it is considered the national dish),[2] Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Paraguay and Uruguay. In these countries, asado is a traditional dish and also the standard word for "barbecue". An asado usually consists of beef alongside various other meats, which are cooked on a grill, called a parrilla, or an open fire.
Possibly this should go to DIY?
http://www.fornobravo.com/forum/attachments/38/33097d1354986672-argentinian-parrilla-wood-charcoal-grill-parilla-1.jpg -- Picture of a parilla; just looks like an open hearth grill
I'd guess the traditional material is iron. Probably a reasonable choice, if you can keep it dry.
This is not a good fit for DIY, if I got their rules correctly. They are about keeping your home in order, not about building new devices. Not sure about closing - on the one hand, it is once removed from actual food preparation, on the other hand, we accept questions on equipment.
@rumtscho: They list "carpentry and woodworking" on their about page, so... maybe? Although it's clear that their focus is on appliances and home repair/renovation, so even if it's on topic, it might not get great answers. (I don't think it'll get great answers here either, for the record)
As rumtscho said, we take questions about equipment, and "what's the traditional material for a parrilla grate?" is as reasonable a basic equipment question as "what materials are nonstick coatings made out of?" That said, I'm not sure if someone telling you "yup it's iron" as derobert guessed is going to help you much, and we can't really tell you where to buy materials locally if you're trying to build it yourself. (And if you have follow-up metalworking questions, those would definitely not be on-topic here.)
Not metal working per se, but is Iron food-safe? Can I cook on it with no worries, assuming it has no paint on it.
@ItayMoav-Malimovka it is certainly food-safe, as evidenced by the large number of cast iron pans produced and used around the world. It will indeed leach some iron into your food, but with iron being a trace element, you are more likely to benefit from it than to get poisoned, unless you are already close to the max dose from other sources, which is statistically highly unlikely. Iron deficiency is much more common today than iron overdose.
What I would do:
Buy a grate that is mean for a grill that is the size you are making your parrilla. Usually you can find square cast iron grates for not too expensive and if you need a bigger surface, design your grill in multiplies of the size grate you choose.
You haven't mentioned the brick work, but make sure you use fire bricks for anything that will be exposed to the heat of the grill.
Was not so easy to find the right type of grill. Asado is done on a V shaped grill (Each "wire" is V shaped, not the entire thing), which allows the fat to flow away from the fire, and comparatively small gaps between each V. Both are designed to prevent from direct contact of fire and meat.
@ItayMoav-Malimovka These http://www.amazon.com/Weber-7527-Stainless-Replacement-Cooking/dp/B000WEMG4W/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1368454264&sr=8-1&keywords=v+grate might work.
:-) Looks like I am getting annoyed by the small details, but, unless I am mistaken, the flow of fat is blocked at the end by the supporting beam (or how would u call this?). But now I know to google with "V grate" and I find good results - Thanks!
@ItayMoav-Malimovka if you can't find anything you like, then getting a local craftsman to weld you one from cast iron shouldn't be a problem. Just make sure to season it properly (the same way you'd season a cast iron pan).
English is not my language, would I search for "Blacksmith" or something else?
@ItayMoav-Malimovka find me in chat and I can help you look if you'd like http://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/16/the-frying-pan
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.931169 | 2013-05-07T15:15:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33991",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Cascabel",
"Dr-Bracket",
"Itay Moav -Malimovka",
"Kenny De Jesus",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"StackUser20004",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79030",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79031",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79310",
"japreiss",
"rumtscho",
"tyleha",
"wax eagle"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
69253 | How long is wheat good for after harvest?
I'm not sure if I am asking this in the right place.
I am wondering, if winter wheat is harvested from mid-May to mid-July, and spring wheat is harvested from mid-August to mid-September, then how long is it good for before it gets milled?
Good for as in "before it spoils" or as in "when is it typically milled"? Welcome to Seasoned Advice!
"when is it typically milled" after harvest. Will wheat spoil?
I can give you the traditional aproach my local mill uses:
Harvest season is just a few weeks per year. The mill will during that time buy the amount of grain they need for one year - from harvest to harvest. The grain gets sorted, tested, dried and cleaned if necessary, and is then put into storage.
During the year, it gets milled. The two factors here are capacity and demand. A mill works year-round, it makes no sense to let the machines stand idle for a long time. So there is a maximum capacity they can process per year - and a good management won't buy more. Also, there are times of higher demand (think holiday baking) which need more flour to be milled in advance. The grain should rest for a few weeks after harvest for better quality. I'm no scientist, but I trust my miller on this.
A good mill will strive to sell the flour as soon as possible after it is milled, partly for economic, but mostly for quality reasons. While especially white flour won't spoil for months (recommended: one year), darker or especially whole grain flours get rancid quickly and quality decreases. (E.g. changes in taste and moisture content and enzymatic degradation which influence the baking process and results.)
The whole grains on the other hand can easily be stored for well over a year, multiple years in fact.
Big industrial mills work in a similar way, just on a way larger scale and the flour has a longer time from mill via stores to the customer.
I've heard that some places will store white flour for a while, so it'll naturally lighten (as opposed to chemically bleaching it), but I have no experience in this field. And I probably get enough aging myself with how slowly I'm going through flour these days.
@Joe - Some storage time is important, but mostly as whole grain - it improves baking properties. Bleaching is forbidden in Germany, so I can't address that.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.931506 | 2016-05-25T19:39:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69253",
"authors": [
"Anthony Fornito",
"Joe",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
77133 | How can I remove aluminum foil from a candy cane?
I got a rather large candy cane, and was far from able to finish it in a single sitting. I thought I would preserve it by wrapping it (somewhat tightly) in aluminum foil. Now, a month later, I can't get it off. I have tried everything up to scraping it with a butter knife, but I can't get all of the foil off. Any advice? I would rather not throw the whole thing away.
Wrap it in a wet, lint-free towel for a few minutes - this will dissolve the sugar near the surface and you should be able to peel the foil off. Repeat as necessary.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.931700 | 2017-01-05T02:02:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77133",
"authors": [],
"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
} |
88669 | How to make Hummus that doesn't have a hardened layer?
When hummus has stood outside for some time, a harder layer on top forms.
Can this be avoided?
How are you storing it?
cover with olive oil.
Plastic wrap works for storage.
Some folks brush olive oil to the top of the hummus to create a barrier from the air drying it out when it sits out on a table waiting to be eaten.
Plastic wrap, and press it to the surface of the hummus rather than over the edges of the container.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.931777 | 2018-03-27T14:04:30 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88669",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118"
],
"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
} |
94242 | Is a flan a pastry?
Is a flan classified as pastry or does it just contain pastry? I've searched online without fruition.
From Wikipedia:
A flan, in English and other cuisines, is a dish with an open, rimmed pastry or sponge base containing a sweet or savoury filling. Examples are the quiche lorraine, custard tart, leche flan, and the South African melktert.
The Merriam-Webster definition of pastry is
a dough that is used to make pies and other baked goods and typically has a high fat content
So you can say that the flan is a pastry, since it has a pastry base.
Now if you're thinking flan as the spanish version (Crème caramel) then it's not a pastry, it's a custard.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.931847 | 2018-11-26T10:35:45 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94242",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
95523 | Olive oil instead of peanut oil to air fry potato?
I’m allergic to peanut oil, can I use olive oil for baking potatoes in a power air fryer oven elite
Did the appliance come with a book of recipes? If there are ones that use olive oil in there, it's probably okay. (although, you might want to stick with "extra light" olive oil and avoid "extra virgin" because of the differences in smoke points)
Is your question related to use of olive oil in the air fryer or is it more related to flavour?
According to this chart, the smoke point of extra-virgin olive oil is 160 C or greater, equal to that of peanut oil, although there seems to be a wide variety in the temperatures reported. In this case you should be able to substitute the oils for cooking purposes. Personally I prefer a higher smoke point oil, such as canola, for frying and baking
Unfortunately I see a significant issue here. Peanut oil is probably by default refined, which has a smoke point of 232C, much higher than that of extra-virgin olive oil. (Refined olive oil comes closer, for what it's worth.)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.931933 | 2019-01-10T14:26:09 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95523",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Divi",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
29390 | Too much sugar in soup -- how to make it less cloying?
I was making this recipe: Cabbage Borscht, which was from the old Lincoln Del, one of my mom's favourite places. I mistakenly doubled the sugar, putting in 1/2 a cup instead of a 1/4 of a cup. Given the 2/3 of a cup ketchup, which was Heinz, the soup turned out way, way too sweet.
Is there any way I can rescue this?
FYI- Borsch is defined by the beets that are in it. Without the beets it is not borsch by definition.
"Cabbage borscht" is conventionally called shchi, though they are prepared quite differently in my opinion.
Removing dissolved sugar from a recipe, as in your soup, practically impossible.
You have two main choices:
Reduce the impact of the sweetness. Increasing acidity (lemon juice or vinegar for example--since ketchup contains vinegar, vinegar or more ketchup may be most compatible with your specific recipe) may mitigate how sweet the soup seems. This may or may not work--you would have to experiment, and it could make the soup taste worse worse (the risk being you would then still have to discard the soup.)
If you really like the borsht, and can eat (or freeze) it all: make a second batch with considerable lower sugar, and combine them. You will now have twice as much soup, but flavor balanced.
I'm not sure if ketchup would help, because there is more sugar in it.
@Mien Good point, although most ketchup is more acidic than sweet, thus the sugar in addition to the ketchup in the recipe. As I implied, only the second method would be really reliable.
Heinz (the ketchup I have) is really sweet -- lots of HFCS in it, I think.
@Mien - Perhaps tomato paste? Acid and umami, tho some sweetness as well.
I'm adding this answer more for completeness than anything else but it is possible to reduce the sweetness in a dish by using a sweetness inhibitor. From McGee On Food And Cooking:
Not only are there artifical sweetners: there are also substances that block us from experiencing the sweetness of sugars...Lactisole is phenolic compound found in small quanities in roasted coffee...In very small amounts it reduces the apparent sweetness of sugar by two-thirds.
From Wikipedia:
At concentrations of 100–150 parts per million in food, lactisole largely suppresses the ability to perceive sweet tastes, both from sugar and from artificial sweeteners such as aspartame. A 12% sucrose solution was perceived like a 4% sucrose solution when lactisole was added. However, it is significantly less efficient than gymnemic acid with acesulfame potassium, sucrose, glucose and sodium saccharin. Research found also that it has no effect on the perception of bitterness, sourness and saltiness. According to a recent study, lactisole acts on a sweet taste receptor heteromer of the TAS1R3 sweet protein receptor in humans, but not on its rodent counterpart.
There is a branded blend of lactisole, sucrose and maltodextrin called Super Envision, which is the only commercially available version of this product afaik. It is used in concentrations of 0.5%-1%, e.g., if you have 500g of soup then you use 2.5g-5g of Super Envison. It can be found on websites selling Modernist cooking ingredients such as Modernist Pantry:
http://www.modernistpantry.com/super-envision.html
Is that really practical for home use? How would the use even calculate the add of 100-150 PPM, and do so at reasonable accuracy at the scale of a batch of soup?
The branded product (Super Envision) I mention is the only commercially available way of getting lactisole and as I also mention you use it in a concentration of 0.5-1% of whatever it is you are trying to reduce sweetness in. Edited for clarity.
Yes, how would a home cook with an existing batch of soup as indicated in the question calculate that concentration?
I provide a sample calculation in the answer.
For completeness' sake: in some edge cases, you could get rid of sugar by crystallizing it out, causing it to caramelize, using some kind of osmotic setup, or feeding it to yeast. Certainly none of that would apply to borschtsch...
I would remove some of the borsch and replace with water (removing some of the sweetness) and then rethicken it with a souring agent such as Amchoor (ground unripe Mango). Then add soured cream at the end to further thicken, improve consistency and remove sweetness.
You realize that removing X% of the soup, only to add additional ingredients is essentially the same as keeping all of the soup, but adding slightly more of the additional ingredients? :-) So no need to remove and waste any of the soup :-)
@SAJ14SAJ I'm getting somewhat weary of having to constantly justify my answers on this site. You and I don't know how much sweetness needs to be removed. By simply adding ingredients (in the quantity that may be required to remove the sweetness) you risk changing the nature and flavour of the soup. By thinning (you remove sweetness) and rethickening (with less ingredients) you have a better chance of maintaining the underlying flavour. A dollop of soured cream in borsch is frequently used to enhance the flavour anyway.
Sorry, but the methods are mathmatically the same, and I didn't mean to make you feel bad. Note the smilies. The difference is whether you discard some of the original borscht, or add more additional ingredients for the same effect, thus ending up with even more finished product. But the outcome in each spoonful is the same. This is a very geeky site, since it is daughter of Stack Overflow, so you will attract a lot of attention from geeks like me. We don't mean anything personal by being geeky-it is just our way.
@SAJ14SAJ If you don't like my answer or don't feel it's an appropriate solution to the OP's question, please feel free to down vote it.
I'm not sure why there's dislike for this answer -- this isn't a blended soup; removing some of the broth (possibly to be used for a different purpose) will keep you from changing the solids to broth ratio.
I was making Spanish rice, which, called for Ketchup to taste. Uh....the lid wasn't on tight and I put more than I liked. Result....dish was too sweet. Not undaunted, I considered adding tomato paste, which is not usually sweet and is in fact, slightly bitter due to the concentration of tomatoes.
Added, until the sweetness was virtually gone. A good save for me.....
Try it next time but be sure that you taste the paste and make sure it's not sweet.
Salt, pepper, hot sauce. All in very judicious doses. Worked for me
I have always used pepper to reduce the taste of too much sugar and this also works the other way although sometimes I use a different sweet substance than sugar if I have put too much pepper in a sauce.
Too much salt or too much sugar, strain half the soup and add more broth or tomato sauce and seasonings. You will lose half the nutrients and the flavor of the soup, but the salt and sugar ratio will be right. I agree lemon juice may help and sour cream definitely. I used oysters in a soup and I did not realize they were sweet and 2 tablespoon of sugar ruined my soup.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.932064 | 2012-12-23T02:31:12 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29390",
"authors": [
"AdamO",
"Alexandre",
"ChristianG",
"Christine Jarvis",
"Dr Paul",
"Joe",
"Laconic Droid",
"MadHatter",
"Max",
"Mien",
"Oinc",
"Owl",
"RI Swamp Yankee",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sobachatina",
"Stefano",
"U3.1415926",
"Wim Verhavert",
"duykhoa",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107916",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68307",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68323",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68329",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83713",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95822",
"jeffwong",
"kuchikopi",
"rackandboneman",
"spiceyokooko",
"tamouse",
"trungbk",
"user107916",
"user68328",
"user68376"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
39666 | Cooking a turkey in an electric roasting pan for the first time
My oven is not working so I'm cooking our turkey in an electric roasting pan and I can't find the wire rack to go in the bottom. Can I still cook the turkey in the roasting pan? Is it going to be soggy? How do I get the skin crispy? Any other suggestions?
You can absolutely cook a turkey without a wire rack. I have done this for years.
What I suggest is laying down a grid of celery and carrot sticks, to elevate the turkey a little bit and keep it from sitting in the juices that will come out during cooking.
These aromatics will then lend their flavor to the pan drippings, and help you make a fantastic gravy.
Another approach, which I do not like as well, is to crumple aluminum foil into a snake-like shape, and coil or snake it around the pan to serve as a makeshift rack.
This works well, but doesn't offer the flavor benefit that using aromatic vegetables does.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.932625 | 2013-11-23T02:37:59 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39666",
"authors": [
"Frank",
"Samantha Drab",
"Spam",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/92082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/92083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/92086",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/92089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93754",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93755",
"jrandym",
"kkron"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
43453 | What's the point of "draining" yogurt?
I'm making a recipe for tandoori chicken, and it told me to "drain" 1 cup plain yogurt "for 15 minutes in a fine sieve or cheesecloth." I did as it asked and absolutely nothing happened, yogurt did not move through the cloth. I'm using yoplait, which I know and it's pretty thick—but wondering if anyone knows what it was expecting to happen and what the result for the marinade might be.
Also, look at this: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14032/how-to-strain-yogurt?rq=1
Often, yogurt will drain away excess liquid in that length of time, thickening the yogurt. If left to drain overnight, a lot of yogurts will drain away a huge quantity of whey (yogurt water), some yogurts will hardly release any. If your yogurt didn't release whey, that just means that it was good and thick to begin with. That's great, but don't assume that your next container of yogurt will be the same way, even if you get the same brand. If you drain yogurt and it releases whey it will be a lot thicker than it was before you drained it, making the resulting marinade thicker in the bargain.
In the US, that's the major difference between Greek yogurt and "regular" yogurt like Yoplait original. Greek yogurt is thicker because it has been strained. "Real" Greek yogurt may also use different cultures, I don't know, but in this country the difference between Greek and "regular" is straining.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice!
It really seems like commercial yogurt in the US isn't thick in quite the same way - it seems really smooth and well-set, still with plenty of water in it, just not water that can separate. I'm not sure it's the same as well drained more traditional yogurt.
I'm sure a lot of brands use additives, Yoplait Original may or may not, I'm not sure. But it will release whey if left to strain, making it very much like good Greek yogurt. That's what I have used to make Tzatziki.
Ahh, that explains it! This site is awesome, thank you for your well-written and thorough response. Seems from the question you linked it may have been possible to get some drain if I'd stirred the yogurt beforehand. And now I'm dreaming of making homemade greek yogurt...
@moushi It helps some to stir first, especially for a short drain. But since yours didn't drain at all, it probably didn't have a lot of excess liquid anyway. Have you ever noticed liquid sitting on the top of a carton of yogurt? That's the same stuff. To approximate Greek yogurt, let it strain overnight.
The process by which liquid is excluded from yogurt is called syneresis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syneresis_%28chemistry%29 Gelatin, xanthan or vegetable gums are somethimes added to yogurt to minimize that liquid separation.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.932767 | 2014-04-12T06:06:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43453",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Jolenealaska",
"Karen Brower",
"Milky Makers",
"Paula Taylor",
"Spammer",
"Spammy Spam SPAM",
"VasuDev",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101785",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101787",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101788",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101789",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101799",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106583",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24353",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"moushi",
"rlj10621"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
44092 | Tall cupcakes that have height to them
I would like to bake mini cupcakes but need height on them before I use icing sugar. How do I get this right without the cupcake spilling over the paper and going flat and having no height to it?
It's all about getting the absolute optimum amount of batter into each cupcake. Can you make one experimental batch before the "real" one? If so, very, very carefully measure infinitesimally larger amounts of batter in successive cupcakes. Take careful notes. One of the cupcakes will be perfect; use that measurement for all cupcakes in the next batch. If you've got a digital scale, this is a good reason to whip it out.
Even with perfect batter portioning discipline, inconsistent results are highly likely. The oven temperature also would have to be ideal, for maximum spring while setting at the peak of volume. Mini-cupcakes are very small, and magnify all of the unevenness present, including imperfect distribution of ingredients throughout the batch of batter (especially leavening), and hot and cold spots within the oven.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.933000 | 2014-05-13T11:13:13 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44092",
"authors": [
"ChiefTwoPencils",
"Darren",
"JoshL1516",
"Lucas Vilela",
"Penn",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"fkplumbing481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103538",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106547",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
44837 | Heating aioli as part of cooking or not
Just learned how to make aioli a while back and I'm curious if it can be heated while cooking or if it is something intended for the end while plating.
It's generally presented in a small bowl or container at the table. I've tried using it for cooking, but not with great success. It just separates...
While it can make an emergency substitute for raw garlic or garlic powder in cooking I guess, I'd not call it a satisfactory alternative for either.
Generally in Spain I've seen it served mostly as a dip or spread with bread or toast (though it can also be used at the table like you'd use garlic butter, but again it separates rapidly when heated so is less than ideal).
Thank you. I wanted to make a garlic aioli to put on Hasselbeck potatoes but perhaps I'll top them at the end.
In Valencia it's commonly served instead of mayonnaise with patatas bravas (although I suppose that's covered by your reference to dips) and as an accompaniment to paella.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.933232 | 2014-06-13T06:19:25 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44837",
"authors": [
"Chikita Isaac",
"Edgar Cristobal spam",
"Paula powers-kounse",
"Peter Taylor",
"XTT",
"Yavuz Ascioglu",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106559",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106560",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106604",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25421",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"thirdwilliam",
"user106558"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
41531 | Can I leave boneless chicken breast flat in freezer overnight?
I buy refrigerated chicken breasts and cut them into smaller pieces, lay flat on a cake pan and freeze overnight, then separate them and put into individual bags in the morning. Does this cause other food in freezer to get contaminated?
Other food will get contaminated if they come into physical contact with the chicken, but as long as you keep the food separate that will be fine. It's not that good for the chicken, putting meat and poultry into the freezer without protection will damage it, however if it's only overnight it's no big deal. I'd still put some plastic wrap over the tray to protect it.
Or just bag them up before freezing and then put them flat on that pan if the flat shape is the reason to freeze them like that ;)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.933359 | 2014-01-28T13:26:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41531",
"authors": [
"ATgeir",
"Amy Green",
"Ian",
"Jonathan Zollinger",
"Sherry Ludwig",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106402",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96827",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96828",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96831",
"jwenting"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
40538 | Stuffing bread for the next day
Can you make your dough and stuff it/roll it with meat or whatever you choose, then place it in fridge overnight to be cooked the next day?
What I mean is, do everything like you are about to bake but instead of putting it in the oven, you put it in fridge. Will it keep and bake right the next day?
If you are thinking of a particular recipe, please post it.
Which meat are you going to bake?
The dough should be fine retarded overnight on it's own. What you are asking really depends on the filling. If you are filling the dough with something that has a tendency to "weep" or lose water, it can negatively effect your finished product. The water will be stuck in the cavity and can make your bread soggy and hard to bake completely.
If your filing contains sugar, it can draw moisture out of your dough. This will create a syrup and can also lead to sogginess, though it's more likely to lead to a thick caramel shell wherever the liquid leaks out. Salty fillings can also cause unpredictable results.
I think your best bet would be to make the dough, portion it, then retard the dough by itself. Let your dough portions warm up again before you're ready to bake and then fill them as close to the baking time as possible.
In general, assuming this is a yeast-based dough, this is called retarding the dough, and if your dough is well-wrapped it should work out just fine. Beyond the convenience, there is actually one advantage to this method: the flavor of the dough tends to become more complex with the slow fermentation that the refrigerator will effect. Generally, it's best to refrigerate after you're confident the dough has a good active yeast culture, so I would recommend letting it rise a bit before stuffing.
The main caveat is that, for best results, you'll want the yeast to become active again before baking, which you'll need to balance with the total time that the meat might be in the danger zone for bacterial growth.
I usually find an hour in a warm room to be sufficient, but if it's cold weather or you keep your room cooler than 70F, you might be flirting with too much time in the danger zone. My oven happens to have a rapid-proofing feature and I find I can get the same effect by proofing for 25-30 minutes, then a more gentle rise while the oven preheats.
If you're using something other than a yeast dough, such as a pie dough, puff pastry or empanada style dough, then overnight refrigeration has no such complications.
Do keep in mind that regardless of what kind of pastry you're making, you don't want the raw pastries to touch each other, as they'll tend to stick together.
Thank you both. I would only be using cooked meats and cheeses as the stuffing and it is yeast dough. I think I may try it once just to see how it plays out. I am contemplating this as a business when I retire. I am kinda tweaking my wife's recipes to make different things. I am trying to save time by prepping the evening before so there is less work in the morning. I really want it fresh every day as opposed to cooked the day before like I think some people do. Thanks again. Robert
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.933485 | 2013-12-24T01:25:59 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40538",
"authors": [
"Age of spam",
"Divi",
"Gloria",
"Jack",
"Limina102",
"Ralf ",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22086",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94282",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94284",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94429",
"huab",
"robert"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
92427 | Fat content in chocolate chips
Recently I got a bag of dark chocolate chips, 12oz (340g) for $3.95.
(15g per serving) It's total fat content is 4g, 2g of which being saturated. The bag does not state the cocoa content percentage.
(40g per serving) In comparison to another bag of chocolate chips of the same brand labelled as semi-sweet. It has 14g of total fat and 8g of which is saturated fat. However, this pack cost $6.20
My question is, does the fat content affect the 'meltability' of the chocolate when used in chocolate chip cookies? I'm aiming for a cookie that is filled with gooey chocolate rather than firm chocolate chips around. Should I get the semi-sweet pack instead?
Makes no sense to me. 15g per serving but the total is 4g.
@paparazzo 15g = 1 serving and 4g of that are fat, around 26%.
The second pack is a very slightly higher fat content, but as chocolate is cocoa solids+cocoa butter+sugar, we still can't be sure about the total cocoa content.
The melting point of cocoa butter isn't well defined, but two different dark chocolates will have a very similar melting point, so both will melt in baking, and solidify when the cookies cool.
The solidifying behaviour of chocolate is interesting in that it cools to around body temperature while still liquid, than solidifies rather slowly, which is why it can seem cool but still be gooey in freshly baked cookies.
In the end, if you bake the cookies then serve them almost straight away, both will still be molten. If you let them cool fully, both will eventually solidify. In between, you can probably make more difference by serving them on a warm plate, or leaving them to cool in a warm kitchen rather than a cool living room. The more expensive ones may end up nicer overall (on texture or flavour), but unless you want to arrange a blind taste test, there's no obvious reason to pay the extra.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.933752 | 2018-09-23T15:21:18 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92427",
"authors": [
"Spagirl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
39581 | What is processed meat?
There is inconsistent terminology surrounding what is considered "processed meat". Some take any meat that has been smoked, cured, or possibly dried to be "processed", while others are consider "deli meats" that have added preservatives (nitrates, eg) for longer shelf-life, stability, and color to be processed. Can someone clarify what is a "processed meat" in the context of dietary health recommendations for reduced intake as well as any other contexts in which "processed meat" is a term that is frequently used?
Please be aware that we can only give you the dictionary definition of processed food. In my experience, this is never the meaning of processed used by people who uphold the "eat fewer processed meats" theory. Their definition is heavily nutrition-related, so completely off-topic here.
really similar to : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/10860/67 (it's been rewritten, but I think much of it still applies)
There are no significant general health benefits of reducing sodium intake and most people absolutely do not overconsume according to their biology (not counting the hokum from the AHA and so on). Start your journey here
@Aaronut this is not a credible source and there is a widespread misinterpretation of these findings, such as in the link you cite. Please read the following letter from the AHA regarding the recent Hypertension publication.
Did you read it? The abstract says absolutely nothing of consequence. And the site I quoted is far from being the only source to debunk their claims, it's just one that's well-written and easy to understand. I'm not going to debate this other than to say that the food agencies are not credible sources on this either. Oh, they're credible on things like food safety that are testable in a lab, but completely useless when it comes to health and nutrition. Unfortunately it takes a very long time for "conventional wisdom" to catch up with facts, which is why you still see low-sat-fat diets.
@Aaronut This question has been edited to remove as much reference to personal health as possible. It's an interesting discussion but I can't find the context here in which it's appropriate to discuss.
Despite the fashion of using "processed" as if it is a derogatory term, and processed foods are dangerous, almost all foods are processed in some way(s). Most of us, for example, do not chew wheat berries directly off the stalks, but prefer them threshed, hulled, ground into flour, and then baked into breads or other foods. What is that, if not processing?
Of course, cooking itself is a form of processing, since most of us no longer eat our meat raw from the carcass.
There are a number of common ways that meat is processed, after being butchered, some of which are more extreme than others. Some foods have several of these processes applied. Among the more common are:
Cooking
Grinding (as in hamburger, and many sausages)
Curing with salt or other curing agents (as in bacon)
Canning (as in the infamous Spam, or Vienna sausages)
Drying or dehydrating (jerky)
Pickling (pickled pigs feet)
Smoking (which is often combined with curing, cooking, or drying, such as Virginia ham)
Freezing
Injection of brine or other flavorings or enhancements (many ham products)
I don't think there is any universal measure by which you can consider processing good or bad. You have to consider each within the context of the particular food product, and its outcome.
In the past, we've been able to draw the line regarding certain health effects, for instance swapping some or all trans-fat margerine for lard & butter in baked goods is uniformly better for our health. There are indeed tradeoffs with certain preparation methods. For instance, boiling meat to render stock is an optimal way to extract supplemental nutrition otherwise inaccessible from raw eating. However, pan searing meat introduces carcinogenic compounds. I'm asking if there are known harmful agents produced by brining/curing/smoking and/or whether these are different from packaged meats.
@ashkan All health claims are off topic for this site
fair enough. However, I think your definition of any cooking method being considered "processing" is too broad and inconsistent with how the term is used by others. Do you mean to say "processed" is a poorly defined term, absent of meaning? I'm generally curious what supplemental procedures happen with packaged, prepared meats that make them somehow different from what I would do if I replicated the process with whole ingredients.
To process: "perform a series of mechanical or chemical operations on (something) in order to change or preserve it." Cooking certainly meets that definition. A great majority of food is transformed or changed (that is to say, processed) before being eaten. Cooking is a process. Salting is a process. Slicing is a process. Trivially, butchering the animal instead of consuming it whole is a process. Don't let this word be usurped to mean somethign it doesn't like "bad for you."
You are also assuming that food processors do things you wouldn't at home. Sometimes they do and it is a good thing (like canning broth, which is hard to do at home safely), and sometimes they do and it is might be construed by some as less than ideal, and sometimes they don't. You cannot lump it all together. You need to look at each food by whatever your criteria are, and since those seem to be health related, they are hard to talk about on this site where that is off topic. I suggest you come to the chat... there we can talk about anything.
What "processed meat" includes exactly is going to depend on who is talking about it. Thankfully, reputable sources of health claims ultimately go back to various studies, which will define what they mean by the term. For example, Meat consumption and mortality - results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition explains how they classify meats:
For this analysis, meats were grouped into red meat (beef, pork, mutton/lamb, horse, goat), processed meat (all meat products, including ham, bacon, sausages; small part of minced meat that has been bought as a ready-to-eat product) and white meat (poultry, including chicken, hen, turkey, duck, goose, unclassified poultry, and rabbit (domestic)). Processed meat mainly refers to processed red meat but may contain small amounts of processed white meat as well, for example, in sausages.
So, their definition is broader than preserved meats. Other studies may use different definitions; best to check each one.
Meat Product, bought ready-to-eat, is a good definition. It covers preservation and refinement techniques that some may find unappealing - adding nitrates in cured meats or extra animal fat or grain in sausages. It is a pretty broad field, tho, and may cover food no-one much has an issue with, such as plain beef jerky or low-sodium chicken stock.
@RISwampYankee The point is that when someone is doing a study on it, they pick a definition. The study results are only valid for the definition they actually used. If they used a different definition, they may well have gotten different results. (And also, a lot of sausages are not ready-to-eat...)
To answer the question in context (avoiding processed meat), the AICR gives this definition:
What do we mean by “processed meat”?
AICR/WCRF expert report and its updates defines processed meat as
“meat preserved by smoking, curing or salting, or addition of chemical
preservatives.” Ham, bacon, pastrami, sausages, hot dogs and luncheon
meats are all considered processed meat.
The Australian Government has a somewhat broader definition -
Under the Food Standards Code ... processed meat is defined as
a meat product containing no less than 300g/kg meat, where meat either
singly or in combination with other ingredients or additives, has
undergone a method of processing other than boning, slicing, dicing,
mincing or freezing, and includes manufactured meat and cured and/or
dried meat flesh in whole cuts or pieces.
I have to downvote because health claims are off topic, and AICR is surely a health based organization (perhaps a reputable one, but still off topic for this site. We should not encourage, even implicitly, veiled health based questions.
Then downvote the question. The answer is on-topic, factually correct and cited.
The answer is encouraging that type of question by citing that type of source. I have also now downvoted the question.
@SAJ14SAJ I edited the question significantly so as to hopefully encourage NPOV answers. I will also avoid participating in such discussion here on, albeit interesting to me for personal reasons.
@ashkan Try [chat] for discussion - comments aren't even a good place for on-topic discussion.
@SAJ14SAJ, I think you may have focused on the wrong thing. The AICR is as reasonable a source as any; it's the facts you're citing or quoting that make something health-related. If you said "I found this great method for increasing oven spring on the AICR website", as surprising as it'd be, that's fine. I don't think it's particularly helpful to downvote an answer because it directly answers a question that you think is off-topic.
A simple way to think about is: any meat that has been forced/pumped through an opening. This covers hams, sausages, bacon, etc. Notice that Smoked Salmon, or Proscuitto are left out. Generally 'Processed' refers to mechanical or chemical processing of meat.
Your local indie butcher's meat is better because he loses in the game of numbers and you win.
He/she processes a couple of animals a day and doesn't have access to enough filler meat to make a whole product line out of it.
The big plant processes some 300 animals per hour. So your piece of ham can come from 1000 or so different animals and your odds of seeing animal disease are magnitudes higher than your local butcher. For this reason, meat plants have very aggressive plans to counter the risk with chemicals.
Your local butcher most likely doesn't even know what the term bliss-point means, let alone gaming your brain for salt, sugar and fat bliss points. The branded processed meat will almost certainly have more of those three.
As an aside: most processed meats contain nitrites which some consider unhealthy. See the wiki article about this food additive. You may find other ailments controversially attributed to it as well if you look around the net.
How is country ham or bacon forced through an opening?
The gap between the slicer blade and backplate, mister. Blast from the past for you, no?
So its not processed if you cut it on a cutting board with a knife instead?
Country hams is same category as prosciutto. You can argue about Bacon when people cut their bacon in thin slices on the cutting board every day.
@MandoMando Your definition includes mince or ground meat which, when ground freshly, sees nary a nitrate, iota of sodium, nor any other preservative. Myself and probably many others would consider ground beef not processed.
@ashkan : but that's the problem with language ... it requires having a shared meaning of the word, and meanings change with time & community. See my notes from an example with pancakes
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.934201 | 2013-11-19T21:18:50 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39581",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"AdamO",
"Carl Carlson",
"Carole Memere",
"Cascabel",
"Joe",
"MandoMando",
"Olshansky",
"RI Swamp Yankee",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"amrit",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91889",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91911",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91924",
"rumtscho",
"user91920",
"user954402",
"zhulien"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
27239 | Use of robotics in gourmet kitchens
I don't know if this question is relevant here, or if it should wait for the upcoming Robotics Proposal, but I'll ask it anyway.
Chefs such as Heston Blumenthal and Ferran Adrià are known for appropriating various high tech pieces of equipment from labs and industry, and using them in their kitchens. I was wondering if any of them use robotic systems in the kitchen. I imagine that robotics would allow increased repeatability, reduced cost, and the ability to do things that would be very difficult for a human to do accurately or quickly, such as decorating food in novel ways.
By 'Robot' I mean something which has the ability to make controlled coordinated movements, on at least two axes, and manipulate the external world. This definition would not include things like bread makers or dishwashers, no matter how smart.
What exaclty do you count as a robot do you mean robot staff or would something more like an intelligent bread maker count?
@InvertedLlama - Aha, the old "What is a Robot?" definition problem. By robot, I mean something which has an external actuator under position control. E.G. a robot arm, or pick and place machine. Preferably with at least 2 degrees of freedom. I do not mean something like a bread maker or dishwasher.
I don't think the question is worded particularly well, but I gave it a +1 for interest factor. I can imagine many uses for robotics in a commercial kitchen, but I'm unaware of any actual uses. Are there any?
@CareyGregory - Thanks. How would you have worded it ?
Delete the first paragraph. The question is specific, answerable and directly pertains to cooking, so it's relevant here. Rather than asking if "any of them" use robotics, just ask if there are examples of robotics in the kitchen. Last sentence could go too. And you might want to add your definition of robotics
I have no info on real kitchens, but I doubt it. The things are just not advanced enough to be of practical use yet, although there are some cool projects in the labs. See for example http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1579175 (I think there are free versions available, look them up with Google Scholar).
Sounds like I should go invent some ;)
@Yamikuronue - Then come and join the proposal!
The simple answer is YES! There are a number of chefs currently experimenting with the implementation of robots in their kitchens. There are various technologies and the research is on several fronts, including what I think is most interesting which is controlling nutritional values for specialized diets. Food printing is where I am seeing most chefs focusing their attention.
One of the first examples is actually just a concept design called Cornucopia by Marcelo Coelho: http://web.media.mit.edu/~marcelo/cornucopia/
I started a site to document these developments which are currently unfolding. For example, Paco Morales is experimenting with Food Printing in his kitchen: http://robotsingastronomy.com/food-printing-at-restaurante-paco-morales/
There are several other examples I hope to add to the site soon. It is really an exciting field!
You just reminded me of this @kmc
http://kotaku.com/5936818/holy-crap-an-army-of-robots-ready-to-slice-your-noodles/gallery/1
It's not really that more advanced than a food processor but it's in the right vein.
As a robotics integrator myself, I have met with noodle chefs who are looking to implement robotic arms to knead their dough in series of controllably complex movements designed uniquely (or even pass down from generations) to produce noodle of their "proprietary" texture. And that also allows the owner or the noodle chef to protect their preparation technique with technology without the need to hire and train additional chefs who may steal their technique or receipt.
All in all, I think robotics may help restaurant to mass "manufacture" and offer protection of their recipe at a somewhat higher level.
That is very interesting, and an application I hadn't even thought of. Yes, I think that kitchen robotics would help lower the cost of high quality restaurant food.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.935056 | 2012-09-18T11:20:13 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27239",
"authors": [
"CHAD E TOTH",
"Carey Gregory",
"Chris Beaman",
"Cindy Parker",
"Inverted Llama",
"Maya",
"Rakin Baten",
"Rocketmagnet",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61325",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61327",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66723",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9373",
"rumtscho",
"user61397"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
25963 | What is a good way for a beginner to start sous vide cooking?
I am just about to start experimenting with Sous Vide cooking. My plan is to start out with some very simple equipment (A PID controller and a kettle) and slowly build up until I have made my custom awesome Sous Vide cooker. (I'm an robotic engineer, so I'm looking forward to this bit).
To start with, I'd just like to try the simplest Sous Vide recipe I can. Something that:
Requires low accuracy
Is safe for a pregnant woman
Takes less than 2 hours
What meat is reliable for a first sous-vide attempt, and can be cooked in such a short time?
Unfortunately recipe requests are off topic here at Seasoned Advice, because they are essentially subjective. Google will be able to provide you with plenty of sous-vide recipes. I would suggest something involving chicken breasts as they cook in around 45 minutes in a 60ºC sous-vide bath.
@ElendilTheTall - What if I change the wording?
Sure: something along the lines of 'what foods can I cook in a sous-vide in under 2 hours' might be more appropriate.
Start by estimating the accuracy of your temperature sensor and controller. You're going to need to do some comparisons with reliable thermometers for this step. I'm guessing you don't have any laboratory grade thermometers at home that have recently been professionally calibrated. (Who does, really?)
Start by finding two or three digital cooking thermometers (preferably different models) that seem trustworthy. Then calibrate your PID controller by measuring the temperature of a mixture of equal parts crushed ice and water. It should be 0 °C. While you're at it, use the ice slush to check the accuracy of the cooking thermometers you found. Recalibrate or replace them as needed. Finally, heat some water to around 60 °C (or whatever temperature your think you'll be using most often for cooking). Then measure the temperature with your PID controller and the cooking thermometers. That should give you a pretty good idea of how accurate your PID controller will be during cooking. (If you find that your PID controller is accurate at ice temperatures, but quite a bit off at higher temperatures, you likely need a new temperature sensor.)
Sous vide accuracy is frequently in the neighborhood of +/- 0.1 °C, but +/- 0.5 °C is often good enough. I'm not sure what "low accuracy" means, but let's say, for example, that you estimate your accuracy to be +/- 2.0 °C. In that case, simply raise the temperature setting by 2 °C to compensate for the margin of error. It might result in a different level of doneness than you want, but the food will probably be safe.
Take a look at Douglas Baldwin's A Practical Guide to Sous Vide Cooking. Not only does it have some excellent recipes for beginners, but it also has some great safety information. If the food is to be consumed by pregnant women, you don't just want it to be cooked. You want it pasteurized. The guide includes tables for looking up the pasteurization time for fish, poultry, and meat (beef, pork, and lamb). If the meat is starting frozen, add about 30 minutes to the cooking time. If a recipe's going to take too long, use the tables to adjust the meat thickness or temperature in order to reduce the cooking time to your preference. Keep in mind that your shouldn't start the timer until the food is in the water bath and the water is up to temperature. So, save time by heating the water first thing when you're ready to cook.
I would direct yourself to this handy table from Dave Arnold who is somewhat of a figurehead in sous vide cooking
http://www.cookingissues.com/uploads/Low_Temp_Charts.pdf
It will show you the differences in textures and doneness for different proteins and even eggs and give you an idea of what you would need to do. I have built two DIY immersion circulators thus far and have had good success using a well insulated cooler and zip top bags. I would also suggest you direct yourself to http://www.chefsteps.com/ to learn more about technique.
Eggs. Easy-peasy way to get started and very hard to under-cook. Just try for a simple custard or soft-boiled egg to start. You can mix-and-match fats/oils and spices in different bags along with different cooking times and temps to see what happens.
http://www.seriouseats.com/2013/10/sous-vide-101-all-about-eggs.html
No question in my mind -- if you want it done in under two hours and don't need precision, I'd go with some form of undersea critter. Shrimp come to mind, and a demonstration video can be found on youtube.
Thanks Bruce. It's funny though, from the very small amount of reading I've done on sous-vide fish, I thought they required the most precision.
I would say that a crustacean is maybe more forgiving then a piece of fish but even then we're talking more about timing then actually making use of the benefits of sous vide cooking. Sous-vide cooking for things like fish and other delicate proteins is more about precision then convenience. The true benefits of sous-vide cooking are better seen with long (12h+) cooking times IMO.
This is at your own risk, there clearly is a risk of food poisoning.
I've done this with thinish meat (3/4" or less), beef and salmon, and short term, under an hour. As people have pointed out, don't do this for things that you want to cook for long periods, etc.
If you have hot tap water, you can do beef and salmon in it. You probably want to finish it on the bbq or broiler, but you can get most of the cooking done just by putting the food in a baggy in a bowl, and running a trickle of hot tap water into it. Now you do need water that is too hot to stick your hand in, but not into the scald range (so somewhere around 120 deg f).
I've done both, and then finished on the bbq or broiler, to heat a little further, and brown the outside. I've been happy with it.
I now own a machine. But either build your own, or spring for a Sous Vide Supreme, the thing I got is kinda lame.
Cooking for prolonged periods within the danger zone (40-140F) is NOT a good idea. This is called incubation, and it is an invitation for pathogens to party and multiply. I am forced to down-mark this answer for being a safety hazard.
Related question: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28787/can-i-sous-vide-meat-at-a-temperature-between-40f-and-140f-for-more-than-fou
-1: As SAJ14SAJ and even you say, this is not safe. And it's not a good idea to suggest unsafe cooking practices to the whole internet, especially when the question was asked by someone pregnant. I'm editing your answer to make the warning much more prominent.
-1 because the question specifically called for an answer safe for pregnant women.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.935418 | 2012-09-03T11:50:11 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25963",
"authors": [
"A Tan-Kantor",
"Arturo",
"Barry Te Karu",
"Brendan",
"Carey Gregory",
"Cascabel",
"Dennis A Langshaw",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Hayes Haugen",
"Jeanett klinert",
"Maggie Conlon",
"Rocketmagnet",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131538",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148228",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66922",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67024",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"william slaydon"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
127974 | How much water should be added to a Maggi seasoning cube?
I sometimes use Maggi liquid seasoning in my cooking. My recipe calls for a specific number of grams to be added.
The other day, the supermarket was out of stock of the liquid seasoning, but they had these cubes:
Now my problem is, how do I add the right amount of seasoning to the recipe? There is no indication on the packaging, or advice on the internet that I can find.
How much water should one cube be dissolved in to make it the same concentration as the liquid seasoning?
recommended amount is usually written in the package as well
@Luciano - That's the first place I looked. Sadly, there doesn't seem to be and indication on the packaging of amounts.
Maggi is a brand, produced by Nestle. It comprises several products, including Maggi brand liquid seasoning, Maggi brand instant noodles, and Maggi brand bouillon cubes.
These are different foods, not different forms of the same food. You cannot directly substitute one for another, and adding water to one will not make it like one of the others.
If you need a substitute for Maggi liquid seasoning, soy sauce (any variant other than "sweet soy sauce" or "dark Chinese soy sauce") will work decently well. You should roughly double the amount.
Thank you. I realise that that noodles are not a substitute for stock cubes. But Liquid Seasoning must be pretty close in function to powered seasoning cubes. My recipe calls for both Maggi liquid seasoning and soy sauce, so I can't use soy sauce as a substitute.
No, there's not much similarity, beyond the high level of glutamates and other products of proteolysis present in both. You're assuming way too much based on the brand name. Mix a bouillon cube with (hot) water and you get bouillon. Mix Maggi liquid seasoning with water and you get diluted Maggi liquid seasoning.
As for there already being soy sauce: Either add a bit more, or just ignore the Maggi. In some cuisines Maggi liquid seasoning tends to be added to any savory dish as a matter of course. If you know what you're looking for you could notice its absence, but it's never going to be the most important aspect of the flavor.
As others have said, they’re different products… but they both contribute a fair amount of salt.
So for that reason, I would recommend using an amount that is roughly equivalent in sodium. It won’t be the same flavor exactly, but it will still add flavor.
Maggi liquid seasoning is 330mg/tsp
Maggi cubes are 1010mg/cube
So one cube has a much salt as 3 tsp (~15mL) of Maggi liquid.
Maggi liquid seasoning does have a fair amount of salt, but the salt isn’t really its primary flavor. Maybe it’s personal preference, but I think three teaspoons of Maggi would utterly take over a dish which could absorb a bouillon cube without incident.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.936061 | 2024-03-28T08:40:48 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/127974",
"authors": [
"Luciano",
"Rocketmagnet",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
85372 | What are these white flecks in my lentils and split peas?
I was cooking a pot of red lentils and yellow split peas, and noticed these white flecks all throughout. What are they? Are they safe to consume?
I have been using the same batch of lentils and peas all week, and just used up the last bit of both, so it is possible that these all collected at the bottom.
The flecks are moderately firm in texture.
What type of water are you using hard/soft? Is this the first time that this has happened?
I've never noticed it before, and TBH don't know if my water is hard or soft.
Does your kettle 'fur up' (nasty white stuff inside) if so you have hard water, and I was just wondering if you have seriously hard water. Is it also possible that there is some cross contamination (couscous or something like that) that has managed to sneak in? Does anything taste different, have you changed supplier?
I suppose my water does "fur up", though I don't think more so than anywhere else I've lived. Cross contamination is possible, though it certainly doens't seem like couscous to me. I've edited the question to give some more details. I haven't tasted it yet :)
Try making it again in exactly the same way, and see what happens.
If the "white flecks" are those irregularly shaped small white curlicue things clustering mostly around the top of that wooden spoon, then check out this question: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35244/are-these-worms-in-my-black-eyed-peas-beans . I think they are just the part of the lentils/peas which are the "sprouting" part, i.e. the little plant inside the pulses (which are of course plant seeds). The question referenced above is answered with a nice diagram.
They are, and they do look similar to those referenced in that question. I'm guessing that is it. Thanks!
Apparently it's possible to sprout lentils by soaking in water (if done intentionally, you would change the water frequently) - I would have thought that drying, processing, and storage would kill them, but evidently not. It's possible dampness would have a similar effect. https://www.culturesforhealth.com/learn/sprouting/how-to-sprout-lentils/
My soup looks the same.
Probably sprouts. But since I thought of worms I just can get by it enough to eat so I tossed it.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.936281 | 2017-11-01T15:10:31 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85372",
"authors": [
"Lorel C.",
"Stuart F",
"dougal 5.0.0",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12661",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78562",
"rcorre"
],
"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
} |
105484 | Why does meat go bad after 1 month sous vide at 55-60C ( 131 - 141F)
See this I COOKED a Brisket for a MONTH and this happened! and Can Viewers SAVE a 1-month BRISKET? of a brisket cooked in 55C and 60C for 1 month. It smells very bad! So they proved (twice) that the brisket goes bad, you can read all the comments and there are lots of suggested reasons especially that you must cook at 65C since it is only above 65C that you really kill salmonella and whatever. I don't think so, Modernist cuisine says that salmonella dies at temperatures above 48C.
My question is, what really happens? I.e. what is growing, is it dangerous, and how long does it take to get dangerous in 55C e.g.?
Is it some anaerobic bacteria? It can't be botulism, he would be dead by now, right?
I have done brisket many times at 55C/131F for 3 days, no smell, everything very good. I don't think I will get any better result after longer time so I have not tried (and I don't have a youtube channel to sell crazy ideas :-) ). I do 2 days now and I get nicely rendered fat and a (sorry Americans) very nice texture.
Here we have more examples of 4-5 days, comments say texture was really bad, but nothing about bad smell. link
I don't really see what would be bad for 30 days, but ok after 3-5?
Update
Please read e.g. Douglas Baldwins Practical Guide to Sous Vide, I think he is much more qualified than you and me.
He clearly states e.g.
You were probably taught that there’s a “danger zone” between 40°F and 140°F (4.4°C and 60°C). These temperatures aren’t quite right: it’s well known that food pathogens can only multiply between 29.7°F (-1.3°C) and 126.1°F (52.3°C), while spoilage bacteria begin multiplying at 23°F (-5°C)
and
So why were you taught that food pathogens stop multiplying at 40°F (4.4°C) and grow all the way up to 140°F (60°C)? Because it takes days for food pathogens to grow to a dangerous level at 40°F (4.4°C) (FDA, 2011) and it takes many hours for food to be made safe at just above 126.1°F (52.3°C) – compared with only about 12 minutes (for meat) and 35 minutes (for poultry) to be made safe when the coldest part is 140°F (60°C)
and
Indeed, the food pathogens that can multiply down to 29.7°F (-1.3°C) – Yersinia enterocolitica and Listeria monocytogenes – can only multiply about once per day at 40°F (4.4°C) and so you can hold food below 40°F (4.4°C) for five to seven days (FDA, 2011). At 126.1°F (52.3°C), when the common food pathogen Clostridium perfringens stops multiplying, it takes a very long time to reduce the food pathogens we’re worried about – namely the Salmonella species, Listeria monocytogenes, and the pathogenic strains of Escherichia coli – to a safe level; in a 130°F (54.4°C) water bath (the lowest temperature I recommend for cooking sous vide) it’ll take you about 2½ hours to reduce E. coli to a safe level in a 1 inch (25 mm) thick hamburger patty and holding a hamburger patty at 130°F (54.4°C) for 2½ hours is inconceivable with traditional cooking methods – which is why the “danger zone” conceived for traditional cooking methods doesn’t start at 130°F (54.4°C). [Note that Johnson et al. (1983) reported that Bacillus cereus could multiply at 131°F/55°C, but no one else has demonstrated growth at this temperature and so Clostridium perfringens is used instead.]
So what he calls pathogens DIE at 50C and they die even faster at 55 or 60. IF this is true, what is the problem with the 30 days brisket at 60C? That is my question. I don't want to hear about danger zone, I know what it is and that it is exaggerated to be simpler and safer to use. If you don't believe me, that's fine, but then no need to answer.
Having something in the fridge for 3 or 4 days is no problem, but you would certainly expect something to happen within 30 days.
@Johannes_B, at fridge (and even freezer) temperatures pathogens multiply much slower, but they don't die, at above 50C they don't multiply and they die, that is the difference.
I'm sure other processes still happen with the meat at such temperatures; maybe not pathogens, but components breaking down (you can see meat is basically falling apart on its own)
Yes of course, but what?? that's the question!!
You talk about the most common pathogens, but what about rare thermophile bacteria and mold? 30 days gives even rare bacteria plenty of opportunity to go forth and multiply right?
@dandavis, it sounds like you all think that I doubt that 30 days are bad?
I never said that I just wanted to know what went wrong, not if it would, or that it shouldent.
I know that danger zone is wrong when it comes to salmonella, but I never said that it is safe to do sous vide for 30 days, just that I wanted to know what went wrong.
Someone even downvoted me, wow! I cant understand why, nevermind, again thanks bob1 again for understanding my question and managed to answer it, I learned something, hope the rest of you did also.
In addition to @dlb's answer - there are a huge range of bacteria present in our food sources - many of these are capable of growing at higher temperatures than normal food safety requirements reach. The reason it is still safe to eat food at this point, is that the stomach and intestines are pretty good at breaking down most bacteria, so that they don't cause infection. Generally the problem comes when there is a high bacterial load in a food stuff.
However, there are a bunch of common bacteria that are facultative anaerobes (means can function as anaerobes or not depending on circumstances), and many are also facultative thermophiles (like high heat, but can also grow at lower temps). There's a nice chapter (paywall most likely) in this book: P.J. McClure, 21 - Spore-forming bacteria, Editor(s): Clive de W. Blackburn, In Woodhead Publishing Series in Food Science, Technology and Nutrition, Food Spoilage Microorganisms, Woodhead Publishing, 2006. It indicates that many of these bacteria are from or closely related to the genus Clostridium - a well known food spoilage organism. Other commonly found bacterial genera are Bacillus and Geobacillus, which are also commonly food-poisoning associated.
Having said that, there's one in the list of bacteria that is particularly interesting in terms of stinky smells and high temps for extended periods: Desulfotomaculum nigrificans. As you might be able to tell from the name, this one produces H2S AKA Hydrogen Sulfide - the rotten egg smell and you also get the same smell around geothermal areas. The bacterium also blackens the food - probably from reduction of the sulfur I would guess. Here's what the article had to say about growth:
Canned/hermetically sealed products held at high temperature (> 55 °C) for extended periods
This seems like the most likely culprit for stinky sous vide, but I would be willing to bet that it's not the only species present.
Thanks, this is the kind answer that I wanted. I can't get that book but I'm sure I can find something else similar now that I know what to look for. After a bit of research, I see that Desulfotomaculum nigrificans multiply most at 55C and can survive way higher than any sous vide we do. Thanks @bob1
40-140F is the danger zone of high growth rate for bacteria. 60-120F is the extremely high zone. 55C is only 131F and not even out of the high growth rate area, 60C it at the edge right at 140.
Outside of the high growth area bacteria growth is not zero, it is only much lower and there is not a magic switch that instantly kills all bacteria when you hit 60C. The safety rules say that at that point you have reduced risk, not zero risk. Bacterial growth certainly continues simply at a lower rate. However, a lower rate over longer time still constitutes rot and danger. The safety provided by reaching a prescribed temp is negated by then trying to stay there for an unreasonable time. No guides that say to reach that temperature for safety state that all bacteria are killed, only that many are and those that survive will not be reproducing at rates to be a likely danger if you otherwise handle the item appropriately. Waiting another 30 days is not handling it appropriately.
In addition, there is more to decay of a piece of meat than just microbial action. You have cell structure breaking down, chemicals being released, etc. I would fully expect, in fact be shocked, if the brisket in question would not effectively begin the equivalent of digesting itself. Bad smells and a texture approaching jelly would not be surprising in the least. A potentially interesting science experiment, but nothing resembling food should come from any such tests.
At 55C standard meat have a 1 D reduction in about 18 minutes, this means that 90% of all pathogens DIE, 60C is not correct science, it is a value that is safer than to say 55C for 1 hour, and most people don't even have a thermometer that can tell the difference between 55 and 60.
Please read e.g. The Complex Origins of Food Safety Rules--Yes, You Are Overcooking Your Food from Scientific American which describes the history of the safety zone rules.
I personally would not dream of cooking without a thermometer that is more accurate than 5C with my least accurate kitchen meter being tested to within 2 degrees F. 90% of all, leaves 10% active. 10% active would not extend safe handling from 2 hours to 30 days. Given exponential growth of bacteria it only marginally extends it at all. The most generous estimates would be to extend it by a factor of 10, not 360 as 30 days would be. The USDA recommendations are generally overkill, but are also the lab tested accepted answers and guides below that standard are not.
the USDA did not think about you or me when they wrote their rules.
90% of all in X time leave 10% active, but the next X time, you kill another 90% (of the remaining 10%), i.e. 99% killed, and so on.
Read a bit on the USDA rules, D numbers and how it works, I think USDA uses D6 or 6.5, which means they use a times 6*X which gives 99.9999% killed, to be a safe time/temperature, but they don't want to have a long time, therefore they use a quite high temperature.
So they did these rules before sous vide existed, at least at home,read the Scientific American article in my first comment here, it explains things much better than I can in a comment, you might learn something!
At 55C there is no exponential growth of Salmonella, but apparently Desulfotomaculum nigrificans!
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.936510 | 2020-02-24T14:05:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105484",
"authors": [
"Johannes_B",
"Luciano",
"Stefan",
"dandavis",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61679"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
53789 | Why does my corn flour dough feel like wet sand?
I did corn dough empanadas and the dough felt almost like wet sand and was tearing apart in my hands, impossible to shape up.
What should I do better next time ?
I followed this simple receipe:
2 1/2 cup (290 g) corn flour
3/4 teaspoon salt
3/4 cup warm water (plus a splash or two of water)
2 teaspoons olive oil
I tried to add more water and/or more flour and it was the same.
I finally added weat flour to save the day as the clock was ticking but I really wished I could land that dough.
edit: I used the parchemin paper technique for shaping and it went well.
I really wonder about the texture of raw dough not about shaping technique. I couldn't achieve any of the shaping steps with my dough.
How finely ground was the corn flour? If it was 'corn meal' even if 'fine corn meal', it's going to be more sand-like. In the US, you would look for something called 'masa' (which is a flour-like grind, after it's been treated with lye.) I'm not sure how it'd be labeled in Canada.
It was not corn meal, it was labled as corn flour and was really finer than the corn meal I have. Texture was pretty much like regular wheat flour.
You need to use corn masa for this. Corn meal or corn flour will not give you the texture you desire.
@jbarker2160 Please add an answer with masa and I will make it the chosen one! I saw masa a lot on the blogs when looking for receipes and thought it was more of a brand or something... Since I had a product labled as corn flour at home and most receipes reffer to the ingredient as corn flour I thought I would be ok.
Corn masa is what you need for this.
The process of nixtamalization makes the corn more easily ground and therefore the texture of doughs made with it will not be "gritty" in the way that a dough made with corn meal or corn flour will be.
Also, corn masa (or masa harina) is more nutritious than standard corn products due to the chemical changes that result from the nixtamalization process.
Just a few weeks ago, I was trying to make empenadas with a corn dough, and the dough didn't quite come together (as it was way too wet and sticky, even after I let it sit and hydrate for a while). I'm not sure what I did wrong, But I also had problems with shaping them. I got around the issue with the following technique:
Cut up a large zip-top plastic bag so you have a sheet of heavy plastic.
Spread the dough/batter onto the plastic
Place a spoonful of filling on the dough.
Use the plastic to wrap the dough around the filling. (pull one side over, peel it back, pull the opposing side over, repeat for the top & bottom).
Transfer to the baking sheet
Repeat 2 through 5.
Bake
It didn't look empenada-like. It was more like a naked tamale, as with the consistency of my dough, I didn't trust it to have the lip on it. I ended up frying them, as I already had oil going (and the oven was taken up by something that fell apart when frying).
thanks, good story. I just edited my post to make it clearer. TL;DR I had a texture problem, it was not even possible to do what you propose.
Corn flour is known in the US as cornstarch, it's not the right thing at all. You want corn meal. Corn starch is used as a thickening agent, it's not something you could use to make a dough. Depending on where you are in the world corn meal may be called Polenta or Masa if it's not called corn meal.
It was not corn stach either, I am sure of it. The texture of dried corn stach is very different from flour. But this being said maybe you are right, I might use corn meal. Which kind of corn meal?
UK 'corn flour' is corn starch. In the US masa harina is sometimes labeled as 'corn flour'
Right @Joe, it is corn starch. Most UK corn meal is labeled both polenta and corn meal, but it's hard to find the equivalent of US corn meal as what you get isn't as fine.
Use more egg and flour is my advice.
Welcome to the site! Could you please explain abit more - your statement of "more egg an lour" as very vague. OP gave a recipe, how exactly should it be changed in your opinion?
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.937285 | 2015-01-20T00:15:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53789",
"authors": [
"Andrew Schruers abbshurz",
"Bathroom And Kitchen",
"Car Park Marking",
"Clayton P",
"GdD",
"Jazmin Conn",
"Joe",
"Kelly Brown",
"Khadar Haybe",
"Lyon N",
"Mr. Mascaro",
"Stephie",
"abuislam",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126451",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126463",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126473",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126492",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126597",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14033",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"queen_of_suburban_jungle",
"vinni_f"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
34133 | Is it possible to can lemons in a simple syrup as opposed to using salt?
I would like to know if its possible to can/preserve whole meyer lemons in a sweet simple syrup, much like you would can peaches or cherries.
I haven't been able to find a recipe for canning lemons that isn't savory and doesn't use salt, but I want to use these lemons for baking so the whole salt canning method isn't going to work. I'm down to the last of my precious meyer lemons for this summer and really want to preserve them so that I'm able to whip up a cheesecake or what have you any time of the year using preserved sweet lemons.
If anyone has had success with this and wants to share their experience i would appreciate it.
While it is not what you have asked, have you considered freezing the zest? That can be very effective. Please note that recipe requests are off topic here at SA, but specific questions about technique or how to be successful are most welcome. For canning, you should only accept recipes from a reputable source such as a University Extension center. You want to be extremely careful with safety issues related to home canning.
Perhaps "lemon conserve" or "lemon marmalade" would be a better starting point for your search for sweet preserved lemons.
You can bottle (can) citrus fruit including lemons, but they tend to end up like marmalade
If you want to preserve their current flavour, I would suggest freezing thin slices on a metal tray, and when frozen transfer them to small airtight containers or strong 'zipped' freezer bags
Alternatively you can freeze strips of zest (use a potato peeler) and the juice as ice blocks (small size). Again, store in small airtight containers or strong 'zipped' freezer bags
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.937640 | 2013-05-14T23:14:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34133",
"authors": [
"Andrew Magill",
"Anthony",
"Debbie Williams",
"JasonTrue",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79406",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79408",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79410",
"janis",
"postnubilaphoebus"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
37867 | Baking Souffles
I baked individual lemon soufflés
that collapsed before I removed them from the oven. Please advise me
as to what I need to do to keep these items from collapsing. Thanks.
http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10177/collapsing-souffle
Also: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20599/troubleshooting-a-souffle-that-collapses-during-baking?rq=1
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.937792 | 2013-10-23T21:09:23 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37867",
"authors": [
"AjimOthy",
"Gabriele Bozzi",
"Hudson Woomer",
"Nicholas Solari",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"andrea",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89113",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89143"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
34685 | Ridges on knife steel?
Is there any functional difference (not related to things like embedded diamond grit) between a smooth-surfaced knife (or honing) steel, and one that has visible ridges? Would there be any reason to prefer one over the other?
Clarification: the type of answer I am looking for actually addresses the effect (or lack thereof) of the ridges at the microscopic scale where honing takes place.
I understand that the ridges just make the honing process faster
You can hone a knife with more or less anything. Preferably with material of a similar nature so as not to "grab" the knife edge and pull chunks off it
For a quick test, take a knife that needs honing, and use the back square edge of another knife to hone it with
The square edge bites into the burrs faster than a round edge, but can also "grab" and damage the edge
Honing is a gentle process, you are straightening the edge, and removing burrs, not really grinding the edge
Honing with material that is softer than the knifes edge, will just take longer, but generally produces a better result
The same processes are happening when a barber runs the blade over a honing leather strap, particles in the leather gentle grab the edge, and straighten it out. Any bad burrs will catch on the leather and be torn off
Keep in mind that a knife steel or a honing steel does not actually sharpen the knife, it merely re-aligns the microscopic sawtooths/burrs created on the edge of the knife from cutting to reduce the drag.
The contact point of a ridged-steel is less blunt (smaller radius on the ridge vs the steel) and might deliver more concentrated force.
with a ridged steel you can rest the knife blade and run across two adjacent ridges (creating straight contact with two small surfaces) and reduce the risk of damage (by bending the burrs the other way). a round-steel contact point would be more blunt. (we've looked at the honed edges under a stereomicroscope).
In my experience the ridged steel works better at aligning the burrs (or sawtooths).
To create a new edge or actually sharpen the knife you'd use something like a whetstone or a strap, or even high-grit (>2000) sand paper. By removing the burrs this way, you create a smooth (new) edge.
Yes, there is a difference
The ridges on a honing rod provide greater curvature at the point of contact between the rod and the blade. This has the effect of increasing the contact pressure (force is concentrated over a smaller arc).
Some reasons you might want to increase contact pressure:
You're sharpening a very hard knife (e.g. carbon steel)
You're a commercial chef and want to hone faster since time is money
Reasons for not using ridged rods (ie decreasing contact pressure):
Smoother hone
Better honing precision
Some honing materials (eg ceramic) can't be made/maintained very well with ridges.
Honing is a process AFTER the Stone has done it's work.
There are around, basically 4 levels of hone.
I use 600 grit Diamond. Followed by a smooth to the touch 15 yr old diamond. by a Ceramic .
I also have a $250 Butchers steel\diamond\? which is 21 1\2 in wide tapered to the sides and
used. I believe on the long knives.
My first steel was a "steel" steel with lines all round, down it.
I spent a month with a file then sanding papers than a smooth steel till it was like glass.
Still have it 50 yrs later. and next to my 50 yr old ex army mule strap Strop.
Gives my knives the BEST edge.
If you going to use a steel Use several grades of diamond ones then a ceramic or old leather belt (strop) to finish them off.
Mine get the stone about twice a yr. Maybe.
The diamonds do a magic job on a GOOD knife. Wustof. Kershaw. Torejo. etc.
I don't know that I'd use them on real Damascus blades though?.
The Japanese blades are that hard they virtually impossible to sharpen with normal gear.
This doesn't answer the question.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.937995 | 2013-06-14T20:10:32 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34685",
"authors": [
"Emyzamrr Hassan",
"Ivan Valdez",
"JPeck89",
"Kirwa Tiony",
"Marlene",
"Marty",
"Prashanth Parate",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Vadym Nekhai",
"Yan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154934",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80914",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/88020"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
36363 | What special knowledge or skills about coffee do baristas have?
What special knowledge, training or qualifications do baristas receive that make them more expert on coffee than any other front line food service worker or interested home coffee consumer? I don't mean simply operating the machine, but the why's and science that contribute to better coffee. How do they get this knowledge? Is there an industry standard certification or qualification that demonstrates them?
Bottom line: I would like to know how the knowledge base of baristas is deeper than simply operating the machine, if in fact it is.
It's not a licensed profession (like doctor or lawyer), so there isn't an official standard. Training is going to depend on the employer (and of course, you could just call yourself a barista without actually being employed to make coffee)... so I don't see how this can be answered.
Plenty of non-licensed professions have formal industry standards; we IT people abound with them. There are state standards in many states for food service sanitation. Even lacking formal standards, there is often an expected body of knowledge that goes with the job. I would like to know how the knowledge base of barista's is deeper than simply operating the machine, if in fact it is.
FWIW, about a decade ago, I was a barista (for about 4 months). I had my state food-handler's card, and received enough on-the-job training to operate the espresso machine and cash register. I didn't even like to drink coffee for another 6 years or so.
What you're asking is no different than: what special knowledge or certification/license do bakers have other than operating the oven? Many people know how to work the oven, but can they bake an artisan loaf? Do they even know the different kinds of bread?
The same answer applies to baristas. Some chains like *bucks have their own training program. Specialty shops chase baristas like the Neapolitan pizza parlors chase pizzaioli.
The special skill? Besides the latte art which seems more of a North American thing, it is very difficult to pull a great espresso shot and choose good beans. I personally have been pulling shots on a pro machine daily for 7-years and still take my hat off when I meet a good barista. What you get from one of those Nesspresso or other superautomatics is the equivalent to microwave dinner lasagna vs Mario Batali's.
microwave lasagna? Ick. You should get the ones that you reheat in a toaster oven. Those are much better.
Baking is a perfect example. While someone at a chain bakery may be a "baker" and only brown the crust of premade bread, a "baker" at an artisan shop will probably have a much deeper knowledge of the whole baking process, specialty topics, etc. The same applies to a "barista". Someone at a national chain probably just knows how to operate their machines and make their drinks, but someone at a higher end shop will know more about roasting, sourcing, milk temperatures, extraction, different brewing methods, etc.
The job scope a barista can depend on the country that they are in.
In Italy, a barista is someone that not only can make great coffee and lattes, but can usually also tend a full bar.
In North America it's a bit of a different story. The barista's skill set will depend on the type of cafe they work in. Certain companies may require them to pass a small course that is unique to their company. This is true of large cafe chains such as Starbucks and Second Cup. These courses teach a lot of theory thus most barista skills are learned practically, on the job. For smaller chains or independent cafes, there is usually an absence of training course materials and all skills will be learned practically, on the job.
Although there is no officially defined industry standard, a barista must be able to do certain things to be considered competent or qualified to work in the industry.
Practical skill sets:
Ability to make quality espresso:
Tamping pressure
Extraction time
Grind size and how it relates to factors such as humidity, temperature, etc.
Ability to operate espresso machine and monitor boiler and dispensing pressures.
Ability to steam milk:
Making microfoam
Steaming to the proper temperature
Altering foam for drinks (lattes vs cappuccinos) and customer preference
Steaming different types of milk (Skim, 2%, whole, soy, lactose free, etc)
Artisan skills:
Ability to make drinks in a well presented manner
Latte art via pouring or drawing
Toppings such as whipped cream, syrups, etc.
Coffee:
Ability to grind coffee and brew it
Ability to recognize differences in aroma, body, flavour, etc in different coffees.
Theoretical Skill Sets:
Understanding the coffee production process, from growth all the way to the cup you serve to your customer.
Understanding characteristics in different types of coffee
Knowledge of the roasting process, roast type, caffeine, and Swiss Water Decaffeination
Knowledge of Fair Trade, fairly traded, and Rain Forest Alliance coffee.
Knowledge of characteristics specific to coffees grown in certain regions (ie which regions produce naturally less acidic coffee?)
Understanding customers and personality types.
Learning how to provide your customer with the product that they will like.
Understanding all the factors at every point in the coffee making process and how they will affect the final product, which is the beverage that is served.
The list goes on and on.
The level to which you may need to know these things can depend on the type of cafe you work in, and where you work in the world.
So in short, yes, there are many many many many skills that a barista must know other than a regular food service worker. It is never as simple as knowing how to operate a machine. Some of the skills that I listed can take over a year to get good at.
The attitude of most cafe managers I have met is the following: "I can train anyone to make a great cup of coffee if they don't have barista skills, but I can't train people to be good with customers if they don't have interpersonal skills."
Sources:
I am a barista in a cafe in Eastern Canada.
I'm trained as a barista. We had months of training on this.
Making a really really good espresso, piccolini, babyccino, cappuccino, latte or hot chocolate is not easy. It's far from just putting a mug under the machine and hitting go. There's a lot more considerations, here are just some of them:
Is it first thing in the morning? Espresso machines take a little while to warm up and are slower first thing.
Are the grounds weighing the correct amount? A shot has an acceptable weight of grounds. Any more and your coffee/water ratio will be off and it will taste horrid. Grind times need adjusting. Think of it as the difference between water running through gravel and sand.
Are the grounds properly tamped (pressed down)? This also affects the way the water runs through them.
Is the espresso shot pulling through in the correct amount of time? Seconds out and your coffee will taste like sludge.
Have the grounds been allowed to sit under the portafilter? This will burn them.
Has the milk wand been cleaned properly between uses?
Is it with flat or cappuccino (frothy) milk? Has the milk been taken to the correct temperature? If it's soy milk has it been taken to the correct (lower) temperature or allowed to curdle or burn?
How good is the barista's knowledge of the coffee they serve? Can they tell you where the beans in the blend come from? Is it rainforest alliance certified? Fairtrade? Organic? Arabica or Robusta beans? How long has the espresso shot sat there for? How clean are the milk jugs and milk thermometers? Are the beans from a smaller roastery, these can be greener and less roasted as opposed to most of the major chains which roast more in order to ensure uniformity of flavour?
Now bear in mind. As a trained barista, you're thinking about all of this with every coffee you make in order to ensure the best possible experience for the person drinking it.
Can you honestly tell me that most people who go to a coffee shop think about any of this?
This is science, an artisan skill and frankly it's insulting to suggest that just anyone could walk into a coffee shop and make a fantastic espresso.
A lot of that sounds more like a qualified technician's profile (operating complex equipment competently) than an artisan (applying simple tools towards a complex result) - no offense is meant at all.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.938337 | 2013-08-27T21:44:57 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36363",
"authors": [
"Blessing",
"Joe",
"KatieK",
"Laurre",
"Online Mobiles Shop in Dubai",
"Palmilla",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SourDoh",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85325",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85327",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85567",
"rackandboneman",
"user13821501",
"user85334"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
33397 | Chopsticks versus forks?
Why are chopsticks the main eating utensil in many Asian cultures, but forks and knives serve the same purpose in many European cultures, and those descended from European cultures?
Note: good answers will reference solid historical or anthropological facts or resources, not just be speculation.
To the close voter: we'd welcome your input on http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1701/anthropology-versus-culinary-questions
This book is fairly interesting and directly related: http://www.amazon.com/Consider-Fork-History-How-Cook/dp/046502176X
@JacobG I read the preview on my Kindle, thanks for the tip!
Why have chopsticks been adapted as the primary utensil of choice:
The answer I've been taught my whole life (and I'm Chinese) was that Confucius believed that forks and knives promoted a sort of violence when eating and that it was best to keep weapons off of the dinner table and promote a gentleness when eating. This would follow his philosophical teachings.
Where do chopsticks come from:
The origin of the chopstick itself is fairly unknown, but believed to be an evolution of the ancient chinese who would roast meats over/in coals and use long sticks to fish them out. As food and fuel became more scarce food was cut into smaller pieces to cook more quickly and smaller sticks were needed to pick up the food.
History of chopsticks: http://www.asianartmall.com/chopstickshistory.htm
http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/food/2009/08/the-history-of-chopsticks/
Confucius and Chopsticks: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-01/09/content_297513.htm
Interesting, although the first Smithsonian article also indicates chopsticks predate Confucius by about 2500 years. Certainly Confucianism could have contributed to the rise of their ubiquity.
That's what I was trying to convey as a response to why chopsticks were adapted as a primary means of utensil even in the light of forks and knives being available. If that's not clear in the answer I can edit it if you want.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.938954 | 2013-04-11T19:30:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33397",
"authors": [
"Brendan",
"Cascabel",
"Delia Ellard",
"Diane Heath",
"Jacob G",
"Julia",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"User",
"dale vernon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77447",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77448",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77452",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8499",
"vapurrmaid"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
29755 | How can I save my mussels?
For the record this is my first post here, so hopefully it is on topic I do mean the fishy kind, not the strongman kind:
I bought a kg of mussels but I have never cooked them before so I asked the guy in the shop, the basics and went back to cook them. However, I mistakenly chucked them in a simmering pot without checking and then realised that I need to pull the bits of stuff off them! I didn't want to take them back out in case they were still half alive or something so I have left them to cook.
I am wondering if it will be ok to cook them till they are cooked and then drain them, clean them and put them in some fresh water with some garlic and butter to cook again (straight away after that) or if I have foolishly missed my only chance to cook them properly. If the latter, can anyone advise on how I should have gone about it (I think I should have pulled the bits off - should I have rinsed them or would that be too cruel?)
I don't want to waste a kg of mussels but I preference this to food poisoning so experienced advice would be welcome! Thanks.
If by "the bits of stuff" you mean the beards, those tufts of tangled webbing outside the shell, they're harmless. Indigestible and tough as nylon, but otherwise harmless.
Yep that is the stuff I meant. I don't want my dinner to have them on though. Is it ok to do it after and then do all the flavour reheat?
I am wondering if it will be ok to cook them till they are cooked and then drain them, clean them and put them in some fresh water with some garlic and butter to cook again...
Yes that should be fine, just make sure you discard any shells that have not opened by the end of cooking as those are dead ones.
Here's a nice recipe for moules marinières, mussels cooked with butter, white wine, shallots, cream and herbs which also explains how to de-beard them.
Short answer: It is safe, although by far the predominant practice is to remove them before cooking.
This is, of course, assuming the "bits of stuff" you refer to are the beards of the mussels, which they use to attach themselves to their growth substrate.
According to ISSC, International Shellfish Safety Conference, you can leave the beards attached if you wish (emphasis added):
HOW SHOULD FRESH MUSSELS BE HANDLED STORED AND COOKED?
Mussels
should be scrubbed with a stiff brush or coarse sponge and rinsed with
cold water to remove any debris. Beards can be removed or left
attached.
Lesser quality sources concur:
According to Blue Ocean Mussels, you can remove the beards after cooking--assuming the bits of stuff you refer to are the beards.
According to Yahoo answers, its safe but I give them little credence.
Here is one article at The Kitchn describing how to prepare mussels and clean them, with photos, in case it helps in the future. They also note, by the way:
The beard isn't harmful or inedible (just not particularly desirable
to our taste buds), so don't fret if there are a few little threads
left that you can't grasp.
but can I re-cook once i remove them? I dont want to waste the flavours on smeggy water you see...
I don't speak British, but I am not sure I would want anything at all to do with anything "smeggy". :-) You can but they would probably become tough and unpalatable and overcooked. Given the science of what the beards are they are pretty non-reactive. I would flavor, then clean then beards in the kitchen, then present all in the one go. But you will have gained valuable experience for your next mussel-ly adventure.
haha don't worry, it is one of those terms that has become pretty detached from its original meaning. I think my muscles are ruined I try pulling the beads and the rest of the muscle comes away with it :(
Sorry you had bad luck--I am sure much was learned.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.939156 | 2013-01-05T13:30:46 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29755",
"authors": [
"Beta",
"Cori P",
"Craicerjack",
"JEstrella",
"Magpie",
"Melba Tejeda",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Susan Marr",
"cathy knots",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69246",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69250",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69253",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69254",
"user69247",
"user69250"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
35610 | Is foreigner-grade VB sold within Australia?
As a gift, a friend of mine was given a collection of Australiana. It included some iconic Australian foods, some other knick-knacks, and a can of Victoria Bitter. I suspect that they're from a single pre-prepared bag of Australiana.
While I know that VB's advertising is very famous and regarded as very Australian, I've heard rumours that the VB that's sold overseas is inferior to the VB sold in Australia. Is that true? If so, is foreigner-grade VB likely to be sold in collections of Australiana within Australia?
I wanted to add the tag "Australian-cuisine", but I lacked the reputation.
VB is not cuisine :-)
This almost seems like more of a question for [travel.se], if it were reworded from a non-Australian point of view. As it is, I'm not really sure what it has to do with cooking...
@Aaronut which SE do you think http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34859/is-there-anything-special-about-fugu-meat was more suited to? Travel or cooking? I though travel, but everyone else thought cooking.
Its possibly due to the recent changes the company made to their branding.. which also changed the strength, and the labelling.. its likely your friend received "old ones"..
There was a loutish back-lash against the company, they have since "reverted", and embraced the fact that people LIKE a stronger brew..
still has no fizz though.
http://www.news.com.au/business/aussie-beer-favourite-victoria-bitter-back-to-full-strength/story-e6frfm1i-1226464247134
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.939499 | 2013-07-27T03:29:16 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35610",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Golden Cuy",
"Harun Musho'd",
"LOL",
"Spammer",
"TFD",
"Verra Atienza",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83307",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83308",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85132"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
39646 | What would be good substitute for Thyme and Oregano in Chili
I'm not so good with spices, wanted to know what would be good substitutes for thyme and oregano. I'm not even sure I can pick up the taste that it adds to the chili, but one of my friends was able to taste the difference right away and tell me when I used or not used thyme and oregano. My Russian taste is more used to bay leaf, mustard, dill, parsley and etc.
Ingredients
2 pounds ground beef
½ pound of ground chicken
½ pound of ground pork
3 tablespoons vegetable oil
2 cups beef broth
½ cup of 2% milk
1 15 oz can red pinto beans (drain)
1 15 oz can black beans (drain)
3 fresh tomatoes (cut to small chunks)
1 15 oz can tomato sauce
1 6 oz can tomato paste
1 tablespoon cider vinegar
2 large onions, diced finely
1 large green bell pepper, diced finely
6 cloves garlic, minced
1 tablespoon sugar
1 tablespoons cumin, ground
1 teaspoon dried thyme
1 teaspoon dried oregano
1 teaspoon black pepper, ground
4 Habanero peppers, seeded diced finely
4 chipotle peppers, seeded diced finely
Can you tell us a bit more details? Like what spices you usually put in and why you don't add thyme or oregano and why you want substitutes.
just trying to find alternatives to cumin, thyme and oregano, want to create different flavor.
The only absolute in chili is chili. After that, it is a matter of personal preference, but most people would consider cumin indispensable.
That milk is a really, really odd ingredient for any chili. I would definitely leave it out.
sorry that is part of my Russian twist to traditional chili. had whole another discussion how to make it more russian before, but this is not what this questions is about. http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10735/what-would-convert-this-chili-recipe-into-a-russian-chili
reason for milk unconfirmed it helps reduce the heat from Habanero peppers without taking away the flavor.
Sorry, I have to close this. We don't do questions of the type "what flavors go with X", because the answer always boils down to "whatever tastes good to you".
Please consider coming by chat; I am sure you would get some discussion.
@SAJ14SAJ Put brackets around chat to get a link: [chat]
@Jefromi Cool! I didn't know that.
@SaUce I might be wrong because I'm fairly new on this SE, but I believe a "substitution" would be how to replace an ingredient with a similar ingredient to get the same effect. (Say, butter and shortening, AP flour for cake flour, dried vs. fresh spices.) What you're looking for is an alternative flavouring which isn't really the same thing.
Now, for a methodical approach on finding alternative flavourings you could use something like Foodpairing, but it's probably too pricey for home use, and I haven't used it for recipes as complex as a chilli. Recipe Labs' Ingredient Pairings is free but it seems to be kind of hit and miss and I'm sure that with that amount of ingredients you'd just get rnadom results. You could also invest in a book like the Flavor Bible
A good way of using that book or one of the apps would be picking one of the spices in the recipe you do intend to use, look up the suggestions for one, and then seeing if you like any of those or if they fill the same "role" as the ones you're replacing. So thyme is kind of "smoky" and woody, can be maybe replaced with a little rosemary, oregano is herby and you could try basil which goes well with chilli, or marjoram which is very similar. That said I love thyme to bits and wouldn't really substitute it, it goes well with the sweetness of tomato and beef.
There is tremendous variation in how chilis are flavored; if you have three chili cooks in the room, you probably will have six different opinions.
The most traditional flavor base is built on chili and cumin, plus (depending on region and variant), tomatoes, onions and/or garlic.
After that, you get into preference. Some cooks don't add any herbs at all. Others add complex blends of spices (even chocolate) rivaling some of the mole sauces of Mexico.
I think the most compatible herbs for chili include include Mexican oregano (which is a different herb than oregano), so if you can get it, it is the best choice, oregano (as you have already mentioned), and thyme. I do like to put a bay leaf or three in my chili although that may not be traditional.
Still, if you don't have them available or cannot use them for some reason, leaving them out is a fine option.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.939672 | 2013-11-22T13:15:59 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39646",
"authors": [
"Carla D'Anna",
"Cascabel",
"Max Brown",
"Mien",
"Riverland Blinds",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sagar Sahay",
"Shivanee Hema",
"Tarek M",
"Vladimir Oselsky",
"YokedSinger8062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4099",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/92038",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/92039",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/92040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/92041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/92042",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/92043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/92044",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/92049",
"millimoose",
"rumtscho",
"user49271"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
7006 | What are the pros and cons of Convection Microwave Ovens?
Are convection microwave ovens a useful item to have? Or are they not good as a microwave and not good as a convection oven either?
I understand that a regular convection oven helps to cook things faster. But a microwave cooks things pretty darn fast already so why would you want a convection feature?
It is a combination of a regular convection oven with a microwave, so you have both hot air and microwaves cooking your food. So the advantage is you get the quick interior heating of the microwaves combined with the surface browning from the hot air; convection just makes that hot air cooking faster and more even.
To emphasize: you can use both functions at the same time, or use just one. For e.g. Gratin Dauphinois using both together is great: the microwave makes the potatoes cook quickly, and the convection makes them yummy.
Pommes dauphines and gratin dauphinois are two different things.
Microwave: A microwave heats water and molecules in the food by using microwave radiation. It will heat food efficiently and quickly, but does not brown or bake like a conventional oven.
Oven: Fueled by gas or electricity and heats from the bottom (baking, roasting) or from the top (broiling). The heat is from a single direction and not uniform.
Convection Oven: An oven that has a fan that circulates heated air. This allows for operation at a lower temperature while cooking more quickly. It also results in a more even bake.
Convection Microwave (Oven): A combination of a microwave and a convection oven. Allows for even, quick cooking that is browned or baked.
So, at the bottom of the scale is a microwave and an oven. They each have different functions. Then there is a middle tier that would be a convection oven - an improvement over the oven. The top tier is the convection microwave oven that provides all the features: quick cooking, heating, baking, browning, and evenness.
If you do a lot of cooking and only have a single oven, but find yourself wishing you had a second, a convection microwave would be useful for you. If you want something truly multi-purpose, then yes. Since each has a set of features it provides and/or lacks, it comes down to what best fits your needs.
Good answer, and +1 for not including the common misconception that microwaves cook from the inside out. They do not!
Also, good ovens do not cook just from the top or the bottom. While the heating elements may be only in one position, the air in the oven circulates via convection (even without a fan in so-called convection ovens). Contact with the hot air heats the food from all sides via conduction from the air. Furthermore, the air in contact with the oven walls, floor, and ceiling heats them to quite a high temperature as well. They then emit infrared radiation, which in ovens can be a significant part of the energy actually delivered to the food--this is also from all sides.
What about an inversion microwave? I think it just means it uses power more efficiently, but does it translate to better cooked food or does it have any effect on the microwave/convection heating?
There is one large con which probably does not affect all brands. I have frequently heard of combos which have a mode which is labeled as "convection only" but they do not turn the microwave off. The results are clearly like microwaved food, and thus they are unsuitable for baking.
I cannot tell you the exact brands and models which have this problem, but for anybody buying such an appliance, I would suggest first to search experience reports about this kind of problem. One of the probable cases turned up here on Seasoned Advice, Why do my pizzas get such hard crusts?, and I seem to remember other question indicating a similar problem, but cannot find them right now.
Sounds downright dangerous ... if somebody puts things they could expect to be safe in a conventional oven (metal bakeware and utensils, large amount of cooking oil....) in these... And if it says "convection only" on the front panel, expecting people to have read the manual on that would be just cynical.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.940288 | 2010-09-09T04:35:15 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7006",
"authors": [
"Chalise",
"Damodar Bashyal",
"Erik P.",
"JDelage",
"Jobi",
"Joe H",
"Josh",
"Kathi Chapman",
"Marc Cabot",
"Rebecca Bradford",
"Reverend Aquaman",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Travis Heeter",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134495",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14276",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153441",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5014",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61819",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70681",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70684",
"rackandboneman"
],
"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
} |
30593 | How do you shell groundnuts (peanuts) without breaking their kernels?
I usually break groundnuts by putting them between my teeth. This often results in shattering the groundnut kernel.
The problem with smashed kernels is removing the papery cover as well as the outer cover which gets smashed and mixed with the kernel pieces. It is difficult to separate them then.
For making peanut butter, how should the groundnuts be shelled?
Normally I'd suggest YouTube, as it'd be easier to see the technique than read it. But it appears no one has uploaded a (serious) video on how to shell peanuts. I'm shocked.
You can most generally shell peanuts with your hands. There are different methods you can do depending on how sturdy the shells are.
1- If the shells are sturdy, hold each side of the neck (if you know what I mean) with each hand, and then break it apart. Now you have two shells with peanuts in them but there is a hole in each shell. Take one of them and apply pressure to the side opposite from the hole by putting the shell between your thumb and index finger and pressing your thumb. The hole will get bigger and you get your peanut.
2- If the shells are not so sturdy (which most often is the case), do the last step in the previous method. Just apply pressure by putting the shell between your thumb and index finger and pressing your thumb a little hole will form, get bigger, and then you get your peanut.
3- If the shells are really thin, and your fingernails are long, you can just crack into them by pressing with your nails.
Maybe my fingers are strong, or I have been lucky with peanuts, but I have never had (2) fail :-)
For peanut butter, it doesn't matter if the individual peanuts inside the shell get broken or not, you are going to grind them down anyway.
I shell them just by squeezing them between my fingers and thumb, against the widest part of the bulge, on the seam diving the two halves shell. A little practice and you will soon get the technique.
Response to edit: Then, just rub the individual peanuts between your thumb and fingers to remove the papery skin after you remove the outer shell. You might also do larger batches by rubbing them under your hand in groups in a folded over towel.
the problem is removing the papery cover on the kernels. If the kernels get smashed, their covers (outer and inner) will get smashed too, it is difficult to separate them then.
Just rub them between your thumb and fingers to remove the papery skin after you remove the outer shell. It does't matter if the peanut halves come apart. Remember, you are going to grind them anyway for pb. Also, the skins are edible--they just mar the appearance of the pb a bit, so if a small amount remains I would not worry about it.
If the individual peanuts inside the outer shell are getting smashed when you shell them, something is wrong with your shelling technique (I suppose it is also possible the peanuts were improperly roasted so the shell is harder to break, or the peanut itself more fragile, but I cannot imagine how). Peanuts in small quantities should be easily shelled with just finger pressure, while leaving the individual peanuts inside intact most of the time (and just halved at their seam the rest of the time).
something is wrong with your shelling technique I know that, that is the reason I created this thread.
how long should the peanuts be roasted anmd how to know whether they have been properly roasted or not?
i have added this comment in my other question.
Your original AB recipe has a roasting recipe directly below it. I also tried to update the description of how to shell them by hand in the answer, but it is something you just need to learn for yourself. I don't think anyone gets taught to shell peanuts, we just learn to do it while eating them :-)
actually, I thought perhaps putting them in water and softning them might help, hence the question.
That would actually probably be counter productive. You want the shells dry and kind of easy to shatter to make them easy to shell.
@AnishaKaul - yikes! no wonder the papery skins are hard to remove. Definitely don't wet the nuts! :-)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.940780 | 2013-02-01T10:33:04 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30593",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Artorias",
"Ben Delaney",
"Elvira Augustine",
"Jiminy Cricket.",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Lois",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Shirlene Edwards",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71515",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71518",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71519",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71520",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71523",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71530",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71547",
"jmbpiano",
"migott",
"richbai90",
"user71520"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
30628 | What is the shelf life of homemade peanut butter in winters and summers?
Assumptions:
The peanut butter contains ONLY peanuts and peanut oil.
The peanut butter contains ONLY peanuts, peanut oil, honey, and salt.
Winter room temperature can be between 16 to 20 degree Celsius.
Summer room temperature can go up to to 45 degree Celsius.
Please include sources in your responses.
Per Pick your own (emphasis added):
Store it in the refrigerator until you use it. It should keep for a month or two. You can also freeze it. It will keep indefinitely in the freezer. In both cases, you may need to stir the peanut butter to mix the oils back in (the oil tends to separate over time). And no, you cannot "can" the peanut butter - it is too low acid to safely can with home equipment.
I could not find a single government or university sponsored publication that discussed how to can homemade peanut butter. If you stumble upon a certain link that does not eschew this practice, and recommends boiling temperature canning, consider them fraudulent.
According to Does it go bad:
If you make your own peanut butter and you don’t use any stabilizers, you should keep it in the fridge. .... Your homemade peanut butter should be of best quality for at least half a year.
Note that all of the even semi-credible sources I could find indicate refrigeration is required.
At ambient temperature, especially in summer, it is going to have a much shorter shelf life, but I could not find any authoritative information. You should probably prepare it in small batches that you can eat within a week, maybe two at the maximum (in winter) if it will be stored without refrigeration.
You also want to store the peanut butter so that the oil (which will probably separate) on top will protect the peanut solids, since it is more difficult for microfauna to gain a foothold in the oil. Keep an air tight lid on it whenever you are not using the contents of the jar, to oxygen contact, and thus hold of rancidity.
Homemade peanut butter will have mostly unsaturated fats (one reason the oil in your peanut butter is liquid at room premature), which are susceptible to rancidity. You will want to discard the peanut butter if it develops rancid flavors as they are highly unpleasant. If you see signs of mold or bubbles or sour or off smells, discard it immediately.
I suggest contacting your local universities, who may have programs or services to provide this type of information for your area and constraints (which I infer includes no refrigeration).
To the enumerated questions:
Sources seem to assume the basic peanut-only recipe.
There will be no significant difference for small amounts of additions of honey, sugar, or salt. The amounts are too small. Honey balances anti-bacterial effects, with adding moisture. The amount of salt is just too small to matter.
See discussion above, there is no credible data that I could find for ambient temperature storage of homemade peanut butter.
See 3, only worse. Those are incubation temperatures. And how do you stand summers like that?
And how do you stand summers like that? Middle class families here usually don't have ACs. We have only fans and normal room coolers. :) Actually by shelf life, I was thinking about days and hours, rather than weeks and years.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.941139 | 2013-02-02T04:48:37 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30628",
"authors": [
"Alex Sicoe",
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Charlie Evans",
"IK Kharel",
"Kim",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71612",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71614",
"mitchell hobbs"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
33298 | Any cheap ways to clean restaurant stainless steel fridge?
so I know they have antibacterial solution to clean, but what can I say its expensive. Currently we use water+soap solution but its not working well. I am looking to clean the inside of fridge/freezer.
Update from comments: I'm looking to mainly clean, mold around the rubbers of the fridge.
Um... Bleach will kill pretty much anything if you're looking to disinfect. Or were you more interested in removing buildup/spills?
I think diluted bleach is actually cheaper than soap...
Of course, cleaning and sanitizing are different activities.... soap is good for cleaning, bleach solution for sanitizing.
I'm looking to mainly clean, mold around the rubbers of the fridge
If the issue is the gasket area, the fact that the fridge is stainless steel might be a red herring (not necessary / distract people into giving the wrong answer)
Bleach corrodes stainless steel.. see answer...
If this is a commercial institution, you are going to have to comply with your local codes. Many will require using a certified sanitizing solution, a diluted bleach solution, or similar after cleaning.
In particular in the US, I was unable to find any direct requirements in the USDA Model Food Code, and I don't recall any from 25 years ago when I received health inspector training in one jurisdiction. That doesn't mean there are not such requirements in any given location, even if in the US.
Assuming your location permits, normally you would clean the refrigerator with a mild solution of dish soap, as you have been doing. With thick gloves, very hot water will help make the cleaning more effective. Floors, walls, and so on in a walk in would be cleaned with a solution of your general purpose detergent (back when I was in commercial service, we actually used unscented Tide, which is a very effective cleaner).
If it is possible to empty the refrigerator and turn it off for cleaning (which is not always practical in commercial environments), this doing a thorough job, and makes it easier to clean with hot water.
Update regarding moldy gaskets:
Per JES Restaurant Equipment (emphasis added):
Upon visual inspection you may find that mold or mildew is building up
on the gasket which is pretty gross and bad for the gasket. The mold
and mildew may seam harmless but over time it will deteriorate the
gasket, basically the mold and mildew will eat away at the seal.
You can combat this with a simple bleach and water solution, dilute a little Clorox in some water and use a soft cloth or sponge to apply
the solution to the moldy gasket. You will notice it start to fade
away, once you have cleaned the gasket thoroughly discard the “bleach
water”, get some clean water and a fresh clothe and wipe the gasket
down again to remove any remaining mildew and bleach solution.
In addition to being unsightly, mold on your refrigerator is almost certainly a code violation that could have drastic consequences.
Your gaskets are also probably fully replaceable, but since you are concerned with cost, this may not be your preferred option. Still, if you can, temporarily removing the gasket may facilitate cleaning it thoroughly.
Another method of cleaning a commercial fridge is to use a bicarbonate solution (5g baking soda/1l water). It's effective at killing germs and it doesn't stain. It will leave a white residue if you do not rinse with water afterwards.
As others have suggested, you can take the gasket out and clean that in a sanitize solution as described here, one teaspoon of bleach per gallon (3.78l) of water.
Is sodium bicarbonate effective on the mold? While it was not initially clear, this is the core of the question.
I guess so... see this FAQ of a commercial product.
I am not sure that the pH change from such a dilute solution will be enough to kill germs, do you have a source for this?
@rumtscho. I had... I'll try to find it. Anyhow, it's a base, and that's all the difference.
@rumtscho. I'm not a scientist, but here are some experimental results. I think it means that 0,5% does have an effect.
@rumtscho, I've also seen 5% solutions... I'm thinking about asking a question somewhere.
You need to check your local regs. Moldy gaskets in a restaurant fridge unit can be catastrophic. If they are press-ins, strip them off, clean the stainless with a brush and hot water and detergent followed by wipedown with rubbing alcohol, then potassium sorbate in solution. Wash/scrub the gaskets in hot water and detergent with a rinse in a peroxide bleach followed by potassium sorbate; dry, and refit.
HVAC/R tech here, who does a lot of hot and cold side restaurant work.If you are trying to clean mold/mildew from around the gaskets, what I have always used is about a 10% bleach/90% water solution and a scrub brush (not metal bristles). Just spray it down, scrub it away and then rinse with clean water before sanitizing. Commercial gaskets are pressed into place, not glued, so there is not a big danger of messing the gaskets up.
From the site http://www.wikihow.com/Clean-a-Refrigerator
Wipe the refrigerator inside and outside with a cloth and vinegar and water or baking soda and water solution, rinsing well with a washcloth rinsed clear with water. Soapy water works, too. Clean rubber door closure area too.
Also, from http://housekeeping.about.com/od/ideasbysurface/qt/stainsteeldonts.htm
Do not use abrasive cleaners that will scratch the surface.
Do not use cleaners containing chlorine. Stay away from the bleach when you clean stainless steel......
Try using weak - ammonia solution: http://www.wikihow.com/Clean-Stainless-Steel
This might help: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081212151544AA8OmEB
It says about the finish on stainless steel and how to get rid of specific stains.
I cleaned up your answer a little - be sure to look at the preview while you're writing and editing, and make sure the formatting all actually looks okay before you post. Also, while I think a decent amount of this is good advice, have you tried any of it, or is this just everything you found on Google? Some of these things are probably more effective than others.
We use ammonia solution at home and had heard the no bleach advice. so i thought of giving links to those...
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.941433 | 2013-04-07T16:26:29 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33298",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Adele- Nexus of Potlucks",
"BaffledCook",
"Bella Swan",
"Bob UK.",
"Cascabel",
"Deborah Williams",
"Fran Kalichuk",
"Greg",
"Joe",
"Joe Sia",
"Lugh",
"Pandastew",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Shaima",
"Starman",
"Steve",
"Vampyfox",
"codersofthedark",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17713",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77171",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77246",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77280",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9210",
"rumtscho",
"user77171"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
32447 | Marinade then cook or cook then marinade?
For pork, does it matter if you marinade first, then sear + braise vs sear + braise first then marinade?
More details: I'm trying to cook pork chashu using pork butt. The marinade is mostly soy sauce, sake, mirin, sugar. So far, I sear it then I either:
Braise for 3 hours, then marinade for 12. Or...
Sous Vide in marinade for 12 hours at 170ºF (not vacuum sealed)
It turns out dry :( So I am gonna try with lower temp next. But I am also curious if the marinade could be the cause (because of the curing effect), and if doing it before or after matters.
It is not usually called a marinade if it is used after cooking.... but is there some particular recipe or technique you are trying to ask about here? Why pork and not chicken or beef or lamb or....
Char siu? As described in the wikipedia article?
Yes, sir. Japanese style, not Chinese
Are you sure it's dry, and not undercooked? Many people equate toughness in pork butt, from being undercooked, with dryness. If it was not falling apart, then it was also probably not dry.
@SeanHart 12 hours at 170ºF shouldn't be undercooked, right? It is not tough, it's tender, but not juicy.
If your issue is with the meat being too tough and dry, then your best bet is to marinate beforehand. Marination is the process of soaking food in seasoning before hand to flavor meat and also to cause the marinade to break down some of the tissues in the meat. This will cause more moisture to be absorbed into the end result. This will likely solve your too dry issues rather than cure your meat and dry it out.
If you "marinate" it afterwards, it will likely only flavor the meat but not have the secondary effect of making the meat more moist. The proteins in the meat have already denatured so the marinade will not be able to break down the tissues that it would in a raw product.
If you want to sous vide the meat, I would suggest a lower temperature. 170 degree F is beyond the well done temperature. If you are cooking your pork sous vide at 170 degree F, then the pork will reach a internal temperature of 170 which will result in dry tough meat. Try between 150-160 degree F.
Also traditionally it is marinated before hand rather than afterward.
And in the US, marinate as a verb, marinade as a noun :-)
@SAJ14SAJ noted, corrected. TY
Thanks, that was a finger on chalkboard one for me... don't know why it gets me. In Britain, I am told they use marinade as both the noun and the verb, but who knows what is up with European orthography :-)
What is the effect of cooking and marinating at the same time? Because I always thought marinating is a function of time, it doesn't matter if it's before or after, or whether it's sitting in a fridge or slow-cooking.
@pixelfreak It wouldn't be called marinating anymore. It'd just be braising. At that point, the marination process probably won't have much effect since you are already denaturing the meat through the braising process.
@Jay So you don't think slow-cooking (sous vide) in marinade could be the cause of the dryness. It's more due to the temp and time of the cooking.
@pixelfreak yea I believe the temperature is the culprit. If you are going to sous vide at 170 for 12 hours, The internal temp of the meat will reach 170 which is beyond well done and will cause your meat to be tough.
I think Kenki Alt's 36 hours at 155 F was chosen with this constraint in mind--long enough for the collegen conversion and pathogen killing, while still being under 158 F which is the temperature at which the last of the major meat proteins denatures, squeezing out water and causing dryness.
@SAJ14SAJ So what temp would you recommend for 12 hours? 36 hours is a bit extreme :P Also, Kenji is cooking pork belly which is a lot fattier than butt. I'm thinking probably 160ºF, which if I am not mistaken is also the safe temp to kill all pathogen.
@pixelfreak I am not personally expert enough at sous-vide to give you a recommendation--if I wanted to make this dish, I would do it as a traditional braise, or use Kenji Alt's recommendation. You have two concerns for time and temperature, which are interelated: making sure all pathogens are killed; and holding temperature at a given level for long enough for the collagen to gelatin conversion (it is faster at higher temperatures, but anything above 160 F is fully heat denatured, so you might as well just braise.)
Every recipe I just surveyed except one was 36 or more hours long. The 12 hours recipe recommended at 175 F temperature, but was in an oven and not really trustworthy. I suspect that for shorter times, you would need a temperature high enough that you might as well just use a traditional braise.
If you want it to take less time to reach the temperature of the surrounding water, try cutting it into smaller sections. From what I understand, the point of the sous vide method is to cook the meat at the exact temperature you want it to reach until the meat reaches equilibrium with the surrounding liquid, so if you're on a time crunch, you want to reduce the amount of time that takes, not up the heat.
Marination can only happen before cooking, after cooking it is simply adding a sauce. A marinade is generally used to help flavor meat and make it more tender by chemically breaking down the meat. Marinades tend to be strongly flavored and acidic, so adding them after may overpower the flavor of the meat.
If doesn't sound like marination is your problem though, if your meat is tender but not juicy then you've cooked it too long, marination isn't going to solve that.
Here is Kenji Alt's version of Japanese style chashu (his spelling). He says:
Cook your meat at, say, 155°F, and you'll get extraordinarily moist
meat, but it'll take up to 36 hours to tenderize. If you happen to
have a sous-vide water cooker, this is, indeed, the best way to cook
pork belly (see my post on Deep-Fried Sous-Vide 36-Hour All-Belly
Porchetta for a discussion of the process)
He cooks the pork belly (in his version) with the seasoning mixture when doing it stove top--I believe you could do the same thing sous-vide.
You would then crisp it afterwards.
The OP is using pork butt which is quite different from pork belly. Actually on the completely other end of the spectrum: pork belly being one of the fattest part of the pork and pork butt being one of the leanest.
Pork butt is far, far, far from lean. I take the references where I could find them, though. There are not a lot of credible sous-vis versions of char siu or charshu on the web. Most recipes assume traditional oven or grill (barbeque) cooking methods. It is obviously intended to work as a low and slow technique converting collagen to gelatin, so the technique will still work with pork butt, although it will never be fully as tender as pork belly.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.941972 | 2013-03-05T21:23:09 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32447",
"authors": [
"Jay",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sean Hart",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"pixelfreak"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
35141 | When should you sweat mirepoix, and when should you sauté it?
The ingredients of mirepoix are consistently described as onion, carrot and celery in a 2:1:1 ratio, but there isn't much consistency advice on how to cook it. Most recipes I've found say to sauté it, while most articles I've found on mirepoix itself recommend sweating it. What determines whether you sweat or sauté mirepoix?
There are no real doneness rules on mirepoix per se (even raw is used in some dishes). However, the recipe designer may say sweat versus sauté to give an indication of colour and flavour depth to match the 'headliner' of the dish (usually the meat).
Although not a rule, you may generally see sweat used more for lighter meats like fish and fowl and sauté for darker and gamier meat like beef and lamb.
That way a darker and more browned mirepoix will not overwhelm say a delicate fish (both in colour and taste).
I agree, I think in terms of mirepoix (and other similar veg), the terms are used more to indicate levels of browning. I never really liked that though -- since you can brown veg quickly or slowly to get different results.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.942465 | 2013-07-07T18:43:00 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35141",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10896",
"jalbee"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
42301 | What are the benefits of "fuzzy logic" in a rice cooker?
I'm considering making the giant leap to a serious rice cooker -- after research, it seems like the Zojirushi is the way to go, even over the venerated Tiger -- but I'm trying to parse out the dozens of models and various benefits.
It seems like the difference in price between a 5.5-cup model that does everything I could ever want, and a 5.5-cup model that does everything I could ever want with "fuzzy logic" is about $20. I'm already thinking about spending literally 10x more than I've ever spent on a rice cooker, so an extra $20 isn't the end of the world, but I'm wondering if it is really streets ahead when it comes to rice cooking, or if this is just a fancy-sounding name that doesn't add much to the process.
This is a bit informed by the fact that I'm kind of leery of fancy electronics in my kitchen gadgets; I loved my old Salton because it had one button, one spring, and one heating element, and I could kind of understand it. I'm a little afraid of the durability of a rice cooker with an onboard computer, and wondering if "fuzzy logic" is just adding another thing that can break onto that pile.
Even if you only make rice one a week or less, the Zojirushi w/the fuzzy is just a great piece of kitchen gear. Drop the extra $20 and enjoy perfect rice that you don't have to think about. Plus it keeps your rice warm and fresh for hours. I have the model you are describing. Love it. BTW, also great for oatmeal!
Agree, had mine for years, pretty much bulletproof.
Digital = 5 year lifespan, max.
I hate to think what a plain old rice cooker would do if I tryed to cook oat groats in it, but my fuzzy Panasonic DE-102 (now 103) gets them perfect every time. It's been four years of hard use, and there's no sign of bad buttons or digital decay on the unit.
@CareyGregory not to be contrary, but I've had that unit for at least 12 years, use it a couple times a week, and it has been absolutely trouble free.
I've had a Cuckoo for about 7 years with no problems. (and if you haven't looked into Cuckoo, I highly recommend them)
@CareyGregory I've had my fuzzy Panasonic DE-102 for 7 years. No problems with the chipset or buttons whatsoever.
I gave away my fuzzylogic Sanyo. I am much happier with my "heat/warm" Cuisinart. It cooks rice in one third the time. You do need to add a tiny bit of butter or oil to prevent boil-over (the #1 complaint about it from others), but that's an easy trade for me to get good rice so fast. Fuzzylogic produces "perfect" rice, but I find imperfect rice (crunchier on the bottom) more interesting.
I just purchased a Zojirushi rice cooker a couple of months ago and can’t imagine cooking rice without it now.
Fuzzy logic in comparison to binary logic is a varying degree of a state. In binary logic an item is either true or false (on or off) but in fuzzy logic it can be in between, partially on or partially off. Instead of hard “done” state the fuzzy logic states may be “somewhat” or “nearly” done. This while cooking it could take on the meaning of” too hot”, “about right” or “not much change”. Where this comes into play in a rice cooker is when the sensor monitoring the water content reaches the critical point an ordinary cooker will just turn off the heater however, a fuzzy logic cooker will use an equation (usually derived from experimentation) to vary the temperature and optimize the amount water being absorbed and evaporated. Typically a fuzzy logic system will have multiple “critical” points and will vary the temperature during ramp up and down as well as during the cooking. Generally, different types of rice will absorb different amounts of water at different rates. The fuzzy logic circuitry will monitor the changes and adjust itself to accommodate the predetermined profile.
I guess you could say the benefit of a fuzzy logic cooker is that someone took the time to learn the complexities of the cooking process and characteristics of the rice then adapted the preparation process to match the “ideal” conditions for the perfect rice.
"Fuzzy Logic" is a form of mathematics invented by Professor Lofti Zadeh of UC Berkeley around 1970. Briefly, it is a trial and error tool that functions in situations where exact mathematics cannot. For example, the only way to know how much steam to generate in a steam locomotive climbing a hill is to add fuel until you have slightly more steam than is needed. Then, one reduces fuel to the point where the steam is insufficient.
It is an iterative procedure that can be applied to other situations as well. Consider the acceleration of elevator cars in a tall building. The elevator car does not know the exact weight of its cargo. But, one wants the acceleration to be as large as possible to get the cargo to the top floor without physical discomfort.
Same problem as the steam engine. One increases the current to the electric motor until the accelerometer registers discomfort. Then one backs off slightly. This iterative procedure is applies to every load from no passengers to full of passengers to guarantee the fastest comfortable vertical speed.
And so with rice cookers. The amount of heat applied to the bowl depends upon the amount of rice and water in the bowl. As the water decreases by boil-off, less heat is needed. Varying the heater to maintain the correct temperature through the cooking process can easily be done by Trial and Error- Fuzzy mathematics.
This process can also be applied to combining data with errors in a spreadsheet to deliver an answer---such as a weighted sum of a column with an error--that represents an estimate of all errors in the cells going into the sum (Fuzzi-Logic Spreadsheet).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.942588 | 2014-02-25T00:36:39 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42301",
"authors": [
"Carey Gregory",
"Donna Bischoff",
"Hugh McKenna",
"JohnnyJP",
"Mad Martian",
"Michael Natkin",
"Peter Severin Rasmussen",
"SourDoh",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98764",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98984",
"moscafj",
"spam"
],
"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
} |
40487 | What is the name of this Italian pastry?
Italian pastry made at Christmas.
Ingredients:
Eggs
Flour
Whiskey
Sugar
Vanilla
Shortening
Then deep fried, and covered with powdered sugar are called "CRUSTELLIS" OR "CRUSTOLI".
Instead of powdered sugar they were also given a honey bath. What is the name of the ones dipped in honey, is it "SCALEDEE"?
I think you mean Strufoli.
It is indeed Italian and typical for Christmas.
I think you mean chiacchiere; the linked Wikipedia article mentions plenty of other names for them in different Italian regions.
Started to translate, but then I realized this was just copied from Wikipedia. I've replaced the bulk copied content with about what I think you were trying to say. No idea if it has anything to do with the honey-dipped ones the OP mentioned, though.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.943173 | 2013-12-22T18:38:00 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40487",
"authors": [
"Alex Novickis",
"Cascabel",
"Cathy Cole",
"Jjjj Llll",
"Ken Asap",
"Maria Jones",
"Thomas",
"have you seen this channel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94165",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94182",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94193",
"mummy"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
36582 | How did/do the Russians make carrot tea?
A while ago I read a book about the Russian Civil War (it was Blood on the Snow by Emanuel Litvinoff) in which the characters frequently drank coffee made out of acorns and tea made out of carrots. I tried naively making carrot tea by grating some carrots and pouring hot water on them, like I would make ginger tea. But the resulting brew did not taste strongly of carrots.
How is carrot tea brewed--what part of the carrot is used? I would also be interested to know whether there are any other countries in which this has ever been a popular drink.
Straight up recipe requests are off topic.
@Cascabel, sorry I had to withdraw my acceptance (and tea made from carrot tops is very nice, and also made in Russia) but I went to the trouble of learning some Russian and it turns out that user29585 is actually correct. The Russians call this drink морковный чай and searching for this term in Youtube reveals numerous videos of people showing how to make it.
Wash, dry, shred, cut finely or julienne the carrots. Dry it on a sheet of parchment paper until almost all of the moisture is evaporated. Bake it in an oven on low heat until brown.
Left: result, Right: brewed. Source
Have you made tea with this? It sounds pretty interesting!
That makes sense. It's a similar preparation to the Turkish 'apple tea'.
You use the leaves, not the carrot themselves. I don't know for sure this is what your Russian Civil War book was talking about, but I know it works, and besides, if they were desperate enough for acorn coffee and carrot tea, I imagine they were eating the carrots. This site suggests that you might need 1/4 cup of carrot greens per 1 cup of water; you can find plenty more searching for "carrot top tea".
Thanks. This certainly seems logical and it made a weak but drinkable tea. I will accept this answer, but I would still be interested to hear from a Russian!
I know the carrot tea my grandmother did it* it's super deliceous ande easy to make, everyone must try it. All you have to do is to grate carrots as you would for soup or stew, and dry them in the oven at the 40-100 C.
And when they are dryed out put some in a tea pot pour hot water, sweeten it with honey and milk (or simply drink without any added things). It's awesome.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.943296 | 2013-09-06T22:33:39 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36582",
"authors": [
"Bill KC",
"Daniel H",
"Deb Chidlow",
"Flounderer",
"Jenks Guo",
"Joe",
"Kevin",
"Megha",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"TheLittlePeace",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119775",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20058",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85869",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85883",
"jasongonzales"
],
"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
} |
35552 | Silicone Utensils and Cookware
Does using silicone in place of metal, Pyrex or other materials have an impact on food taste?
I am sorry, but health questions are off topic. I voted to close, but I think it is better for me to remove the health part so it can stay open.
Of course, health questions like this one are a little silly in the first place. Materials which are in widespread use in cookware (like silicone, glass, and metals) in the US are regulated by the FDA, so this is not something that you should generally have to worry about.
@SAJ14SAJ I was not aware of that. I apologize. I thought this was an issue of food safety. I would assume discussions of non-stick cookware would also be off limits then.
We do talk about the issue of not heating PTFE above about 450 F, where it off-gases directly poisonous fumes, which is a safety issue. But there are no analogous issues with silicone; any effect that may exist (I don't believe any do) is subtle and long term and thus a health, rather than a safety issue. At least that is how I look it.
@MichaelHorwitz Usually, a question like "is there anything that's safe with X but not Y" is okay - for example, with glass versus metal we might point out the risk of shattering by thermal shock. It's debates about "is there a 5% increased chance of some rare disease if you eat your scrambled eggs with a titanium spork" that we want to avoid. I think it'd be fair to edit a food safety angle back into your question, though SAJ14SAJ has probably already answered it.
Silicone utensils are extremely nonreactive, and thus do not have any impact on the taste of foods directly.
Like most utensils, if they are cut or abraded, and soil remains, that may affect taste or performance, but that is not inherent to the material itself.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.943531 | 2013-07-24T17:16:19 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35552",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Faith Is key",
"Jim",
"Leo",
"Michael Horwitz",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"TheGjugger",
"gav.newalkar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19347",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83136",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83137",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83139",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83140"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
34046 | How to get stable and long lasting high temperatures in charcoal grill?
I have Weber one touch spherical grill (18.5") and trying to cook steaks with direct heat.
I place steaks when grill thermometer shows 450-500F, but after 2 or 3 minutes temperature starts dropping and after turnover it can be 400F and continue dropping fast. Briquettes near the edge getting cold but briquettes in center still going.
I have tried with lump charcoal and Weber long lasting briquettes using chimney starter, yesterday I held briquettes in starter for 30 minutes, and briquettes were very hot and well burning, but got same temperature issues.
All vents are fully open, lid closed.
What am I missing?
In high heat grilling as is appropriate for steaks, the air temperature is a minor factor. Most of the cooking is going to be done by radiant heat--grilling is broiling, upside down. I would not worry about air temperature. You shouldn't even need the lid for grilling steaks, unless they are very thick so that you are doing two stage cooking (searing, then essentially roasting)--and even there, the temperatures you have are more than sufficient for them to cook through.
Grilling is broiling, it's not upside-down?
@TFD - it's pretty common to use "broil" to refer to high, top-only heat, usually using an oven's top heating elements, to get the top of a dish browned. The phrase "broiling upside down" most likely just takes this meaning, and is refering to high, directed heat coming from primarily the bottom vs primarily the top.
I'm not sure how many steaks you're doing at once, but if you're not using the entire grill surface, stack the charcoal up. (Not sure how well it'd work with the entire grill surface and, e.g., two starters full of charcoal. With the grill open, it'll surely work.)
You can cook steaks with the lid off, that'll likely lead to the coals burning faster (hotter).
Stacking the charcoal does two things:
the stack is higher, so it gets the charcoal closer to the meat. You can't lower the grate on a Weber kettle, unfortunately.
there are more briquettes under the meat, each putting out heat.
A good stack is hot enough to brown a steak, even if you put it on the grill dripping with marinade (not that you should). Make sure to have a pair of tongs, you won't want your hands anywhere near it.
If you're really in need of heat - do what the venerable Alton Brown suggested and cook your steak on top of your chimney-starter. Once the charcoal in the starter is ripping hot, set the cooking grate (aka the grill) on top and go to town.
Mind you, there's waaaayyy less cooking surface, and it will burn much much faster, but it should solve whatever heat problem you're having.
The One Touch is really a roasting barbecue - if you want to grill steaks with the lid off it's a bit of a compromise because without the lid you have no heated air convection (that's what kettles are designed for).
Buy a Weber Q for your steaks and have the best of both worlds...
I've just started out with a Weber kettle grill and had the same problem with steaks cooking through but not searing at all, even when directly above coals with top vent fully open (bottom vent always open).
Contrary toother advice I've found for me that changing the top vent to be only very slightly open would heat the kettle right up and really get the coals firing and this would sear the steak. Charcoal less effective than briquettes and steak directly above (1/2" from) briquettes. Thick cut (1") steaks too.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.943714 | 2013-05-10T12:50:28 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34046",
"authors": [
"Ciprian Mocanu",
"Katarzyna J",
"Kevin",
"Megha",
"Melissa Vega",
"Norene K",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sandy Hanson",
"TFD",
"erotsppa",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79171",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79187",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79202",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79203"
],
"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
} |
34665 | raw chicken in an "off" crockpot
I put chicken in a crock pot and thought it was on low. It was off. It's been two hours. Do I need to throw out the chicken? It was fairly cold because it was mixed with a cold teriyaki sauce among other things. Thanks!
possible duplicate of How long can I store a food in the pantry, refrigerator, or freezer?
I don't think this is the right duplicate, Mien. It is more addressing what is in the food-safety wiki. We are creating a new cannonical answer for this, but this question was actually first. I don't know that closing it as a duplicate to something that came later would be fair.
For reference, the new question is How do I know if food left at room temperature is still safe to eat?
The official guideline (in the US, at least) is no more than 2 hours, total, between 40°F (4°C) and 140°F (60°C). So, if your room is fairly cool, and all the ingredients were cold, at two hours in the off crock pot, you're just inside the guideline.
But the problem is, if you just turn the crock pot on, it will take at least another hour to get up to 140°F. That puts you firmly outside the guideline.
Instead, assuming this is chicken pieces (in a stew, soup, or similar) and not a whole chicken, I'd suggest you bring it up to at least 160°F (70°C) stove top over fairly high heat (this should only take a few minutes), then transfer that to the crock pot. You can then cook it in the crock pot on low.
See the Food Safety tag FAQ.
This is well on the borderline. You will have to make a judgement call based on your own assessment of your risks and vulnerability.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.944030 | 2013-06-13T16:25:22 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34665",
"authors": [
"Anne Johnson",
"Bill Donovan",
"Cascabel",
"Daniel Fullerton",
"Kusuma Sparks",
"Mien",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"betty in Idaho",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80840",
"olga"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
37168 | Alternative to Escolar ("Butter Fish") for Nigirizushi
I want to make Nigirizushi with a fish similar to Escolar (also called Butter Fish), but prefer not to use that fish.
Are there other fish with a similar taste and texture?
Healthier in what way? We don't answer questions about health here. Be specific about what you want.
@Aaronut: well, the main point was to find an alternative with similar texture and similar taste, the healthy part it's not that important in this case.
Edited to make this a simple similar fish question.
Escolar is not butterfish. It is considered to be more closely related to the Oilfish species.
Butterfishes are from the family Stromateidae, which does not include Escolar.
As far as I know, there are no digestive issues reported with butterfish. That "wax ester" is highly localized to Escolar and Oilfish. So if you're looking for a "substitute", just use actual butterfish. Source it from somewhere you trust, or look for a more specific label like Pomfret or Harvestfish.
The wiki article had some helpful information. In answer to your question, the article included the following quote, "Escolar has been mislabeled or otherwise confused with the following fish: Atlantic cod, oilfish (related to escolar but in a different genus), rudderfish, blue cod, black cod, king tuna, grouper, orange roughy, sea bass, gemfish, Chilean sea bass, albacore tuna, and white tuna."
The wiki article, which includes more information that you might find of interest based on your question prior to edit, can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escolar
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.944197 | 2013-09-28T10:34:43 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37168",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"ConstantFun",
"Delight",
"Jeff George",
"NanaofMoNoEl",
"RamanDeep Maan",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87340",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87372",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87374",
"lady343",
"nekofar",
"pconcepcion"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
3111 | Is ground beef that was in the refrigerator for two weeks and has turned brown still usable?
I bought some ground beef around 2 weeks ago and used half of it, putting the rest in a freezer bag in my fridge (not the freezer). It has since turned brown (not red, as when I bought it).
Is it safe to use to make hamburgers?
I'm not going to comment on whether or not it is safe, because that could be any number of issues other than the brown coloring of the meat. However, the brown in and of itself is not an issue. When meat is exposed to air it turns a brown color. This does not effect the falvor of the meat, but the color turns a lot of people off. Grocery stores will actually throw this meat away, not because it is bad but just because people won't buy it. Terribly wasteful.
From the USDA: Optimum surface color of fresh meat (i.e., cherry-red for beef; dark cherry-red for lamb; grayish-pink for pork; and pale pink for veal) is highly unstable and short-lived. When meat is fresh and protected from contact with air (such as in vacuum packages), it has the purple-red color that comes from myoglobin, one of the two key pigments responsible for the color of meat. When exposed to air, myoglobin forms the pigment, oxymyoglobin, which gives meat a pleasingly cherry-red color. The use of a plastic wrap that allows oxygen to pass through it helps ensure that the cut meats will retain this bright red color. However, exposure to store lighting as well as the continued contact of myoglobin and oxymyoglobin with oxygen leads to the formation of metmyoglobin, a pigment that turns meat brownish-red. This color change alone does not mean the product is spoiled
Not all grocery stores; some will actually dye it red again! Yuck!
The butcher at our Publix told us that each store throws out about 100 lbs of meat a day. With 1016 stores, that's over 18k tons a year. They used to give it to homeless shelters, but one sued a grocery store for food poisoning so now they throw it away instead.
According to the Food Safety Inspection Service, the package having fully turned brown may indicate its started to spoil: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/ground_beef_and_food_safety/index.asp#18
First, do not eat that. Regardless what color the beef is, two weeks is entirely too long to refrigerate ground beef. It is unsafe and should be thrown out. Raw ground beef only keeps in the refrigerator for 1-2 days.
Ignoring storage time, regarding color, brown meat is as safe to eat as red meat. As others have indicated it is simply oxidation occurring. Many grocery stores, at least in the USA, [used to?] blast and wrap their meats with carbon monoxide which imparts a bright pink color that lasts well beyond the shelf life of the meat. If you freeze hamburger or steak for a few months there's a good chance it will come out much browner than when you put it in. This is because some oxidation still occurs in the freezer, unless you hermetically sealed it somehow. Similarly, as long as you're within the 3-4 month freezer period for ground beef, you're OK.
Also: The 3–4 month freezer period is a quality concern, not a food safety concern. As with most everything stored at 0°F or below, it'll remain safe to eat forever, but for reasons of texture and flavor, you may not want to.
You must not be frying it. I regularly keep raw beef in the fridge for 5 days to fry. I do not get sick from it.
Agree that 1-2 days is absurdly short for safety. I've gone way over that for many years and never had a problem. (I keep medicines past their expiration dates too)
I think it's worth pointing out that, unlike steak, you're probably going to cook ground beef (or minced beef as we English call it) to death (literally) so any talk of food poisoning is slightly hysterical. The worst you're likely to do is ruin a potentially good meal with some horrible tasting meat.
Before anyone shouts at me for this irresponsible suggestion, I should point out that it is true that there are bacteria which produce heat stable toxins which can cause food poising, but they're quite rare, so... You'll be fine. Probably...
I just called the meat department about the same problem, except mine was only in the refrigerator for two days but had already turned brown. I was going to cook a large pot of soup but wanted to be safe. He said, do not use it. The expiration date is today, and it is the 3rd day since I bought it, but had turned brown before today. I would never risk food poisoning! Not worth it! I am taking it back for a refund. You can't even trust expiration dates either but have to look at the meat and don't use if it is brown.
By "meat department" I guess this means you called the store/supermarket? Most of them have policies whereby they would tell you to throw it out even if it were only 5 minutes old; otherwise they set themselves up for a lawsuit if anything happens due to other factors (improperly stored, improperly cooked, etc.) Because they told me it would be fine! Don't rely on stores for this information; that's why we have agencies like the USDA.
I ran into a similar situation, a package of raw, presumably never frozen, ground beef sat in the refrigerator for at least three weeks. The instructions on the package read "freeze or use by October 9 (of this year). Not wanting to waste meat, or poison my roommate, I decided to cook it, knowing that heating the meat would produce an odor which would indicate whether it was edible. The nature of scent is that when chilled, odors indicating spoilage are harder to detect, and heat will activate, liven, or bloom any odor indicating hazard. Upon cooking the meat for a few minutes the meat had an inedible odor which made my stomach feel slightly ill. Had I let my roommate eat it, I would surely be accused of poisoning her.
This is absolutely false. You cannot always smell dangerous spoilage. (I've also removed the tangential rants.)
Correct, you cannot always smell the dangerous spoilage when the meat is cold, which is why i decided to cook it, which produced a sickening smell, which correlated with the instructions on the package. The "tangential rants" were a response to other comments regarding the discard of raw meat by grocers, which makes no sense to me on several levels. I was also addressing the yet unspoken criticism that i am merely a vengeful [bad] vegetarian who would spitefully discard edible meat. I suspect that you have political reasons for editing my post.
Again, you cannot always smell dangerous spoilage no matter whether the meat is hot or cold. If you'd cooked it and it didn't smell bad, it could still harm you. That's why I downvoted your post, and probably why others did as well. It's not political, it's about food safety.
As for your disapproval of my edits, first of all, you can further edit own post, or simply roll back my edit. But keep in mind that this is an answer on a Q&A site, not a post on a forum, so this is not the place to respond to other posts. I do stand by my claim that it was all tangential, though. No one here is going to accuse you of spitefully discarding meat, even if they know you're a vegetarian (which they only do because you preemptively told them).
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.944381 | 2010-07-24T17:14:41 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3111",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Ankit Ron Spam",
"Cascabel",
"Eric",
"Geraldine Parker",
"Joel Hooks",
"Joshua",
"LoftyGoals",
"Rob Lewis",
"Robert Hadow",
"Sandra Baker",
"catbelly",
"daubett",
"derobert",
"guess.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29028",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5631",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81331",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89530",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89536",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89537",
"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/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
43260 | What is the substitute for pastry blender in cookie making?
I'm going to do this recipe and it says in the recipe that I need to use pastry blender. I have a question that can I use this one instead of pastry blender?
Or this one
No, the device called for, a pastry blender, is not what you have linked in either picture.
The first is a simple hand mixer with standard beaters. The second is the paddle attachment for a stand mixer.
A pastry blender is used to cut butter into flour and looks something like this:
(Image from crate and barrel)
It is used to cut butter into flour, while leaving it in relatively large solid chunks.
If you don't have a pastry blender, alternatives include:
Using two knives, criss-crossed, to slowly cut the butter up with the flour mixture in a scissors-like motion
Pressing with the back of a fork
With skill and cold hands, you can even press the butter and flour together with your fingers, which is very old fashioned, but hard to describe in text
(All of these methods require butter cool enough to not blend into the flour, but warm enough to cut easily, about 65 F, 18.3 C.)
If you have one, cutting in butter is also very easily done in a food processor with the knife blade; in this case, you want cold butter. It usually takes not very many pulses, so monitor the texture after each pulse or two once you have done four or five.
If you have a large holed grater, you can even grate frozen butter, and then simply toss it with the flour
This video from Dear Martini Kitchen has an excellent demonstration of the pastry blender method that clearly shows the desired texture, an inset which shows the two-knife technique, and at the end a brief food processor demo.
I see in the recipe that he/she intend to mix the flour and butter to be crumbly so why I can't use the paddle attachment for a stand mixer? is it different result? and what different in purpose of those two? and what about if I want to make a lot of cookies? I need to do this by hand or there are machine for this method?
The paddle will mash the butter into the flour, not leave it in separate bits. This will give an altogether different texture, firmer and less frangible, less flaky or crumbly. You can with just the right technique do it with your whisk attachment (as I learned in pastry class), but I don't recommend it. The best methods are the pastry blender, the frozen grated butter method, and the food processor.
The outcome you are looking for is not a butter-flour paste, but rather little "pebbles" of butter surrounded by flour.
@user23839 Yes, there's a machine - as the answer says, you can use a food processor.
alright, I see thank you very much ^^. Do I have to keep the butter at low temperature to prevent it from melting while I blend it ? and If so, what method do you suggest me? ^^
I have mentioned the preferred temperatures for each method in the main answer. It varies depending on what technique. With a food processor, refrigerator cold will work quite well. Do fast pulses, not one continuous whir. The final product will have pebbles and stones, like coarse meal mixed with small peas.
Now that I think about it, that shortbread recipe might want more finely cut butter and flour; mostly meal sized, with maybe a few small peppercorn sized pieces. This is part of what will give the cookies their sandy, frangible texture.
Sorry for my english, so what should I do in this case? should I use the paddle attachment to make it more finely?
Do not use the paddle attachment. See the video I have just linked at hte end. Repeat, NO PADDLE ATTACHMENT.
thank you so much ^^. my last question is, what is this sentence about "Use the bottom of a glass dipped in sugar to flatten each of the balls out." I do not understand what he/she means please help me last time ^^
@user23839, just use a fork instead. As for the glass, it is used to flatten the cookie dough before baking. With stiff cookie dough if you leave it in a ball it will bake in a ball. By flattening it using a glass you will get a nice, smooth, round cookie.
Great answer - I would add that carbon steel (vintage) pastry blenders work well on frozen or chilled butter, but the latest design using stainless steel is not robust or comfortable (save your money and use a pair of knives). I also found out that Canadian butter is apparently harder.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.945049 | 2014-04-04T04:21:42 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43260",
"authors": [
"Barb",
"Cascabel",
"Cynthia Bailey",
"Fuhrmanator",
"GdD",
"John",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Shep Bryan",
"Valid spam",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101253",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101254",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95948",
"user23839"
],
"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
} |
43271 | What can I use instead of paddle attachment for a stand mixer?
I only have this machine.
and it has only two type of attachment not the paddle. Can I use one of these two? or I need to buy a new one that has paddle?
What are the two attachments you do have, and what is the application you want to perform? Paddles are sort of the default attachment in a stand mixer for basic mixing and creaming. Whatever the standard beater or attachment is for your mixer should perform these tasks fairly well.
I have two type in the picture like this http://www.weloveshopping.com/shop/m_paragon8822/H508.jpg
but it is a stand mixer. I have a whipper attachment too.
It required in this recipe: http://www.japanesecooking101.com/green-tea-cookies-recipe/
I want the get the best result not compromise solution.
It depends on what you want to make, what are you trying to produce?
I want to make this recipe: japanesecooking101.com/green-tea-cookies-recipe
All the links (in the question and the comments) have gone AWOL. Is the original poster still around, or can someone else supply pictures so this question can still be useful? Currently, it's... not.
For some brands of stand mixer, the paddle attachment is the sort of default attachment for basic mixing, and for creaming. It does not excel at whipping egg whites, or stiff bread doughs, but these brands come with a separate whisk attachment for that purpose.
Of the two sets of beaters pictured in the image you have shared, the ones in the machine are your standard beaters. You would use them for almost every task--they are general purpose, although perhaps not ideal for everything. This includes mixing, creaming, and whipping egg whites or whipped cream.
The kind of corkscrew shaped ones are intended for kneading stiffer bread doughs.
alright, the general purpose can be use instead of paddle, not the best result but good enough right? thank you so much SAJ14SAJ. You always help me. you are really good person
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.945406 | 2014-04-04T13:44:17 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43271",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Marti",
"Patricia",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"Susan C",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101280",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101282",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101284",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"user23839"
],
"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
} |
34690 | What to look for in a hand mixer for occasional bread dough kneading?
My handmixer just died. I used it (with its kneading hooks) to knead bread dough once every two weeks in addition to blend and mix and beat cream.
I'm now looking for a new model, which is maybe a little bit more robust and contains less plastic. Which parameters do I have to consider? Is there a model which is semi-professional or do real chefs always use big self-standing machines?
see also my old question http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15863/what-features-are-important-in-a-hand-mixer. Not closing this as a dupe, because your question is specific to dough kneading.
When using a light duty mixer (hooks or not), blend the liquids with only a small portion of the flour. Make it a heavy batter like, then hand knead the balance of the flour.
That particular style of handmixer you've been using is not really used in the pro or semi-pro (this is why rumtscho says there is nothing). The main reason is the torque gets translated into wrecking your wrist. Dough has a very high viscosity and it is a non-newtonian fluid which can make mixing with a handheld machine a frustration chanllenge.
Simply put, a hand mixer is just not the right tool for making dough.
To make dough, you're better off with a stand mixer (like a kitchenaid artisan or pro). For larger batches you'd need a bigger mixer (planetary or spiral) like a Hobart. They get bigger from there (met a baker in Pittsburgh that worked with a mixer-motor made by Harley Davidson).
Most pros use the vertical type handheld mixers (they look like immersion blenders)
They're referred to as hand-held mixers, power mixers, immersion blenders, or in some kitchens "boat motor". But they are not made for making dough. They will do the blend and mix cream part and are almost indestructible with mostly stainless steel parts. Your local restaurant supply dealer should have the category. Some brands are: Thunderbird , Robot Coupe, and Dynamic.
That is to strictly answer your question regarding new model, more robust, less plastic, semi-professional part.
However, if that's overkill for the once every two weeks, and a stand-mixer is not in the cards, I'd recommend the 9-speed Kitchenaid:
These have two important features for dough making:
Mixing Load Sensor should prevent those runaway mix speeds and help protect the motor from burning.
The shape of the dough hook is not a corkscrew. This seems quite clever. They have mixed the spiral direction of the hooks to reduce the corkscrew-effect and the dough-shoot-effect you might have experienced.
Finally, if you are going to be using this kind of tool, try to pay attention to your biomechanics. Operating them with off-angles of your wrist and elbow could place undue pressure on the joints. If you find that you're fighting with the machine, stop and kneed by hand the rest of the way. The strech and fold technique is quick and easy as illustrated by Richard Bertinet in this video.
The links you have provided are to immersion blenders, which is a completely different appliance than a hand mixer. This is a hand mixer (not one I would buy): http://www.amazon.com/Proctor-Silex-62509R-5-Speed-Mixer/dp/B000QRB1GE/ref=sr_1_2?s=kitchen&ie=UTF8&qid=1371301434&sr=1-2
@SAJ14SAJ Thanks for showing me what a hand mixer is. The pro equipment manufacturers (see thunderbird) call them handheld mixers. The hand-mixer type you refer to isn't popular in pro kitchens (save for Rachel Ray and type)
If the user is a home user, they don't mean immersion blender, no matter what they are called in the professional environment. however, you will note that even the $1,600 one (!!!!) does not indicate it is recommended for yeast raised doughs.
After having struggled with the same problem, I am afraid that there is nothing you can look for.
What you need for kneading dough seems to be motor torque. I have never seen a hand mixer (or a stand mixer for that matter) where this parameter is given. They all just list some watt number (without even specifying if this is consumption or output, RMS or max, or any other information which would make the number comparable between brands). My current mixer has decent torque, although it is not great - I can push it through yeast doughs, and it kneads them without grinding down to single-digit RPM, but the speed still drops and it is hard work. Also, the result is not as good as kneading by hand (but this may be a problem of the two-hook-design which partly kneads and partly mixes, and not of the particular brand). I have had mixers which were unusable for dough - if you tried to push them, the dough just climbed up the hooks reaching the mixer's body. My current mixer and my last dough-unusable one are both rated at 450 Watt.
So, for torque, you are reduced to reading ratings by test associations (Cook's illustrated is good for kitchen equipment if you are shopping in the USA) and Amazon reviews. If customers say that the dough climbs up the hooks, run away from that model.
As for durability, this is up to the particular model itself, there are wide differences even within the same brand. And of course, just because some design mixers are sold with steel bodies, it doesn't automatically mean that they are more solid inside than their plastic-clad siblings.
I doubt it that you will be able to find a pro hand mixer. The most valuable commodity in a professional kitchen is time. No chef can afford to act as the stand for a hand mixer when a few hundred dollars can buy him a stand mixer (or a few thousand for a serious baker). As I have never actually shopped in a restaurant supply store, I would gladly take this back if somebody can show me a counterexample.
I don't have a specific brand recommendation for you, and outright asking for it would be off-topic here, just like on other stack exchange sites. I am afraid you will have to rely on reviews from other sources :(
Edit Most answers here say that this is not the right tool, and that professionals don't use it anyway. I agree with them. But as for the question whether you should invest in a stand mixer: it depends on what you do with it. Standard doughs in the 60% to 65% hydration are actually well doable with a hand mixer once you find a good representative of the class. The problems start when you have either drier doughs (it does not have the power to push trough them) or high-hydration doughs (it mixes trough the dough instead of kneading, so the gluten does not get aligned - especially problematic if the dough is also enriched). If you are doing standard French bread or similar, a hand mixer may well be the solution which is good enough for you. Just don't expect stellar results.
For the watt, a modern brushless DC motor is MUCH torquier than the brushed AC motors still found in most mixers. Looks like KitchenAid uses one in their 7 quart stand mixer, but I've yet to find on in a hand mixer.
If you're making bread on a regular basis, then a hand mixer is the wrong tool for the job.
Other answers have noted a few different problems: from significant strain on your wrists to shortcomings of the two-hook design. Those are real problems, and provide good reasons to opt for a stand mixer rather than a hand mixer. I'm sufficiently skeptical of making bread with a hand mixer that I would even recommend kneading by hand over using a hand mixer. It may take a little longer, but you'll end up with better results.
A good stand mixer is pricy, but it's the kind of tool that will last a lifetime. Kitchenaid models are rated in terms of "flour power." If you're making a loaf (or two) that requires 8 cups of flour, then you'll need a stand mixer with a "flour power" of at least 8. You can use this chart to map "flour power" to watts and bowl size. Those are probably the best metrics for compairing the KitchenAid models to other brands.
Coming back to the question, I would suggest investing in a decent stand mixer and only falling back to the hand mixer if you're making cookies or frosting. Then again, then stand mixer is a better tool for those jobs as well — just a little less essential for success.
I almost forget my question here.
Some months after asking here, I found the solution to my specific needs (which are: kneading bread dough, once or twice a month).
I got the TURMIX handmixer and it works like charm for my needs.
However, I agree with the other answers. If you are making bread on a regular basis, get a bread-making machine.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.945608 | 2013-06-15T11:00:14 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34690",
"authors": [
"Constance Turner",
"David Pascucci",
"Lynn Dove",
"MandoMando",
"Nelson Sparks",
"Optionparty",
"P. J.",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sattamatka123",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"homocomputeris",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80924",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80932",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80934",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80935",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81095",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81103",
"rumtscho",
"sunflowerdeath",
"user80925"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
33447 | Why does my bread burn at the bottom before it is done?
I bake my bread for about half an hour. At the 15 minute mark, the bottom is already slightly burnt, but the bread is clearly not done.
My oven doesn't have a thermometer, so I don't know exactly what temperature it's at. I preheat it for 15 minutes at the highest setting, and then I drop the temperature when the bread goes in. I also put a container with water at the bottom to create vapor.
How do I stop the bread from burning?
Are you using a baking stone? That's the usual thing to do when you're treating the oven like this - preheating as hot as possible, creating steam, then reducing temperature when the bread's in. (Otherwise, SAJ14SAJ's answer is what you want.)
What kind of bread/dough are you baking?
it's possible that the heat only comes from the burner/element at the bottom. Especially if you have a gas oven.
Try bufferring the bottom of the bread with a pizza stone. A terracotta clay pot saucer, or practically any unglazed natural stone tile can substitute. Marble or granite are not ok.
My gas oven has the element at the bottom only (except when broiling)--and does not have such large scale problems with heating. I think there is something deeper here. Only the radiant heat is highly directional, and with preheating, all of the oven's walls should be radiating at approximately the same black body temperature.
@SAJ14SAJ right. My concern is that if one side is burning faster, then there is more energy coming from that direction and buffering it should help. It's also possible the piece the bread sits on gets too hot in preheating and transfers too much heat. If the whole oven was too hot, then the whole bread would burn (per radiation and diffusion you noted).
Interesting point... except we don't know what the loaf is on or in, which may be having an effect as well. Dark metal will conduct a lot more heat into the loaf, and absorb more radiant heat as well.
The loaf is sitting on a metal pan. I don't have an pizza stone. Maybe I should get one.
@MartinEpsz bingo. That metal pan is acting as a heat sink in reverse. It collects heat with all the surfaces area and then passes it to the bottom of the bread. Replace it with anything that doesn't conduct heat so well (e.g. pizza stone) and you're good.
@SAJ14SAJ your hunch about what the bread sits on was on.
@MandoMando Sometimes we get lucky :-)
It is highly likely that the temperature of your oven is too high. While I would recommend simply buying an oven thermometer, which are not very expensive, if you are in a part of the world where that is not feasible, according to this post at Tip King:
You can check your oven's temperature with this simple test. After
preheating it, lay a sheet of plain white paper on the centre rack and
leave it for five minutes. The paper's colour will tell you the oven's
temperature:
pale biscuit, 150°C/300°F or less
light brown, 180°- 200°C/350°-400°F
golden brown, 200°- 230°C/400°-450°F
dark brown, 230°- 260°C/450°-500°F
black, over 260°C/500°F
Hopefully, this method will let you estimate the temperature of your oven accurately enough to adjust it within the range that your bread is successful.
Note that I have not verified this method personally.
If this is not the cause of your problems, you will need to describe how you are baking your bread (the recipe, whether you are using a stone, a pan, how you are shaping the loaves, what their size is, and so forth) in much more detail to get a better answer.
Buying and oven thermometer is good advice. I can't believe how far out the temp knob settings on my electric fan assisted oven were from reality.
I have no idea where to go buy an oven thermometer.
I will try the paper method, but I had already tried a similar one one and it didn't work. It asked how much did paper take to become brown instead of asking for the color after a given time, and it didn't work because the paper became brown way to quickly, even if the oven wasn't too hot. The fact that they don't specify what kind of paper to use isn't very helpful.
@MartinEpsz I went to a certain well-known online trader named after a South American river, searched for "oven thermometer", and they had them for under US$7.
I'm in a place that's even more southern than the river you are talking about, and sadly that trader doesn't usually deliver here at anything resembling a reasonable price.
But we do have some similar services here and I found some viable alternatives. So thanks
I have same problem I now cook on highest rack and put 3 pans on top of each other to make the pan thicker and use parchment paper, cook on lower heat for longer. Mine use to burn all the time but now come out golden brown
Try to put your bread a space more up and in the center of oven. And check if (maybe) the pan is too large for the oven. In this case it wouldn't leave space for hot air to circulate.
This is a matter of examining because the heating acts more on one side than the other.
Preheating is irrelevant, because the heat is now distributed evenly throughout the oven.
The problem arises when you put the pan in the oven. The same shape of the pan deflects the heat to the sides of the oven, to raise it again and then gather in the high part.
Usually when the bread, cakes or any preparation made baking are overcooked on the one side, it is because the container is not well positioned in the oven, and is closer to that side. Changing the position of the pot can also compensate imbalances heat inside the oven. But this result can be achieved only through experiencing, every oven is different from any other.
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.946284 | 2013-04-13T20:42:52 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33447",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Kev",
"MandoMando",
"Martin Epsz",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"slim"
],
"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
} |
42901 | Burger/Kraft Slice Style Cheese
Is it possible to make smoothly melting cheese slices at home, similar to Kraft American cheese slices?
What are the key techniques?
Recipe requests are off topic, but I'll throw you this: http://www.seriouseats.com/recipes/2011/09/melty-american-style-cheddar-cheese-slices-for-burgers-and-grilled-cheese-recipe.html
@sourd'oh : I'd count this more as mimicry, myself.
@Joe My comment was made before the edit
@sourd'oh : I'd have considered it mimicry before, too ... I knew what he was talking about. (and I wouldn't have specifically mention Kraft ... theirs isn't plastic-y enough)
Are you trying to make the cheese, or just identify cheese with good melting properties?
@Joe I knew what he was talking about too, but he was definitely requesting a recipe.
@sourd'oh If you know the on-topic form of a question, it's most helpful to suggest an edit to the OP or just fix it yourself. Just saying it's off-topic implies that there's no saving it.
Sodium citrate is a salt that is often used in making cheese sauces. When you dissolve it in water before melting the cheese into the same it will prevent the cheese fats and proteins from separating and thus prevents the sauce from becoming grainy. It can also be used to melt, thin, and remold cheese into new slices which have better melting characteristics than the original cheese.
If I may cite my source (Modernist Cuisine: The Art and Science of Cooking by Nathan Myhrvold, Chris Young and Maxime Bilet, Volume 4, Page 222) and offer a recipe as example: To make 635 grams of cheese slices:
Mix 5g salt, 14g sodium citrate, 6g iota carrageenan, 2g kappa carrageenan and disperse them into 230g of water.
Bring to a simmer
Gradually add 200g swiss cheese and 180g white cheddar to the water mixture, blending with an immersion stick or whisking constantly.
One the cheeses are incorporated continue to blend until smooth.
Pour into a mold and refrigerate for two hours until the cheese sets.
Essentially we just melt the cheese(s) into excess water with some thickening and stabilizing agents. Once it sets slices may be cut off in the case you have a mold. If you don't have the capacity to make nice slices you could pour the mixture directly into a sheet pan so it may set at the desired slice thickness.
See this article from Kenji Alt's Food Lab column.
He makes slicable cheeses from various different types of cheese, using gelatin as a stabilizer that provides the rapid melting characteristics, and condensed milk.
A simple way to make this is to add a teaspoon of baking soda to a few teaspoons of lemon juice, and heat in the microwave until all the reaction has ceased (about a minute). You now have sodium citrate
Then add a cup of grated medium cheese and gently heat and stir until smooth
You now have a form of plastic cheese
You'll likely offend people by calling it 'plastic' cheese, as the typical name for it is 'American' cheese.
You should be able to find recipes for it under that name, such as this one.
The typical name probably depends on where you are. For example, it's not called 'American cheese' in the UK. Here, it is often referred to as 'cheese slices' (written on the packet) or 'plastic cheese' (in casual speech), and I have not experienced anyone getting offended by that. I have heard of it called 'plastic cheese' in other languages/countries as well.
Maybe we should call it the "world series of cheese" :-)
| Stack Exchange | 2025-03-21T13:24:58.947084 | 2014-03-21T15:50:40 | {
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42901",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Cash For Michigan Houses",
"David Odenweller",
"Emilie LaFave",
"Jack William johnson",
"Jason",
"Joe",
"KatieK",
"Kirstin Moran",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"TFD",
"TJC",
"asameshimae",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100284",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
} |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.